City Council Meeting Minutes
September 13, 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 September: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. Councilmember Ihlan arrived at approximately 6:10 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
City Manager Bill Malinen advised that staff was seeking removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.d entitled, “Set a Public Hearing for Apple Minnesota, LLC, the new owner of Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar, for an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License;” to correct the proposed public hearing date.
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. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Klausing noted receipt of an American flag and certificate of appreciation from Boy Scout Troop No. 902 and The Church of Latter Day Saints in North St. Paul honoring and expressing their appreciation to area cities and their Police Departments and first responders. Mayor Klausing noted that the flag had flown over the State Capitol; and thanked the groups for acknowledging the vital work of community first responders.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Proclaim September 15 to October 15, 2010 Hispanic Heritage Month
Mayor Klausing read a proclamation recognizing and honoring the City’s Hispanic residents and their culture, and proclaimed September 15 – October 15, 2010 as 2010 Hispanic Heritage Month, “Celebrating History, Heritage and the American Dream.”
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, proclaiming, recognizing and honoring the City’s Hispanic residents and their culture, and designating September 15 – October 15, 2010 as 2010 Hispanic Heritage Month, “Celebrating History, Heritage and the American Dream.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of August 23, 2010 Regular Meeting
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 23, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Pust.
Nays: None.
Abstentions: Klausing.
Motion carried.
Councilmember Ihlan arrived at this time, approximately 6:10 p.m.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$380,299.14
|
|
59586-59984
|
1,316,802.79
|
|
Total
|
$1,697,101.93
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Approve Business Licenses
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for applicants as follows:
|
Business / Address
|
Type of License
|
|
Joshua Willcoxen at Juut Salonspa
1641 County Road C
|
Massage Therapist License
|
|
Katie M. Fenger at Serene Body Therapy
1629 West County Road C
|
Massage Therapist License
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Set a Public Hearing for Solem Management, LLC d/b/a Café Zia for a Wine and 3.2 Liquor License
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, setting a public hearing on September 27, 2010, for Wine and 3.2% Liquor License for Solem Management, d/b/a Café Zia, 2723 Lexington Avenue N.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Approve St. Rose of Lima One-Day, On-Site Gambling Permit
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima Church to conduct bingo on November 7, 2010 at St. Rose Catholic School, located at 2048 Hamline Avenue N.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
f. Approve Roseville Fire Department Auxiliary One-Day, ON-Site Gambling Permit
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request of the Roseville Fire Department Auxiliary for an on-site gambling permit for their annual Booya, to be held on October 3, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
g. Approve St. Rose of Lima Temporary On-Sale Liquor License
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima’s application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License at 2048 Hamline Avenue N on September 24 and 25, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
h. Approve Concordia Academy Temporary On-Sale Liquor License
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request of Concordia Academy’s application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License at 2400 North Dale Street for November 13, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
i. Approve the 2010-2011 Roseville Area High School Police Liaison Officer Agreement
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval and acceptance of the Agreement between the City of Roseville and School District No. 623 for Roseville Police Officer deployment as a Liaison Officer at the District 623 High School as detailed in the Request for Council Action and Agreement (Attachment A) dated September 13, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
j. Adopt Approving Agreement NO. PW 2010-20, Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement between the Cities of Falcon Heights, St. Paul and Roseville
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10837 entitled, “Resolution Approving Agreement No. PW 2010-20”: Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement with City’s of Roseville, Falcon Heights and St. Paul;” (Attachment A) and Cooperative Agreement (Attachment B).
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
k. Adopt a Resolution Approving Agreement 96289R, Traffic Control Signal Agreement, between the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Ramsey County, and the City of Roseville
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10838 entitled, “Resolution Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement for TH 36/Hamline Commerce/Intersection; MN/DOT Agreement No. 96289R;” (Attachment B).
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
- Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Set a Public Hearing for Apple Minnesota, LLC, the new owner of Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar, for an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License (Former Consent Item 7.d)
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, setting a public hearing on September 27, 2010, for On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for Apple Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar, 1893 West Highway 36.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
9. General Ordinances for adoption
10. Presentations
11. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing regarding a Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment to Clarify the Purpose and Application of Alternatives to the Plat Process (PROJ-0017)
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly introduced the request by the Roseville Planning Division for subdivision ordinance TEXT AMENDMENT to clarify the purpose and application of alternatives to the plat process, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated September 13, 2010. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed State Statute language, as well as language defined as “unnecessary hardship” in existing City Code, Section 1104.04 (Platting Variations and Minor Subdivisions); and provided the title change for 1104.04 and language of the first sentence proposed to be struck out and replaced as indicated in Attachment A of the report.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the overall ordinance could be reviewed for further refinement at a future date; however, with several pending land use cases within the 60-day review period, action on this section should be deferred at this time.
Mayor Klausing suggested another minor language revision on page 3 of Attachment A, line 79, Section E, “Three Parcel Minor Subdivision: When a subdivision creates a total of three or less [fewer] parcels…”
By consensus, Councilmembers concurred with that additional language correction.
Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:20 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment, with no one appearing for or against.
b. Public Hearing regarding a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1; and establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 19 (Applewood Pointe) within Development District No. 1
Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel
Ms. Radel introduced Springsted representative Mikaela Huot to speak on behalf of the City regarding this request; and reviewed the purpose of tonight’s public hearing and the staff presentation prior to opening the hearing. Ms. Radel advised that staff’s recommendation was for creation of TIF District 19 in order to provide financial assistance for the development of Phase I of the Applewood Pointe senior housing cooperative, based on policy direction and public purposes within the City for implementation of the Twin lakes Master Plan and public connection to Langton Lake Park. Ms. Radel noted that creation of the TIF District did not obligate the City to provide assistance to the project; however, staff recommends that the City Council not create the District if it does not support, in concept, some level of financial assistance for the project.
Mikaela Huot, Assistance Vice President/Consultant, Springsted, Inc.
Ms. Radel distributed a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, on tonight’s presentation and discussion of the proposed TIF (Economic Development) District No. 19 for Applewood Pointe Senior Cooperative Housing Project.
Ms. Huot concurred with staff’s comment regarding City Council approval of the plan not committing the City to provide any type of subsidy, but allowing the City flexibility in using TIF. Ms. Huot reviewed the components of the TIF Plan itself based on new legislation allowing the City to use statutory authority on a broader basis for economic development uses within TIF guidelines, specifically for affordable housing. Ms. Huot advised that the proposed term of the District was for nine years, encompassed 7.67 acres, with four parcels to be acquired in the District. Ms. Huot reviewed the phasing of the project for ninety-four (94) senior cooperative units, in two phases, fifty (50) and forty-four (44) units respectively; and the third phase consisting of ninety-three (93) assisted living units.
Ms. Huot reviewed their firm’s findings, noting that it did qualify as an Economic Development District, in that the project will create and/or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs; and that construction would not be commenced before July 1, 2011, with construction to begin no later than July 1, 2011, with the developer’s request for certification received no late than June 30, 2011. Ms. Huot reviewed the “BUT FOR” tests in making findings on this proposed District; reviewed the budget estimates for public costs, including soils corrections; land acquisition; installation of public utilities; streets and sidewalks; loan interest payments; administrative costs; and other pooled City expenses for total estimated public costs of $2,450,551 for all three phases of the project. Ms. Huot noted that the developer was only seeking TIF financing for a portion of the costs for Phases I and II of the project, but that Springsted was recommending that all phases and parcels be included in the proposed TIF District to allow future flexibility without amending the District itself should additional funds be requested for Phases II and III. Ms. Huot noted that the term of the District could be reduced before the nine year projection, allowing the use of TIF for other phases; but further noted that the four-year rule applied, and if there was no activity on a parcel after four years, it would be removed from the District.
Ms. Huot advised that other taxing jurisdictions, School District 621 and Ramsey County had received prior notification of the proposed District.
Discussion among Ms. Radel, Ms. Huot and Councilmembers included how the estimated public costs and their allocation were determined based on development assumptions and developer requests and recommended reimbursement amounts for the total estimated revenues broken down by project costs by category; terms of the actual developer reimbursement subject to negotiations for a Developer Agreement; potential bond issue and statutory provisions for potential bonded indebtedness; and use of the “pay-as-you-go” approach for the developer on this project and how that provided an advantage to the developer to obtain private financing based on the tight financial market and additional revenue source in the developer’s cash flow to leverage additional financing and make the overall project more marketable form a financial standpoint.
Further discussion included verification that Springsted did not lobby for this legislative provision and/or for this specific project, but activity at the legislature over the last few years as part of the Job Bill and other initiatives in 2009; and how drawing from a larger project area or District could benefit the City in receiving more increment paid toward and reducing the term of the note and the market value amount generated.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. to hear public comment.
Public Comment
Attorney Jane Larson, representing a potential purchaser of one of the cooperative units
Ms. Larson sought clarification on the proposed initial construction date for the project, noting that her client had already put down a deposit, and was now being asked to deposit additional non-refundable funds, and was seeking assurance that the project would move forward; and whether sufficient units had been sold to ensure the project would go forward, in the interest of protecting her client.
Mayor Klausing advised that Ms. Larson and her client should have a response to whether the project moves forward yet tonight, if the project moving forward was dependent on creation of a TIF District and TIF financing, and the City Council’s approval or denial of that request.
Ms. Larson sought further clarification that this project was classified as owner-occupied, not rental units as indicated on a slide during the staff presentation.
Ms. Huot apologized for the typographical error, and verified that the project was classified as owner-occupied residential.
Ms. Schreurs 3058 Wilder
Ms. Schreurs expressed concern with the marketing sign on the property, HUD provisions for the number of units sold before moving forward; whether that was 50% as indicated on the sign, or 60% as indicated for HUD financing; and questioned the viability of the project.
Developer United Properties Representative Brian Carey
Mr. Carey confirmed that they had received commitments for sales of 60% of the units; but that this difficult economic climate required the developer to seek additional financial resources, thus their request for TIF assistance.
With no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 6:49 p.m.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider a Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment to Clarify the Purpose and Application of Alternatives to the Plat Process (*PROJ-0017)
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1395 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of: Title 11: “Subdivisions,” Chapter 1104: “Administration and Enforcement,” and Section 1104.04: “Platting Variations and Minor Subdivisions;” (Attachment B), including corrected language on Page 2 of Attachment A, Line 79 as follows: Section E, “Three Parcel Minor Subdivision: When a subdivision creates a total of three or less [fewer] parcels…”
Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that it removed some constraints currently used against Minor Subdivisions so they would not be required to follow the full procedure allowing them to come directly to the City Council and be treated mechanically. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that both the restrictions for the unnecessary hardship language and failure to comply with the purpose of platting regulations were being removed, making it easier to qualify for a subdivision. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if anything as it related to review of the City’s zoning code, the City should make the subdivision procedure more thorough including a review of environmental and neighborhood impacts, similar to that used by other Cities, with more specificity rather than making it more open-ended (e.g. City of Edina model). Councilmember Ihlan questioned the viability of changing the rules when there were pending land use cases already on the table and in the review process, particularly when neighborhood concerns about those pending proposals had already arisen, and such revised language could make it easier for the pending cases to receive approval.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; and disagreed with Councilmember Ihlan’s perception that the City was removing current restrictions, opining that the language was proposed to be changed to be consistent with long-term past practice. Mayor Klausing noted that he had originally suggested the language changes, even though staff understood the purpose of the hardship language; and opined that the changes represented instances with minor technicalities. Mayor Klausing further opined that the proposed changes were not substantive, but brought statutory language in line with practice and simplified the process. Mayor Klausing opined that the often-expressed concern of the public was in making government processes more complicated and costlier, forcing applicants to realize unnecessary costs, including that of staff time.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that the revisions would treat land use issues consistently, and was not making them easier to receive approval. Councilmember Roe noted that the pending subdivision applications currently in the review process would still go to the City Council for approval as with current processes, and that the practice would still apply with staff approval for those items meeting the applicable criteria.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion Carried.
b. Consider a Resolution to approve Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and to establish Tax Increment Financing District NO. 19 (Applewood Pointe) within Development District No. 1
Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the developers had applied for any other public subsidies or other government support programs, noting that since this was a HUD project, it appeared that other monies were coming toward this project, and questioned their source and the amount.
Ms. Radel clarified that HUD was a mortgage financing tool used by the developer; and that she was unaware of any other type of governmental assistance.
Councilmember Ihlan clarified that HUD financing allowed purchases to purchase units more easily, but served as a federal benefit source for the developer.
Mr. Carey clarified that this Applewood project, as with all their other projects, had a Master Mortgage guaranteed by HUD, but that the loan was not directly from HUD but guaranteed by them, allowing for more advantageous interest rates for resident participation and providing significant protections for residents, requiring the developer’s establishment of sufficient reserves and adhering to certain operating practices. Mr. Carey advised that residents make mortgage payments directly to the bank and that those interest rates were currently good and residents received all the benefits of a HUD interest rate. Mr. Carey noted that for the project to be HUD-qualified, it required the pre-sale of 60% of the units.
Councilmember Pust noted that the original application for the project had not included a TIF request, and questioned when and where that request originated.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that the original project came forward for discussion in 2007, with approvals of the full project in 2008, followed by a return of the project proposed for phases in the fall of 2009. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the actual plat approved as part of that revision had expired and would require the applicant to return for another approval, with that application already in-house for staff review and recommendation.
Councilmember Ihlan referenced page 3 of the TIF Plan, Section I, second paragraph and second sentence regarding construction of the project and the number and type of jobs to be created, including construction jobs, and the basis for that finding; and what new jobs will be created as opposed to construction jobs for existing companies.
Ms. Huot advised that the language of that section was the additional legislative provision recently adopted, and provided for one of three tests to be considered for an Economic Development TIF District, for the City to consider approval beyond traditional TIF Districts. Ms. Huot reviewed the criteria for job creation, opining that the development would create jobs, adhering to the provisions of the Jobs Bill adopted earlier this year.
Ms. Radel clarified the intent of those criteria in Section B on page 2 of the Plan, providing for not just job creation, but also job retention as part of that finding of fact.
Councilmember Pust questioned if, under the new legislation, creation or retention of just one job satisfied that component.
Ms. Huot noted that this was a good legal question; however, based on her perception from a non-legal standpoint, and the definition of the statutory provisions, she assumed that even one job created and/or retained would qualify; and was a component of the “BUT FOR” test.
Councilmember Ihlan noted, in the same paragraph, questioned the threshold for the starting date assigned by HUD; and how the City could predict that by the time for construction to start and the project to move forward, that the project couldn’t be fully funded without the use of public subsidies such as TIF.
Ms. Huot advised that, as part of Springsted’s due diligence in reviewing the project’s financials and pro formas, the rates of return anticipated by the developer for this project if the project were to proceed without TIF before a certain date, the developer has indicated that there would not be sufficient returns without TIF assistance. Ms. Huot advised that this is another component of the “BUT FOR” test, and indications of the developer that, without TIF, the project would not proceed due to the economic infeasibility.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned how the project could proceed even with full occupancy before July of 2011 if the developer didn’t have sufficient financing to proceed; and questioned how the City could determine whether or not the units would be pledged in their determinations, rather than whether the purpose was to give the project a push due to the poor economy.
Mayor Klausing noted that the number of units sold or committed was not based on TIF financing, and that TIF assistance would not increase the sales of units.
Mr. Carey concurred with Mayor Klausing’s analysis; and advised that if the developer didn’t think there were sufficient buyers, they would not proceed with the project, with or without TIF; however, he noted that without TIF, the project was not economically viable, even though risk is part of the equation.
Councilmember Pust questioned if the project was not economically feasible without TIF or if it was so upside down that it couldn’t be accomplished at all, or if the discussion was simply a matter of profit margins.
Mr. Carey advised that all companies needed to make investment decisions: whether to invest in this site, based on projections for a reasonable return on that investment, or whether to put that investment in another project and/or location.
Mayor Klausing questioned if the developer considered a rate of return higher than one percent (1%) to allow an element of flexibility in the risk factor, since the rate of return is an assumption; and whether without TIF assistance it made the project’s margin of error too low and not worth doing.
Mr. Carey concurred with Mayor Klausing’s observations.
Councilmember Pust opined that it seemed, from a public point of view, that the City should be able to share in the profit side, as well as the risk side.
Mayor Klausing noted that the City was not advancing money to the developer.
Councilmember Pust opined that, if the developer didn’t get TIF assistance, the monies would go to the City’s General Fund.
Councilmember Roe reviewed the application for Phase I and the potential that the economic situation could improve, allowing the developer to self-finance Phases II and III without TIF, and allowing the increment to come in faster and pay off what has been set aside, allowing funds to come to the General Fund more quickly.
Councilmember Pust noted that this provided for an assumption that everything stays frozen in time; and opined that it seemed legitimate to consider that the developer would seek assistance for Phase II as well as the Assisted Living portion in Phase III; and that this whole project would continue to change based on current and projected economic situations.
For the benefit of the public, Mayor Klausing reviewed the basic concept of TIF, and current and future taxation rates based on increased values; and the “BUT FOR” tests applied to such requests; and the City capturing increments from those certain improvements benefiting the property in the long-run, as well as the School District and Ramsey County. Mayor Klausing opined that, the proposed project would bring greater value and tax rates to all entities, after that nine-year term, if not before.
Councilmember Roe noted the past history of the City decertifying TIF Districts early with all increment going to all taxing districts at that time.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10839 entitled, ‘Resolution approving a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and Establishing Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development) District No. 19 (Applewood Pointe Senior Cooperative Housing Project) within Municipal Development District No. 1 and Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefore;” (Attachment E); as amended to indicate District No. 621 not School District No. 623, as shown on the draft documents.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that there was no public purpose. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the project had been presented several years ago as market rate and market driven, with no mention of TIF or other public subsidies for the project. Councilmember Ihlan noted that there was no affordable housing component to this project; and opined that even though a connection to Langton Lake was included in the project, it served no public benefit, as it would cut through a currently heavily wooded area and actually create a loss of park land. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, if the City needed a connection to the park, it build it without providing $2.5 million in public subsidy to a private developer; and that there was no factual basis indicting that the project will actually create any new jobs. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that, the reference to this neighborhood being severely blighted was not accurate, and that construction of the project will actually remove additional trees, which did not constitute blight. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if there was no public purpose, it was not right to give this large of a subsidy. Councilmember Ihlan referenced page 9 of the Section “V,” page 9, of the TIF Plan related to estimated public costs and the amount of additional revenue listed on Page 10 for the project, and those monies that would go to the School District and Ramsey County, as well as the City, and could be used for other public purposes. Councilmember Ihlan questioned the rationale in the developer not thinking the project was a good business risk, but willing to bring the risk to the City. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the developer wait to construct the project if timing was not good now; and questioned why the City should use public monies of $2.5 million when there were so many other needs in the community, rather than a financial benefit going primarily to United Properties.
Councilmember Roe clarified that it was $300,000 in TIF being expended for Phase I of the project, and that the $2.5 million represented the total increment that could be captured by the entire District. Councilmember Roe opined that this project served the purpose as established by the legislature in spurring some economic development activity during an economic slump; and further opined that the project and the City’s involvement made sense. Councilmember Roe referenced previous documentation included in the Twin Lakes Public Participation Framework and criteria and categories for considering public purpose definitions. Councilmember Roe advised that, based on that criteria, he was supportive of providing TIF assistance as requested for the project.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support for the project; noting that the developer, rather than the City, was advancing costs upfront for construction of the connecting road into Langton Lake Park, rather than City taxpayers doing so.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, opining that “the glass is half full, not half empty,” and opining that this provided a great opportunity to create and sustain jobs, not just construction jobs, but in future maintenance and operations of the project; and further opined that the park deserved consideration for connection to allow the public to be aware of and take advantage of this beautiful park, providing a great public service.
Councilmember Pust, speaking for the record and in her role on the HRA, noted that the recent Multi-family Housing Study acknowledged the need for this type of housing in Roseville; therefore it constituted a public purpose; and opined that Langton Lake was an asset in the community and should be appreciated by the entire community, through opening up access to the park. However, Councilmember Pust noted that she had repeatedly stated her opposition in discussions for this project and any use of TIF. Councilmember Pust noted that, since initial discussions the economy had crashed for United Properties as well as everyone else, and those financially viable considerations from 2007 and 2008 were not the same today. Councilmember Pust advised that she was not as much opposed to the use of TIF on the project as she had been in the past; however, she was not supportive of the legislative amendments when she felt the intent was creation of more than just one job. Councilmember Pust advised that, on balance, she would vote in opposition to the project, but acknowledged that she had softened her opinion on the use of TIF for the project from her original position.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan and Pust.
Motion carried.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 7:33 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:40 p.m.
c. Consider the Presumptive Penalty for an Alcohol Compliance Violation for Courtyard by Marriott
Chief Rick Mathwig reviewed the history of semi-annual alcohol compliance checks throughout the City in April of 2010 for its approximate 58 current license holders, as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010.
Chief Mathwig reviewed the June 24, 2010 Compliance Failure and subsequent correspondence between the City’s Police Department license holders, including providing them due notice of revisions made in 2009 to the City’s ordinance regarding mandatory server training and presumptive penalties.
Mayor Klausing suggested future discussion may be indicated to address sales to minors and failed compliance checks as it related to mandatory training requirements.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan concurred that tonight’s requested action provided no distinction in whether or not the servers received mandatory training.
Councilmember Roe, as a co-author of the revised language, noted that under the Conditions of Licensure in Section 302.08, and in the Police Department’s letters to various license holders, both indicated failure to comply with training could be a consideration at the time of license renewal; and that Under Section 302.15, general penalties followed state statute allowances.
Courtyard Marriott Representative and General Manager Darren Maloney Mr. Maloney advised that the safety and well-being of the Roseville community was of great importance to his firm and one that they took seriously. Mr. Maloney advised that the incident occurred during a “Children’s Miracle Network” event, with the server actually a Restaurant Manager, not a Bartender, and that he had not participated in approved training, but had co-facilitated training for other employees. Mr. Maloney reviewed the immediate action prompted by this violation, with all employees now trained, whether serving as a Bartender or in another area. Mr. Maloney noted that, in their nine years of operation, this was their first violation, and that they were working to ensure that it was their last violation.
Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation, on behalf of the City Council and the community, on their subsequent action and their comments; and asked if Mr. Maloney was seeking lenience based on their actions.
Mr. Maloney advised that their firm fully supported the community and the Police Department and its officers, and while considerations would be welcomed, they understood that the penalties were in place for a reason.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 3012.15, of the Roseville City Code, for an alcohol compliance violation for Courtyard by Marriott, 2905 Centre Pointe Drive; for a $1,000 fine and a one-day license suspension on a date to be determined by the Police Chief.
Councilmember Johnson respectfully asked that, given the willingness of the applicant to admit to their error and the comments illustrating the firm’s corrective actions, that the Police Chief give consideration to suspension on a slow operating day.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d. Consider the Presumptive Penalty for an Alcohol Compliance Violation for Snelling Liquors
Police Chief Rick Mathwig summarized the event and background information, on the same day as the previous violation, as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010.
Councilmember Roe noted the supplemental Police report, asking the court to void the original citation for the individual server.
Chief Mathwig advised that this was common practice when an error in the citation process was found, voiding the original and providing a corrected citation for the appropriate charge, but not dismissed in totality.
Snelling Liquors Representative and Co-Owner Steve Allen
Mr. Allen advised that his company is well aware of the semi-annual compliance checks, and reviewed their process for employee training, most recently completed again several weeks ago. Mr. Allen reviewed this hiring and training of employees, noting that this trainer had been served, but due to the violation, had been fired, even though he was deemed a great employee.
Mr. Allen expressed his concern in creating another unemployed person through this violation process; as well as expressing his frustration in contacting the Police Department when a violator was on-site and their lack of timely response.
Mayor Klausing recognized Mr. Allen’s frustrations; however, advised that the most effective use of resources was in stopping the violations at the point of sale, given the limited staff resources available in the Police Department, thus creating the additional resources provided for training for point of sale compliance. Mayor Klausing further noted that the City recognized that everyone was human and had their off days; however, he advised that the City was attempting to balance that human error factor with the serious nature of liquor sales to minors; advising that the additional consequences taken by an employer was up to them individually.
Mr. Allen reviewed incentives offered by his firm to employees passing the “stings,” and agreed that they were on the front line in ensuring sales to minors did not happen.
Mayor Klausing noted, for the record, that in each of the three instances before the City Council tonight, the underage person came in with a valid driver’s license, clearly marked “underage.” Mayor Klausing expressed the City’s appreciation to Mr. Allen for him taking his responsibility seriously.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 3012.15, of the Roseville City Code, for an alcohol compliance violation for Snelling Liquors, 2217 Snelling Avenue N, for a $1,000 fine and a one-day license suspension on a date to be determined by the Police Chief.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Consider the Presumptive Penalty for an Alcohol Compliance Violation for Hamline Liquors
Police Chief Rick Mathwig summarized the event and background information, on the same day as the previous violation, as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010. Chief Mathwig asked that the City Council not follow the specific request of the RCA in this case given his conversations of late this afternoon with Ms. Robin Nelson related to documentation of a training certificate for this employee that had apparently been turned into the Police Department, rather than held by the employer, but not able to be found. Mr. Mathwig asked that the City Council administer the penalty for this firm as if they had done the training and applied accordingly.
Hamline Liquors Representative Ms. Robin Larson
Ms. Larson pointed out that Chief Mathwig’s recommendation was based in part to their firm’s history of due diligence in complying with optional manager/server training, and in their firm’s recognition that it was important at the front line to prevent underage sales. Ms. Larson provided documentation of the employee training manuals and in-store training program kept at the front counter for easy access and reference by their employees. Ms. Larson apologized for this violation, noting that it was their history to go above and beyond the call of duty to prevent those sales; and to alert other alcohol sellers those minors attempting to obtain alcohol.
Ms. Larson respectfully requested, given the business climate of the last few years, unexpected and repeat capital expenses and maintenance issues incurred during that time, as well as the Presbyterian Homes construction project adjacent to their store and limited access issues substantially reducing sales, that the City Council consider reducing or waiving their fine conditional upon no more infractions. Ms. Larson expressed concern that having to pay the full fine at this time could dramatically impact the future viability of their store.
Mayor Klausing expressed the City’s appreciation in the business owners taking this seriously; and noted the past Council discussion in presumptive penalty amounts based on whether liquor sales were their primary business and/or restaurant sales as well. Mayor Klausing noted that the Chief was authorized with setting dates for suspension, and suggested that the impacts on a particular business could be addressed; while expressing his hesitancy in the City Council becoming involved in determining the financial solvency of a business. Mayor Klausing suggested that the City Administrator work with the Police Chief and the business owner to determine if there was a way to spread out the fine for payment, while still making it enforceable administratively; while not getting into fees based on a sliding scale or imposing penalties based on gross receipts.
Ms. Nelson offered financial documents to prove their financial situation at this time.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was not opposed to payments being made over time, as long as those same provisions were provided to those other cases heard tonight.
City Manager Malinen advised that he would work with the business owners and the Police Chief.
Councilmember Johnson referenced his previous conversations by phone with Ms. Nelson; and his decision at tonight’s meeting.
Councilmember Roe suggested that the City Council receive a report as soon as possible from the City Manager as to whether payments could be made rather than a one-time fee, in order not to provide false hopes or automatic assumptions that such a payment system could be incorporated.
City Manager Malinen advised that he would get back to the City Council with findings and a recommendation as soon as possible.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 3012.15, of the Roseville City Code, for an alcohol compliance violation for Hamline Liquors, 2825 Hamline Avenue N, for a $1,000 fine and a one-day license suspension on a date to be determined by the Police Chief.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
f. Revisit the 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan
Finance Director Chris Miller provided the 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) to refresh everyone’s memory for those items totaling $888,470 specifically proposed for funding in the Preliminary 2011 Budget in property tax-supported areas, as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010.
Discussion included those items funded in 2010, and additional levy items, represented by the first five line items on page 1 of the staff report (Lines 9-13)in the total amount of $236,375; additional funds for pathway and parking lot repairs from 2010 amounts; less-than-projected amounts allotted for the Park Improvement Program (PIP) and vehicle replacements while still attempting to make those annual replacement allotments more sustainable; and replacement of two major Street and Engineering Department vehicles that were beyond their useful life making their maintenance more expensive than replacing them.
g. Consider Adopting the Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget
Finance Director Chris Miller noted that, even though this is the Preliminary Budget and Levy adoption, the City Council retained full discretion for the majority to increase or decrease the budget and spending. Mr. Miller advised that the purpose of this Preliminary action was to allow Ramsey County to perform a parcel-by-parcel calculation by November to advise taxpayers of the proposed impacts to their property taxes. Mr. Miller summarized the City-Manager recommended budget and tax levy, as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010; and the incremental changes from 2010 to 2011, including new programs, inflationary increases and contractual obligations, as well as shifting code enforcement activities to the tax-supported General Fund from the Community Development Department.
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller reviewed the rationale for shifting code enforcement, historically funded through the building permit revenues in the Community Development Department, no longer sustainable with reserve funds used over the last few years to offset those costs, making it prudent to take those dollars from property tax levy dollars, since code enforcement affected all community residents and their property values.
Discussion included reduced interest earnings projections based on industry trends, history and spending decision assumptions; PERA and employee healthcare assumptions and allocations; and temporary wage categories and impacts on programs and services, supplies, and new efficiencies.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10840 entitled, “Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the eh Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal year of 2011;” (Attachment A) adopting the 2011 Preliminary Tax Levy in the amount of $15,039,419, an increase of $757,015 or 5.3% from 2010.
Councilmember Roe, while supportive of the Preliminary Levy and Budget, suggested that this was the upper limit, and should be reduced for final adoption.
Mr. Miller noted that the public hearing was scheduled for Monday, December 6, 2010, with final adoption of the Budget and Levy two weeks later, allowing for discussions between now and then.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the Preliminary Levy and Budget should be lower as well; opining that revenue projects for reduced interest earnings should be included in the preliminary levy, since it represented a significant amount of the proposed levy increase. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to shifting code enforcement from building permit revenues to property tax payers without looking at the Community Development Department’s budget, if it was truly unsustainable, for other line item reductions based on current economic activity. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that it appeared under CIP and Equipment Purchases, that some of the proposed squad replacements representing approximately $200,000 of the projected $236,375 could be deferred for another year rather than increasing taxes. Councilmember Ihlan further requested reviewing COLA and step increases for employees in light of actions of other communities and business employers, and not just assume inflationary increases are automatically funded into the tax increase. Councilmember Ihlan noted preliminary tax levies by Hennepin County and Ramsey County, and spoke in opposition to the 5.3% increase.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10841 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2011 Bonded Debt;” (Attachment B) adopting the 2011 Preliminary Debt Levy in the amount of $487,420.95.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10842 entitled, “Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2011 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;” (Attachment C) adopting the 2011 Preliminary Budget in the amount of $39,236,435, of which $18,931,869 is designated for property tax-supported programs.
Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would vote in opposition on this motion for parallel reasons as she indicated with her opposition to the previously-adopted Preliminary Levy motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion Carried.
h. Consider Adopting the Preliminary HRA Levy
Finance Director Miller briefly reviewed the request of the HRA for a Preliminary Levy at a zero percent increase as detailed in the RCA dated September 13, 2010
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10843 entitled, “A Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate, to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2011,” (Attachment A) in the amount of $353,500, the same levy as 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion since it requested no tax increase; however, opined that the tax levy could be reduced further and that reduction should include reviewing HRA line items for potential reductions.
Councilmember Pust congratulated the HRA for keeping their levy request at a zero percent increase while maintaining their ongoing programs.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:39 pm.