City
Council Meeting Minutes
August 9, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Johnson; and
Klausing). City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
2.
Approve Agenda
Due to staff’s advising of the
resolution of unresolved City Code violations with the property owner, Mayor
Klausing noted removal of Business Action Item 12.d entitled, “Consider Request
for City Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 341 County Road
B-2.”
By consensus, the agenda was approved
as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. A bench handout
was provided, attached hereto and made a part thereof, consisting
of two letters dated August 9, 2010 from Stonecrest Homeowners Association to
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) representatives related to the proposed
asphalt plant.
a.
Walter Dziedzic, resident of NE Mpls., retired politician
Mr. Dziedzic spoke in opposition
to the proposed asphalt plant directly across the street from Gross Golf Course
in NE Minneapolis and parallel to the fifth and sixth holes and greens. Mr. Dziedzic
disputed the company’s statements that the plant would not be odorous; and
spoke in support of those expressing their opposition, referencing a
recently-distributed neighborhood flyer. Mr. Dziedzic opined that any such
plan should be located in a rural, not urban, area; and suggested that a
regional park would be more of an asset to the community; further opining that
former Parks and Recreation Director Frank Rog, would certainly be more supportive
of additional recreational activities and areas in the community.
Mayor Klausing noted that this
item is currently being reviewed by the MPCA based on a petition by a citizens
group seeking an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed
plant, with preliminary public comment taken until August 11, 2010, and not
coming before the City Council until that review by the MPCA had been completed
and a recommendation set forth by their agency. Mayor Klausing noted that
there was a link on the City’s website to the MPCA for additional information
and comment.
b.
Liz Walenski, Elected Official from NE Mpls and Minneapolis Park
Board Official
Ms. Walenski noted that she had
been receiving continuing and consistent calls from her constituents in
opposition to the proposed asphalt plant; and noted that a formal letter from
the Minneapolis Park Board would be forthcoming stating their opposition as
well. Ms. Walenski noted that this adjacent golf course is the biggest
profit-grossing golf course in the City of Minneapolis; and confirmed her
personal opposition to the proposed plant as well.
c.
Marcene Atkins, 162 County Road B West
Ms. Atkins sought to comment on
Agenda Item 11.a entitled, “Public Hearing – Request to Approve Noise Variance
to Extend Working Hours for Rice Street Project;” but was asked by Mayor Klausing
to hold her comments until that time in the meeting.
d.
Lois Kelly, 2210 Stinson Boulevard, Minneapolis MN.
Ms. Kelly spoke in opposition to
the proposed asphalt plant, agreeing with previous speakers noting its
proximity to the golf course, in addition walking and bicycling trails in this
adjacent recreational areas. Ms. Kelly noted that she had spoken to the City
of Roseville’s Planning Department on the process for decision- making with
such a proposed industrial use and comparison uses. Ms. Kelly noted
neighborhood safety and health concerns related to odors, storage of hot asphalt,
and the crushing operations from 7:00 am – 7:00 pm through the summer months at
a time when people are out-of-doors and/or on the golf course. Ms. Kelly
opined that this zoning situation appeared to need further review; and asked
that both the cities of Roseville and Minneapolis continue to be good
neighbors, reconsider and curtail this application.
4.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Councilmember Johnson reminded
Minnesota residents of the August 10, 2010 Primary Election, with Roseville
precincts open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm; with information available on the City
and/or Ramsey County websites.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of July 26, 2010 Regular Meeting
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the minutes of the July 26, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Klausing, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the
Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Councilmember Johnson noted the
substantial savings realized for purchase of the Fire Truck through the
staff-recommended payment schedule.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$640,243.69
|
|
59272-591394
|
312,702.37
|
|
Total
|
$952,946.05
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Johnson
moved, Klausing seconded, approval of business license applications for the
period of one year, for applicants as follows:
|
Business / Address
|
Type of License
|
|
JoAnne M. Lorenz at Stephen’s Salon
1125 West County Road B
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
Recreation
|
Upper Cut Tree
Service
|
Diseased/Hazardous Tree Removal
|
$21,000
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve Terms of 2010 Local 49 Maintenance Workers Contract
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the 2010 Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the IUOE Local 49; and directed City staff to prepare the
necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e.
Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement Electing to Participate
in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10830 entitled, “Resolution Electing to Continue
Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act – Calendar Years 2011 through 2020 (Attachment D);”
thereby agreeing to new housing goals for 131 to 201 affordable units and
establishing a life-cycle housing goal range of 200 to 500 units over the next
decade.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the Metropolitan
Council Family Affordable Housing Program
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approve adoption of the Amendment (Attachment B) to the Cooperative Agreement
(Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the Metropolitan Council
Family Affordable Housing Program.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
g.
Accept Ryan Companies US, Inc. Donation
Councilmember Johnson thanked the
Ryan Corporation for their donation to the City’s Police Department providing
assistance for purchase or a defibrillator
Councilmember Roe clarified that
the donation was actually from users of the building’s vending machine profits
in the Twin Lakes Medical building, tenants of Ryan Companies US, providing a
creative use in keeping their donation within the Roseville community.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance
of a donation of $500 offered by Ryan Companies US to the City Police Department
to support the purchase of a defibrillator.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
h.
Accept Office of Traffic Safety Grant Award of Twelve Panasonic
Arbitrator 360 In-Squad Cameras
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
acceptance of the Office of Traffic Safety grant award of twelve (12) Panasonic
Arbitrator 360 in-squad cameras; and authorized the Mayor to sign the Minnesota
Sheriff’s Association In-Car Camera Order and Distribution Agreement
(Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
i.
Adopt a Resolution Ordering a Feasibility Report for Dale Street
Reconstruction Project
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10831 entitled, “Resolution Ordering Preparation of
Feasibility Report for Dale Street Reconstruction Project.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
j.
Consider a Resolution Declaring Costs for Projects to be Assessed
in 2010 and Ordering preparation of Assessment Rolls
Councilmember Roe noted the
savings realized from Engineer’s estimates and the actual cost related to the
project.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10832 entitled, “Resolution Relating to Improvements
P-ST-SW-09-02 Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project Declaring Cost to be
Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll;” with the
Assessment Hearing tentatively scheduled for the September 20, 2010 regular
City Council meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for adoption
10.
Presentations
11.
Public Hearings
a.
Request to Approve Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for
Rice Street Project
A revised Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated August 9, 2010, was provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part thereof.
City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed
the request as detailed in the RCA, specifically noting provisions of City Code
restricting certain hourly operations necessitating the requested variance.
Discussion included rationale for
the request being extended so late in the fall with staff noting the
subcontractor’s desire to work as long into the fall as possible depending on
weather-related conditions until they need to shut down for winter; any
potential cost savings to participating agencies on the overall project by
adding an additional shift and accelerating the schedule.
Ms. Bloom noted that the
subcontractor, Arndt Construction, had not yet arrived at tonight’s meeting
with agenda items being ahead of schedule.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public
Hearing at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request
for a noise variance to extend working hours for the MnDOT/Ramsey County/City Rice
Street Project
Public Comment
Written comments from Ray S. and Frances
M. McDonald, 2241 Marion Street in support of the variance were included as a
bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof.
Marcene Atkins,
162 West County Road B
Ms. Atkins spoke to repeated
assurances by the contractor(s) when seeking an easement for her property, that
she would not be subjected to any additional noises before 7:00 a.m. or on
weekend; and expressed concern that she had been misled by the contractor.
Mayor Klausing clarified that these
were two separate issues: the easement and the request for a noise variance
before the Council at this time.
Ms. Atkins expressed her concerns
with noise pollution and hazards to her health from her sleep being disturbed
at 5:00 am; and suggested that she receive financial compensation for being
subjected to this additional construction time. Ms. Atkins alleged that she
had been misled by the contractor(s) from the beginning; and expressed her
wholehearted opposition to the City granting such a noise variance.
Discussion included clarifying
current City Code requiring the noise variance request; representations by the
contractor to Ms. Atkins.
Mike Kessner, 2139 Albemarle
Court
Mr. Kessner advised that, during
the recent National Night Out event, their homeowner’s association had polled
association members about this request, and while they were mildly concerned
with additional construction noise, the majority determined that if it would
facilitate earlier completion date of the Rice Street project, they were
willing to put up with it. The association members, however, did express their
hope that the additional hours would not constitute pile driving so as to
mitigate some noise concerns, suggesting that other work could be performed
during those earlier hours in consideration of area residents. Mr. Kessner
questioned the need for a variance on Saturdays based on a twelve-hour shift;
and questioned if the contractor(s) would need to return for another variance
in 2011, since this request was for a specific time frame.
Ms. Bloom verified that the
request by the applicant was for the requested time frame in 2010 and that they
hadn’t requested additional time; and noted that if the contractor(s) sought
additional time in 2011, they would need to return for another variance.
Polly West, Co-owner of 194
County Road B2 West
Ms. West advised that she was in a
quandary in determining whether it was preferable to complete the project
sooner or not have the additional noise. Ms. West questioned the incentive to
residents to support the requested variance without compensation to the City or
other agencies for this inconvenience. Ms. West opined that, in the end, it
didn’t make any difference in whether construction trucks were driving down
their streets or refuse trucks going to the area day-care in the early hours;
and supported getting the job done sooner.
Ms. Bloom noted that, given the
complexity of this project, there were some benefits to area residents and
businesses, as well as the travelling public on the Rice Street corridor, in
completing the project earlier, whether it was due to inconvenience or noise.
Ms. Bloom clarified that this year’s construction project was on the north side
of Highway 36.
Nick Arndt, Arndt Construction
Having just arrived, Mr. Arndt
responded to public concerns expressed and City Council questions.
Discussion included the
contractor(s) preferring not to work on Saturday and not anticipating regular
Saturday hours unless due to weather-related delays with the exception of one
area for extensive storm sewer work crossing north of and jacking under Highway
36 with lighter traffic volume on Saturday facilitating that work while
attempting to maintain traffic while undercutting the road; impacts of the
requested variance specific to the north end of the Rice Street project particularly
related to bridge work.
Mr. Arndt reviewed projected
construction schedules through this fall, over the winter months in removing
the bridge decking in the spring, and abutments for flyovers for safe
transition to the new bridge over Rice Street, all in an attempt to alleviate
area business disruption and move away from residential areas.
Further discussion included the
primary contractor and multiple subcontractors doing the work making it
difficult to stipulate that there would be no pile driving in the early morning
hours while scheduling work in conjunction with utility companies in the area;
traffic transitions needed to keep the corridor open; conflicts with existing
signal lights causing some delay; and variances provided by neighboring cities,
with Maplewood allowing a twenty-four hour variance south of Highway 36 and
Little Canada allowing the same variance being requested from the City of
Roseville, with no residents impacted on the Little Canada side of the project
until County Road B-2.
Additional discussion included the
type of work across all jurisdictions requiring removal of old infrastructure
and utilities while limiting disruption of services; grading; hauling gravel
and some paving; and the removal of the existing bridge at Highway 36 and Rice
Street; and Mr. Arndt advising that the majority of the noise would not be
related to pile driving, but there would be trucks and graders, and offered to
attempt to route construction vehicles to drive in rather than reverse to
reduce back-up alarms on those vehicles disrupting residents.
Discussion ensued related to work
being done in the Maplewood jurisdiction on a twenty-four hour basis that could
disturb residents of Roseville with no impact on that jurisdiction given the
lack of residential properties in that work zone on the Maplewood side; caveats
for work necessitated by emergency situations; penalty clauses in construction
contracts for completing the work on time; and delays possible from private
utilities completing their work and precluding Arndt Construction, doing the
earth work, or delays for the primary contractor, Lunda Construction, in
arrival of materials, from completing their portion of the project according to
projected schedules.
Mr. Arndt assured Councilmembers
and the public that their rationale in seeking the noise variance for extended
work hours was to complete the more disruptive portions of the work for area
businesses and to facilitate traffic flow by accelerating the work schedule.
When suggested by Mayor Klausing,
Mr. Arndt expressed willingness to amend the variance request to begin work at
6:00 am rather than 5:00 am and 8:00 am on Saturday; while his preference to
avoid overtime costs for his employees where possible, through the proposed
twelve-hour shifts and operational scheduling he needed to take into
consideration. Mr. Arndt advised that there were no incentives, other than
market incentives, for completing the project earlier, but noted that their
work was exclusive to earth moving that was impacted by weather-related issues;
and advised that they were interested in completing the work at the earliest
date possible. Mr. Arndt reviewed work schedules during the proposed shifts,
including fuel and waste management during those shifts. Mr. Arndt noted that
he anticipated that, with few exceptions, the Roseville side of the work most
impacting residents would not happen until the end of September.
Ms. Atkins
Ms. Atkins addressed her previous
statements related to her allegations that she had been misled by contractors
coming to her home advising that work would start June 1, 2010, which did not
happen even though she observed that the weather was fine. Ms. Atkins
expressed her confusion as to the rush to get the project done when it wasn’t
started on time to begin with; again alleging that she’s been “lied to” about
the start time and probably the completion date as well. Ms. Atkins reiterated
her concerns about her personal health; and opined that 6:00 a.m. was still too
early to start work on the weekdays.
Mayor Klausing closed the Public
Hearing at 6:57 pm and moved immediately to the action item under Agenda Item
12.a.
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider Approving Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for
Rice Street Project
Mayor Klausing suggested a start
time of 8:00 am on Saturdays, while unable to detect impacts of such action
since Little Canada had approved earlier start times as originally requested by
the applicant. Mayor Klausing noted that another option would be to reduce the
variance schedule to end September 30 or October 1, 2010, at which time it
could be revisited for consideration of an extension.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
support of the variance as presented, amended to allow work to start at 8:00
a.m. rather than 7:00 a.m. on Saturday.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned how
close the Maplewood work zone was to County Road B and Ms. Atkins’ home.
Ms. Bloom advised that their work
was adjacent east to her home; with Mr. Arndt noting the need to complete work
on the Maplewood side by the end of October to facilitate switching traffic
onto the new bridge. Mr. Arndt further noted that the pond work in that area
would not cause too much noise since that material was suitable for fill on the
roadway and the contractor(s) had many other components to accomplish as part
of the project. Mr. Arndt assured listeners that contractors were concerned
about residents as well; and that even though MnDOT contract language allowed
for working twenty-four hours to complete the job, the contractor(s) chose not to
do so in consideration of area residents.
Councilmember Roe suggested an
alternate approach for consideration, in limiting the variance to the north
side of Highway 36, which could address some of Ms. Atkins’ concerns; and questioned
how such an approach would impact the completion schedule.
Mr. Arndt expressed willingness to
accept such an approach rather than a shorter variance timeframe and the need
to revisit the schedule. Mr. Arndt advised that limiting work to the area
north of Highway 36 was acceptable unless there was a substantial run of bad
weather necessitating working longer to facilitate the schedule. However, he
noted that the primary contractor, Lunda, would be working twenty-four hours
while tearing down the bridge itself in order to comply with MnDOT contract requirements
to reduce traffic impacts.
Councilmember Ihlan requested more
specific start/end times that would address avoiding noisy work during early
and/or later hours of that variance time; and also expressed concern with the
length of the variance time; suggesting that the variance be grated for a month
with further extension time requested at which time any issues would be
addressed and the variance adjusted as applicable. Councilmember Ihlan advised
that she would be willing to support the variance with more specific conditions
built into an adjusted schedule.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
granting the variance request to City Code Section 405.03, to allow extended
work hours, specifically north of Highway 36, with a start time of 5:00 am on
weekdays, and 8:00 am on Saturdays.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to the motion without more conditions applied.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
the motion, while recognizing the concerns of Councilmember Ihlan and those
residents concerns, while providing a balanced approach to getting the project
completed for benefit of the entire community.
Councilmember Roe noted his
consideration of a condition excluding pile driving during the extended hours.
Ms. Bloom advised that Lunda was
the primary contractor controlling the job site and responsible to address pile
driving, with Arndt Construction, as the requester of the variance, only involved
in earth work and not doing any pile driving. Ms. Bloom clarified that the variance
would be applicable to any contractor(s) on the job site; and that it would be
too difficult for the Police Department, in responding to any complaints, to
identify the specific contractor(s).
At the request of Councilmembers,
Ms. Bloom advised that the recourse for residents with complaints was to
contact the City Police Department; and further advised that staff could send
out a second mailing to residents detailing tonight’s City Council action for
their awareness. Ms. Bloom noted that she was not opposed to a condition that
would limit pile driving during extended hours.
Councilmember Roe offered an
amendment to the original motion, seconded by Councilmember Pust, to limit pile
driving activities on the job site to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
Mayor Klausing, as maker of the
original motion, accepted the amendment as part of the original motion.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
granting the variance request to City Code Section 405.03, to allow extended
work hours, specifically north of Highway 36, with a start time of 5:00 am on
weekdays, and 8:00 am on Saturdays; and pile driving activities on the job site
limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
Councilmember Ihlan moved
amendment of the variance time requested to August 10 to September 10, 2010,
with the variance to be revisited at that time and not considered for renewal
if public complaints so warranted.
Due to the lack of a second, Mayor
Klausing ruled the motion dead.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust;
Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion
carried.
11. Public
Hearings
b.
Request to Approve Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for
Twin Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project
City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed
the RCA dated August 9, 2010 related to this request; advising that the
applicant was present. However, Ms. Bloom noted that since the project was
currently ahead of schedule, and following a meeting with the contractor late
last week, staff had reposted and republished notice for the requested time
from August 23 – September 10, 2010; with the Public Hearing rescheduled for
August 23, 2010. Ms. Bloom asked that the City Council allow public comment tonight
from any interested parties in conjunction with the rescheduled future hearing,
but would not be seeking Council action at tonight’s meeting.
Mayor Klausing opened and closed
the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm for the purpose of hearing public comment on the
proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the Twin
Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project; with no one appearing for or
against.
12. Business
Items (Action Items)
c.
Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of
City Code at 341 County Road B-2
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed
the request for abatement as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated August 9, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of
this single-family detached home, currently owned by Gary and Judith Halberg. Mr.
Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of
a severely dilapidated rear deck at an estimated cost of $2.000.00.
In addition to packet information,
Mr. Munson advised that the property owner had taken the initiative to cut down
a considerable amount of brush and vegetation to access the rotted deck, as
well as having brought in a dumpster. However, given this property’s history
of public nuisances and slow compliance, Mr. Munson requested that the abatement
process be authorized to provide staff with additional incentives for the owner
to complete compliance in a timely manner. Mr. Munson advised that he had
spoken to the property owner, and that he would be unavailable for tonight’s
meeting.
Staff recommended that the
Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City
Code violation at 341 County Road B-2.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation at 341
County Road B-2 by hiring general contractors to remove and dispose of the
rotted deck, in addition to additional vegetation cut down by the property
owner, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated August 9, 2010, at an
estimated cost of approximately $2,000.00, unless the required overall work was
not substantially completed by the homeowner by September 1, 2010; and further
directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative
costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as
specified in City Code, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City
Council following the abatement.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of
City Code at 1805 Stanbridge Avenue
As previously noted by Mayor
Klausing, this item was removed by staff following resolution of unresolved
violations with the property owner.
e.
Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of
City Code at 1350 Ryan Avenue
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed
the request for abatement as detailed in the RCA dated August 9, 2010;
providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached
home, currently owned by Charles Buzicky, with the complaint originating from
concerned neighbors. Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting
of removal and disposal of twenty-four (24) black plastic bags piled on the
front yard garden; removal and disposal of junk and debris consisting of
approximately two hundred (200) plastic containers, old gutter parts, and
broken tools; estimating a total abatement cost of approximately $500.00.
Mr. Munson noted that, as of this
past weekend, the twenty-four bags of leaves in the front yard had been removed
from the bags and left on the front yard, apparently due to misinformation or
miscommunication between City staff and Mr. Buzicky. Mr. Munson advised that
this miscommunication had been clarified related to where and how dead leaves
could be stored; however, due to this mistake by staff and the property owner
making a good faith effort to comply with the violations, Mr. Munson suggested
an additional period of fourteen (14) days for Mr. Buzicky to comply before the
City abatement process proceeded.
Mr. Munson advised that Mr.
Buzicky was present and wished to address the City Council.
Staff recommended that the
Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City
Code violations at 1350 Ryan Avenue.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned
when the original complaint had been received; with Mr. Munson advising that
the neighbor complaint had been received by staff in June of 2010.
Property Owner, Charles Buzicky
Mr. Buzicky advised that he was in
agreement with most of staff’s comments; however, he noted that the leaves had
now become a more difficult problem for removal. Mr. Buzicky reviewed the
error in representations by staff to him; his informal survey of neighbors
regarding his garden; his interest in using the leaves over time while
recognizing the impacts of them blowing around now that they were no longer
bagged; names of parties provided by staff to assist with removal or relocation
of the leaves; interest previously received in someone removing the leaves; and
his attempts to be environmentally sensitive in recycling containers;
Discussion among Councilmembers,
staff and Mr. Buzicky included the need for indoor storage as opposed to
outdoor storage of empty plant containers; composting of the leaves; other
items being stored outside, including broken tools and containers; Mr.
Buzicky’s willingness to store materials in his garage until a short-term
solution was found; and his interest in maintaining a positive relationship
with his neighbors.
Mayor Klausing recognized Mr.
Buzicky’s gardening interests while keeping properties in compliance with City
Code without exception.
Mr. Buzicky advised that he was
reasonably sure he could comply with code, but was unsure of how to deal with
the leaves no longer bagged within the proscribed timeframe.
Mr. Munson clarified that Mr.
Buzicky had the option of moving the leaves to the back yard to be used for
composting; or for the City to remove them to the community compost location at
the expense of Mr. Buzicky; and reminded Mr. Buzicky of previous discussions on
the need to move outside storage items inside the garage.
After further attempts to address
Mr. Buzicky’s concerns in relocating the leaves, Mayor Klausing recognized Ms.
Cynthia White in the audience, who volunteered to remove the leaves from Mr.
Buzicky’s property, with the assistance of the staff member who originally
misinformed Mr. Buzicky.
Mayor Klausing advised that formal
action on this matter would be delayed for two (2) weeks, during which time the
matter could hopefully be resolved; and if not resolved, it would come before
the City Council at that time.
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Parks and Recreation Master Systems Plan Implementation
Funding
A bench handout, consisting of the
August 5, 2010 meeting of the Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update
Citizen Advisory Team (CAT) was provided, attached hereto and made a part
thereof.
City Manager Malinen reviewed the
August 9, 2010 RCA and attached attachments, seeking City Council discussion
and discussion of whether to pursue a potential referendum for November of
2010, noting the timing requirements if such a referendum was to be
considered. Mr. Malinen sought discussion within the context of the Master
Plan process itself, as well as the Imagine Roseville 2025 community
visioning process and consistent citizen requests that the City take care of
existing infrastructure.
Councilmember Pust noted that
recommendation of both the CAT and the Parks and Recreation Commission
indicated their recommendation that a referendum not move forward at this time.
City Manager Malinen reviewed
rationale for considering a referendum at this time given market and economic
conditions providing favorable contractor bids as well as reduced municipal borrowing
rates and substantial long-term savings to the community. Mr. Malinen advised
that he was not making a recommendation, simply seeking to include the City
Council in discussing such an opportunity and address timing requirements if
there was interest in pursuing such a referendum. Mr. Malinen noted staff
input (Attachment B) for highest priority items for consideration from the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan implementation in the context of such a
referendum that could garner community support.
Mayor Klausing noted the need to
seek additional monies through a referendum addressing overall capital
improvement needs versus a referendum exclusive to park and recreation needs.
While in agreement with City
Manager Malinen in some ways, Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with his
conversations throughout the community, as well as recommendations of the CAT
and Parks and Recreation Commission, related to a referendum at this time
without sufficient time for public consideration and comment. Councilmember
Johnson noted initial anticipation of an implementation schedule from the CAT
before now, but still unavailable; and encourage the CAT implementation team to
provide a schedule at their earliest convenience for public dissemination for
community-wide success and support of a future referendum, rather than
attempting to market one at this time.
Councilmember Pust suggested that both the CAT and Parks and Recreation
Commission were aware of current contractor and borrowing market conditions, anticipating
that those factors were considered in their recommendations. Councilmember
Pust suggested that the other side of the Imagine Roseville 2025 process was
that the CAT was representative of the public who had asked that they be heard,
and that their recommendations were a result of and representative of that
process.
Councilmember Roe concurred with
the concept broached by City Manager Malinen for timing of such a referendum
this year; and apologized for his comments potentially having misled City Manager
Malinen in his recommended review of a referendum this fall. Councilmember Roe
noted the need to have a reasonable confidence in the success of a referendum,
as well as buy-in from user groups and various foundations supporting parks;
and the need for all parties to be in agreement. Councilmember Roe spoke in
support of allowing the CAT to finish its process and provide recommendations
that could be taken into consideration in the overall context of City needs.
b.
Continue Discussion on the 2011 Priority-based Budgeting
Finance Director Chris Miller
summarized the RCA, reminding Councilmembers of the need for City Council
action at their September 13, 2010 meeting to adopt a preliminary,
not-to-exceed tax levy; and staff’s attempt to provide as much information to
them as possible prior to that decision, including short- and long-term capital
needs as well as day-to-day operational costs. Mr. Miller noted staff’s response
to the City Council’s request to separate out mandatory items; however, noted
the information remained of a preliminary nature. Mr. Miller advised that staff
was awaiting City Council reaction to the additional information from a levy
standpoint on where to draw the line if other than where indicated by internal
staff review to-date.
Discussion included Attachment A
and rankings and where the line would be eventually drawn for those items
included in the 2011 budget recommendations; those items supported in full or
in part by property taxes with those mandatory items separated out and staff
indications of additional monies needed and/or budget increases for 2011 as
detailed in the RCA.
Further discussion included
current vacant positions and the need for staff to provide additional staff
analysis from a management point of view and input on those positions remaining
vacant without significant impacts to specific departments and/or day-to-day
operations; need for current and future review of the impact of those previous
positions versus a historical perspective to meet the needs of departments at
current program and/or service levels and management’s rationale for their
recommendations; additional information on Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) costs as new
and not ranked; and code enforcement being brought into a levy-supported as
opposed to fee-supported part of the budget and subsequent ranking.
City Manager Malinen responded to
several questions of the City Council addressing projected impacts due to loss
of interest earnings as projected on Mr. Miller’s analysis of the market and
the City’s investment portfolio performing worse than last year; illumination
of the EAB program anticipating the need and attempting to identify resources
for appropriate response and prioritization; and lack of sustainability of the
City’s overall code enforcement program from Community Development Department
revenues funded through their own revenue streams from development and
inspection charges and permit fees. Mr. Malinen noted that code enforcement
seemed more of a quality of life issue for the entire community, rather than
specifically related to planning and zoning, and should be addressed through
the General Fund.
Further discussion included no
additional funds included for rolling stuck, with $60,000 identified to begin replacement
of city-owned street lights and poles, and $150,000 for short-term needs for
smaller equipment, and other smaller capital items, with the 2010 CIP for
rolling stock matched in 2011.
Councilmember Ihlan requested an
itemized list of proposed CIP purchases for a line-by-line review by
Councilmembers and whether they should be funded by tax monies. Councilmember
Ihlan opined that assumptions should not be made to move code enforcement from
Community Development to General Fund resources based on permits and fees being
down; but rather that the entire Community Development Department budget should
be reviewed to determine if they were achieving funding and expenditure levels
in the context of the entire City budget.
Further discussion included employee
benefits and salaries, with state mandates for a 2.5% increase for the employer
to the basic fund and 3% increase for the City in the Fire and Police Funds and
staff projections on the highest potential liability for those increases; $62,000
in contractual obligations consisting of audit and legal contract and dispatch
services for the most part, with their built-in increases addressed in standing
contracts; minimal increases for temporary and seasonal employee increases compared
to 2010 depending on service levels; and a 1% proposed COLA increase for
employees and full step increases.
City Manager Malinen noted the
need for Council direction on the current ranking and any adjustments for
funding as consideration was given to any paring of programs and costs to
achieve a recommended levy for City Council approval; with staff’s current
projects indicating a levy increase of 5.3% or an approximately $2.00 per month
increase for average residential property owners.
Councilmember Johnson expressed interest
in individual and corporate City Council ranking of the CIP program before the
next meeting before providing his opinion on the overall levy.
Additional discussion included levy limit exclusions for law enforcement needs;
potential reductions through a line-by-line analysis to reduce the projected
levy; perspectives and interpretations of mandatory and non-mandatory items;
Neighborhood Enhancement Program and EAB programs not previously included in
annual expenditures, whether mandated or not; defining the funds provided by
the HRA for portions of the NEP and code enforcement programs; time-spent
profiles recently completed by staff providing a more clear picture of the
allotment to various duties and categories for code enforcement and differentiating
between publicity, initial inspections, and case work done as a result of those
initial actions, as well as current complaint-generated calls and activities in
the Community Development Department unrelated to the NEP program, but
throughout the community on a daily basis.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that,
if code enforcement is mandatory it should be removed from the ranking process;
and further opined that a review of the entire Community Development Department
may indicate that the department can no longer support its personnel in all
categories or that costs could be made up some other way.
Councilmember Roe noted that
information on those budget items not tax-supported, such as the Community
Development Department and other Enterprise Funds, had been previously requested
from staff; however, he noted that they should be in the priority rankings as
opposed to mandatory items, recognizing that code enforcement should not be
considered mandatory based on City Code compliance in the context of how it ranked
with other priorities in tax-supported funds.
By consensus, and confirmed by
City Manager Malinen, staff was asked to provide for the next City Council
meeting additional information on impacts of capital needs; questions on the Community
Development Department operations and budget; equipment and CIP needs
identified by item; and non-General Fund type programs available for ranking on
a common list, but not intermingled with tax-supported funds; with each program
identified and their associated costs.
Finance Director Miller clarified
that those non-General Fund programs and Enterprise Funds did not need to be
identified as part of the City Council’s September 15, 2010 preliminary levy
deadline.
14.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen distributed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Roe noted several
items on the September 20, 2010 preliminary agenda that could be removed based
on previous action.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 8:24 pm.