|
City Council |
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2017
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
City Manager advised that the requested abatement in Item 7.f had been resolved and asked that it be removed from tonight’s agenda.
Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Item 9.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. Nic Baker, 2731 McKubin Street, #16
As a recent resident and volunteer in the community, Mr. Baker advised that tonight he was attending on behalf of a non-partisan, non-profit organization entitled, “Citizen’s Climate Lobby,” and addressing climate change issues. Mr. Baker provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, describing how a carbon tax and dividend worked; and a sample resolution from a City of Philadelphia model. Mr. Baker asked that the City of Roseville consider passing a similar resolution, as had other cities as listed in handout materials, proposing a tax on power at its origin resulting in a carbon benefit for citizens with dividends.
5. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
a. Recognition of Commissioners for their Service to the City of Roseville
Mayor Roe recognized the following commissioners for their service to the community.
Mike Boguszewski, Planning Commission
Zoe Jenkins, Police Civil Service Commission
Scot Becker, Community Engagement Commission (CEC)
Theresa Gardella, CEC
Pete Sparby, CEC transitioned to PC
Gary Grefenberg, CEC
Raj Konidena, Finance Commission
Justin Rohloff, Finance Commission
Molly Slade, Human Rights Commission (HRC)
Joy Christiansen, HRC
Lee Diedrick, Parks & Recreation (P & R) Commission
Shannon Cunningham, Planning Commission
Sarah Brodt-Lenz, Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC)
Amber Sattler, CEC
Jamie Becker-Finn, P & R
Commissioners Boguszewski, Jenkins, and Slade were present to accept their certificates of service from Mayor Roe; with staff directed to mail certificates to those unable to accept them in person. On behalf of the community, City Council, and staff, Mayor Roe thanked these commissioners for their service; and thanked all who applied for vacancies to serve on these various commissions.
b. Police Officer’s Memorial Day / National Police Week
Mayor Roe read a proclamation recognizing May 15, 2017 as Police Officers’ Memorial Day and May 15 – 21, 2017 as National Police Week, honoring and commemorating law enforcement services and their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities rendering dedicated service to their communities.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, proclaiming May 15, 2017 as Police Officers’ Memorial Day and May 15 – 21, 2017 as National Police Week in Roseville, MN.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring May 2017 as Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; celebrating the contributions and heritage made by these peoples to the American story.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming May 2017 as Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and celebrating the contributions and heritage made by these peoples to the American story.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
7. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
a. Approve Business & Other Licenses
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 24, 2017.
Councilmember Willmus noted his ongoing concern with municipal approval of these licenses; seeking separate consideration from other consent items.
City Manager Trudgeon noted the availability of non-redacted copies of applications available to the City Council at City Hall for their review.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Massage Therapist Licenses as detailed in the RCA of today’s date.
Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for a non-redacted copy of applications for council members to make judgments before voting on an application. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would also consider a resolution of support for statewide licensing of these facilities versus city by city approval; and suggested consulting the city’s legislative delegation accordingly.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would consult with the City Attorney as to whether a hard copy of the non-redacted copy of these applications could be shared with the City Council; in their packet materials, beyond being available for their review at City Hall.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Etten and Roe.
Nays: Willmus.
Motion carried.
8. Business Items
a. Consider Roseville Firefighters Relief Association Benefit Increase
City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the RCA, noting that a 2006 City Council resolution tied increases for Relief benefits to Social Security, but had not been followed over the last few years. Therefore, City Manager Trudgeon noted the proposed catch-up provision as detailed and subsequent annual adjustments on track in the future (Attachment D) based on actuarials. City Manager Trudgeon noted that David Breen, Relief Association President and several board members were in the audience if needed for further information.
Discussion included clarifying the amount of increase based on years of service; adjustments based on liability funding; vesting after twenty years of service with collections not available until the age of fifty and upon retirement; with provisions based on state law as well as the by-laws of the Relief Association.
David Breen, Relief Board President
Mr. Breen reported that the Association had twenty-five active members at differing levels of being vested, with some still under the ten-year mark, but most over that mark. Mr. Breen reported that there were fifty-one retirees and eight beneficiaries still under the Association, and as detailed in the actuarial provided. As noted on the actuarial, Mr. Breen noted that it considered all member as having twenty years or more of service; and also noted that for those lost or injured in the line of duty, they became automatically vested for the protection of their families/beneficiaries.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one appearing for or against.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11410 (Attachment D) entitled, “Resolution Approving Benefit Increase for Members of the Roseville Firefighter Relief Association (RFRA);” approving – retroactive to January 1, 2017 – a benefit increase of $2.24/month per year of service for pensioners selecting the monthly benefit option and an increase of $224.00/year of service for those pensioners selecting the lump sum payment benefit.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Consider Approval of Newly-Created Position and Additional FTE’s for IT
City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA and attachments.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the current status and timing of tower leases. Mr. Miller reported that their were five towers in the community, with a total of sixteen different long-term leases, with the next one due for renewal still five years away. Mr. Miller reported that most of the lease agreements were for a duration of twenty years or more.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the newly-created positions as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated today’s date; and authorizing staff to begin the process of recruiting and filling the positions.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one appearing for or against.
On a related note, Councilmember Laliberte reported on a recent Metro Cities event she had attended last week, along with Mayor Roe. At that meeting, Councilmember Laliberte advised that in-depth conversations had ensued with other metropolitan cities on the availability of the city’s IT service to other entities. Without hesitation, Councilmember Laliberte reported that those communities considered the City of Roseville’s IT service to be valuable; and even intimated that Roseville could increase the cost for those provided services without undue effect. In general, Councilmember Laliberte reported that the message received from other entities was that there were no others currently part of this collaborative effort that could recreate or provide similar services on their own compared to what they were asked to invest in the Roseville-based IT business model. Councilmember Laliberte suggested future consideration of increased fees to generate additional revenue.
Of separate note, Councilmember Laliberte noted past discussions on space constraints for IT staff; recognizing the March 2017 staff presentation from IT staff and requests being heard from member cities asking for more on-site staff. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that perhaps both situations could be addressed if those cities could house on-site Roseville IT staff to free up additional space at Roseville City Hall.
Councilmember McGehee stated her pleasure in hearing that report; and reiterated her belief in this enterprise. However, Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to not get too greedy in seeking additional funding, opining that the consortium was working well and shouldn’t be messed up by becoming greedy.
Mayor Roe cautioned that the willingness to pay additional funds for this IT service had only been voiced by one city currently within the consortium, and therefore not vetted by all forty-three member entities.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Consider an Interim Use Renewal, Pursuant to Section 1009.03 of City Code, Approving Park and Ride Facilities at Nine Locations during the 12-day Minnesota State Fair (PF17-002)
City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request for park and ride facilities at nine locations during the State Fair, as detailed in the RCA and attachments. Mr. Paschke advised that since the public hearing at the Planning Commission, St. Michael’s had opted out as a site; and also noted that one new location was added this year at St. Christopher’s.
Mr. Paschke specifically noted new items J and K as outlined and recommended by staff, and with the agreement of State Fair representatives; represented by their Transportation Manager Steve Grans, present in tonight’s audience for questions. Mr. Paschke noted that these conditions were in response to concerns raised by residents in these neighborhoods and based on issues during the term of the previous IU.
Councilmember Laliberte noted the considerable number of emails received from neighbors to these sites during the State Fair expressing their frustration. Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was attendance at the open houses by those neighbors to bring those concerns forward.
Mr. Paschke reported that of the 2,100 mailed notices processed for five open houses held at different times and locations, a total of eighteen residents had shown up. At those open houses, Mr. Paschke advised that the same type of concerns had not been voiced; and that those same individuals had not come forward at the public hearings held by the Planning Commission. While recognizing those ongoing concerns, Mr. Paschke noted most of the frustrations are voiced and addressed by city staff and the State Fair during the Fair’s duration, and which the two new IU conditions were intended to address.
Councilmember Willmus asked if the city could create an ordinance prohibiting parking within so many feet of mailboxes; with Mr. Paschke and City Attorney Gaughan confirming that was possible.
Mayor Roe suggested the issue could be a police enforcement versus zoning ordinance issue as well, as similarly addressed by other communities; with Mr. Paschke noting the city’s parking regulation codes could address that as well.
Councilmember Willmus suggested that the city take a look at that possibility in the near future and preferably prior to this year’s State Fair (e.g. within the next month or two).
Mayor Roe sought to confirm City Council support for such a directive, noting that it would have impacts beyond State Fair parking, such as impacting rental homes and other city-wide issues that may be worthwhile to consider.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of such a directive to staff. Councilmember Etten asked the Public Works Department whether there would be any long-term cost savings in posting permanent signs for State Fair parking.
Public Works Director Marc Culver responded that the initial cost for permanent signage and their long-term maintenance would probably well exceed that of the proposed temporary signage for the State Fair. Mr. Culver noted that residents would also have an additional post in their yards to mow around. However, Mr. Culver noted that it would serve as another tool, similar to the signage by the City of St. Paul related to the State Fair, and make it easier to maintain “No Parking” restrictions during that time and help with visibility of signs versus those temporary signs that are shorter, often hard to see, or easily knocked down.
Councilmember Etten stated that he’d be in favor of permanent signage as an option with the State Fair absorbing or sharing in that cost. While also supportive of creating an ordinance related to parking in front of driveways and mailboxes, Councilmember Etten asked at a minimum that the State Fair provide information about increased parking enforcement on their website Once a driveway is blocked with homeowners unable to leave or access their homes, Councilmember Etten noted it was then was too late; but asked that the State Fair alert patrons that the City of Roseville took this infringement seriously.
Mr. Culver noted that, similar to concerns with a city ordinance to prevent blocking mailboxes if not already addressed by state law as is the provision for “No Parking” within a certain number of feet of a stop sign or signal light, it required education of the public.
Noting concerns raised by St. Paul residents specific to the New Life Presbyterian Church lot, Mayor Roe asked if the Roseville city staff communicated and coordinated with the City of St. Paul to address parking issues south of Larpenteur Avenue as well.
Mr. Paschke offered to send this City Council action to the City of St. Paul‘s Planning Division staff to make them aware of the situation.
Mayor Roe suggested that staff include emails from St. Paul citizens showing that input. While there is a municipal border, Mayor Roe noted that the issues transcend that border and needed collaboration and cooperation by both municipalities.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time.
Public Comment
Julie Schier, 1260 Shryer
While living in the immediate vicinity of a park and ride site, Ms. Schier advised that she had received no notice of the open houses and/or public hearings; and reported that every year the parking situation grew worse. Specific to the St. Christopher’s site, Ms. Schier questioned if safety precautions had been taken for those crossing over the entrance ramp to the Roseville Area High School, both for parking and pedestrian crossings.
Based on her understanding that buses went to each individual lot, and recognizing that this didn’t preclude someone running across the street, Councilmember McGehee opined that it made a huge difference to have cars parked in these lots. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of these sites and expressed appreciation for the cooperation of schools and churches in providing this parking during the State Fair. Councilmember McGehee further expressed her hope that signage will help and prove useful in reminding people to stay back from intersections to ensure visibility and safety.
Mayor Roe noted that parking too close to intersections was also in violation of state law.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11411 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Nine Minnesota State Fair Park and Ride Lots for Operation During the Annual Minnesota State Fair (PF07-017);” for five-year Interim Use (IU) as conditioned at eight renewal sites and one new site as detailed.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested including information in the upcoming City News newsletter; even though recognizing that many violators may not be from Roseville. Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address the needs of those residents being burdened by these issues.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of Councilmember Etten’s suggestion for the State Fair to post information on their web page for park and ride sites, as it relates to Roseville and seeking courtesies for residents and consequences for violations.
Councilmember McGehee concurred.
Recognizing the agreement being entered into with the Police Department, Councilmember Laliberte asked that periodic looks be provided at crossings in response to pedestrians.
Depending on how residents in immediate adjacencies to the State Fair itself felt, Mayor Roe suggested looking at posting those areas during the Fair as well. Mayor Roe noted that Roselawn Avenue may see more stress from State Fair parking and suggested further consideration by staff outside this requested action.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Consider Amending City Code Title 2 (Commissions) Regarding the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Community Engagement Commission (CEC)
Noting his and Councilmember Laliberte’s role as City Council Subcommittee, Mayor Roe reviewed the process involved and initial conversations with all participating members of the HRC and CEC concerning the pros and cons about operations and advisory commissions in general, and areas of concern over the last few years; as well as their thoughts about combining these two commissions serving similar functions (Attachment B). After those initial conversations, Mayor Roe noted that further representation by three representatives of the CEC and two from the HRC were held, resulting in the subsequent recommendation for changes to city code, currently before the City Council tonight. Mayor Roe advised that the exercise had started by taking portions from both sections of city code to combine them for less repetition and more concise language while maintaining the scope and focus of both former advisory commissions (Attachment C).
Specific to the name, Mayor Roe advised that the proposed name “Equity and Engagement Commission” may not have been the first choice of all those involved, but recognized that the City Council would ultimately make that decision after receiving the recommendations of the subcommittee.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Mayor Roe’s summation, and thanked Task Force members represented by the HRC and CEC, noting the considerable effort put into this recommendation from several meetings. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the ultimate goal was positively enforced by those representatives to support this opportunity to lift up each member of the combined commission to do more exciting things as individual advisory commissioners and as a whole for the commission in serving the community. With the exception of the title of the commission, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the role and focus of the combined group and agreement on wording and work was expressed in the ordinance itself. Councilmember Laliberte advised that both the former HRC and CEC ordinances had been reviewed with language from both incorporated into this new ordinance where relevant and representing the ongoing work of the new commission. Councilmember Laliberte thanked City Manager Trudgeon for his assistance in shepherding this effort and for his positive role in the work and conversations. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn’t feel any sense of division or concern from any members about the decisions and work proposed; opining that it served to address the new priority of inclusiveness recently recommended by Councilmember Etten as a city priority.
Attachment D (New Ordinance)
Specific to the ordinance language, Mayor Roe noted the attempt to address past false starts of the commissions based on a lack of City Council direction conflicting with the interest of the commission in discovering how they wanted to work. However, Mayor Roe noted that this had resulted in the commission actually requiring more distinct guidance as to what the City Council was looking for, rather than avoiding micro-management by the City Council. Mayor Roe noted that the errors on both sides had been recognized to avoid duplicating them with a combined commission going forward, thus the early language in the ordinance (why the commission was being established – lines 17 and 24).
Mayor Roe noted that more purpose language was provided (line 30) specific to the commission, with three areas outlined: evaluation, advising, and engagement; with specifics laid out for each category.
Councilmember Laliberte referenced Attachment B in providing background on how the City Council made a decision and guided work of the Task Force. When reviewing language for this new city code, Councilmember Laliberte advised that the Task Force had considered work plan items for both the HRC and CEC – current and proposed – across the board elimination of none of the items on current work lists. Councilmember Laliberte noted that there appeared to be some miscommunication that the work of a specific commission was going away; however she sought to correct those misconceptions. Councilmember Laliberte clarified that city code (ordinance) didn’t typically spell out actual work of a commission in detail, but noted those work plans were typically submitted annually or more often by the commissions when brought to the City Council during periodic joint meetings. Councilmember Laliberte further clarified that the combination of these two existing commissions should not be perceived as a negative for either commission, but a positive to expound on their collaborative efforts for the overall good o the community.
For tonight’s discussion, Mayor Roe suggested two phases: first for City Council deliberation on the code language and any further revision based on that feedback; followed by a discussion on the actual name of the combined commission going forward. Mayor Roe suggested council member questions first, followed by public comment.
Councilmember McGehee questioned the new “preamble” in the ordinance, suggesting it be struck, opining that it didn’t come from either of the previous commissions causing her to question if it really belonged outside the Unified Commission Code. With presentation of this proposed ordinance in this unique and different format, Councilmember McGehee questioned the need beyond Section 205.02 for consistency.
In response to Councilmember McGehee about this format, Councilmember Laliberte stated that no one on the Task Force felt they were departing from previous format, but based on one-on-one interviews with commissioners and the unfortunate past false start for the CEC, the intent was to make sure things were made very clear and set the stage for this combined commission at the start. Councilmember Laliberte stated that the desire of the Task Force was to ensure this commission was provided with that clarity and the background needed, without having to wonder at the purpose of their existence.
Specific to the three points outlined, Councilmember Laliberte advised that the Subcommittee had heard from many current HRC and CEC members of the importance to clearly understand their objectives and expectations of their commission role. Councilmember Laliberte advised that this ordinance detail was in response to that request to expound on the objectives so as not to result in any disservice to citizens or commissions.
Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Laliberte.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for comment by participating Task Force members at this time, with none appearing to speak.
Councilmember Willmus asked how the proposed name of the commission had come to be or how it had developed as a working title.
Mayor Roe advised that it was the result of eight or nine variations throughout the process and as suggestions as received from the community, the Subcommittee, Task Force, Councilmembers or other sources. Mayor Roe reiterated that this name is intended as a basis to begin discussion and provided as one choice in keeping the HRC and CEC in mind, and at the end of the process was brought forward as a second choice of several Task Force members, while they agreed that it needed more work.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte confirmed that the proposed name had not been brought forward by one individual.
Councilmember Laliberte noted the number of iterations that retained the HRC and CEC in the title. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted the discussion had involved the desire that this new commission have a new name that would provide new identify for the group of ten commissioners rather than the three CEC commissioners simply being moved over to become part of the existing HRC. With the desire for a fresh start, and interest in civic and community engagement in addition to human rights, Councilmember Laliberte noted the interest in a fresh name and identity for this group going forward.
Public Comment
Written comment was received via email and provided as bench handouts, Attached hereto and made a part hereof, as follows: Diane Hilden (April 20, 2017); Megan Dahlberg (April 23, 2017); Councilmember Bob Willmus with a model ordinance from the City of Lynwood, Washington (April 24, 2017); and Kristina Krepela; Cari Gelle; Charles Baynton; Jumi Kassim; Gabe Cederberg; and Idelle Peterson (respectively dated April 24, 2017);
Mindy Greiling, 2495 Marion Street, Roseville, Representing the Area League of Women Voters (LWV)
Ms. Greiling read a written statement addressing the LWV’s long-tradition in respecting human rights and support to retain that objective in the title and core functions of the proposed ordinance for this new commission. Ms. Greiling provided a copy of the LWV statement as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Wayne Groff, 2266 Marion Road, HRC Chair
Mr. Groff submitted written comments via email dated April 23, 2017, suggesting ordinance language for consideration, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
While stating that he was appearing tonight as a resident, Mr. Groff referenced his role as Chair of the HRC. Mr. Groff asked that the City Council put careful thought into wording of city code, based on the CEC’s origination in the past as an arm of the HRC. In combining the CEC with the existing duties of the HRC, Mr. Groff asked that the title be clear and succinct so all would understand their goals and the HRC’s role in making Roseville a welcoming and inclusive place for all residents. In conclusion, Mr. Groff asked that “human rights” be retained in the new commission’s title and focus to provide easy understanding for residents and commissioners going forward.
Clare Verbeten, 2018 Western Avenue
Ms. Verbaten asked that the duties and purpose of the HRC remain intact and that the words “human rights” remain in the title of the newly-combined commission to ensure that Roseville remains committed.
Lisa Carey, 2800 Griggs, HRC Commissioner
Ms. Carey questioned why including “human rights” in the title was so problematic. If removed, Ms. Carey opined that the clear understanding the work of the HRC would be lost as well as their past accomplishments. After serving four years on the HRC, Ms. Carey opined that if the words were removed, she firmly believed that human rights purpose would be lost.
Rick Sanders, S McCarrons Boulevard
Mr. Sanders advocated retaining “human rights” in the commission’s title, opining it encompassed so many different things, and to remove it would confuse people. While admitting it was a shame that human rights issues remained prevalent today, Mr. Sanders noted the need for people to know where to go when they encountered a human rights problem.
Elizabeth Hansel, 547 Lovell Avenue, HRC Youth Commissioner
Ms. Hansel submitted written comments via email dated April 21, 2017, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Ms. Hansel expounded on her written comments, and spoke in support of the comments made by HRC Chair Groff. Ms. Hansel expressed appreciation for and the need to continue recognizing visible and non-visible disabilities as a human rights awareness issue. In the new language, Ms. Hansel noted the omission of youth commissioners, expressing her hope that this was an inadvertent omission and that youth could continue to serve.
Mankpondehou Djevi, 851 Sextant Ave., HRC Commissioner
Mr. Djevi stated that he had joined the HRC in the interest of human rights, not for equity/engagement. Mr. Djevi reviewed the inherent human rights of all, the definition of human rights, and examples of how to measure that impartiality. Mr. Djevi asked the City Council to consider the message they were sending to the diverse community by removing “human rights” from the title.
Cora Lieben, 2924 Asbury Street
Ms. Lieben echoed the comments of those speaking before her; and added her voice of support for the HRC and related terminology, stating the words “human rights” are known and understood universally.
Chelsea Holub, 2946 High Court, CEC Commissioner
As a member of the Task Force, Ms. Holub echoed the comments of Councilmember Laliberte as to the general feelings of the subcommittee, with the conversations having been positive and that all were on the same page. However, Ms. Holub stated how disheartening it was to her to hear tonight of the dissention, suggesting more time was needed before making a decision. Ms. Holub opined that all commissioners on both the HRC and CEC shared the same goals and ideas about their community, but obviously more work needed to be done in terms of what the new commission should look like. Respectfully, Ms. Holub asked for more time to do so.
Warren Wolf, 1999 Snelling Avenue N
As a 24-year resident of Roseville, when first seeing the proposed name change and deletion of “human rights,” Mr. Wolf expressed his concern, including the reduction of a total of fourteen commissioners in the past for the HRC and CEC, and now only a potential of nine commissioners. Mr. Wolf noted that both commissions in the past already had more work than they could do with the larger membership. Mr. Wolf stated that his main concern was that by combining the two commissions would dilute the impact of both. Mr. Wolf noted that community engagement and human rights had both been undertaken with varying degrees of success in the past; and suggested that this collaborative effort would not be as successful with a combined commission versus retaining two separate commissions as in the past.
Keely Vandre, 2458 Holton Street
Ms. Vandre submitted written comments, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
As an employee of the University of Minnesota, Ms. Vandre stated that she had been drawn into residency in Roseville based on its interest in diversity, including her relief that the city had an HRC to protect human rights. As a social worker and mother, Ms. Vandre stated that she expected to see no less from Roseville, and if consideration was given to removing “human rights” from the title, it would serve to send a harmful message. Ms. Vandre asked that the City Council understand the negative impact that such a change would signify, and asked that it be kept in the title and intended action of the ordinance.
Frank Strahan, 1260 Shryer Avenue
Specific to the name change and ordinance language, Mr. Schwin stated that it appears that the City Council was repeating past errors in not providing sufficient direction in naming this commission, as well as in not obtaining community support for deleting “human rights” from the title.
Eric Tomlinson, 221 McCarron’s Street, CEC Commissioner and late addition to the Task Force
While having come into the Task Force later in the process, Mr. Tomlinson noted that a name was not the all in all for the tasks intended for this commission. Mr. Tomlinson opined that this involved more than the role of merging; but with the many comments heard tonight about the importance of “human rights” to the community, offered his support for adding it to the new commission’s title.
Julie Strahan, 1260 Shryer Ave
Ms. Schier questioned why, in a time of so much interest in community engagement and understanding how it works, the City Council would choose to remove those opportunities and reduce the size of a commission with ample work before it. Rather, Ms. Schier suggested redefining the CEC, especially if additional candidates are waiting in the wings to serve their community in this role. Ms. Schier suggested the City Council take advantage of tapping into that resource by involving as many people as possible, especially when the City Council itself didn’t represent the diverse racial image of its constituency. Ms. Schier opined that the city needed to find ways for people to engage rather than taking away human rights and an opportunity to grow them.
Michelle Manke, 3032 Simpson Street, CEC Commissioner
While the City Council may have voted unanimously to merge the HRC and CEC; Ms. Manke stated that she was still seeing a division, causing her concern at this point as to whether or not the combined commission would succeed. With the HRC being dead set in what they wanted, and the CEC never having been given the opportunity by the City Council over these last few years after the initial growing pains to complete its work, Ms. Manke questioned the future of the combined effort. In hearing past comments made by the City Council that the CEC never brought anything forward, Ms. Manke opined that this wasn’t true, noting three separate proposals recently brought forward, questioning if they had actually made it to the City Council’s attention or if the City Council had reviewed CEC meeting minutes. Ms. Manke questioned if that had occurred, and then noted the City Council’s desire for the CEC to dissolve without recognizing the efforts of those commissioners working hard and giving of their personal time. While there is a lot of overlap between the HRC and CEC, Ms. Manke stated that the CEC was more focused on community and civic engagement and had been working on some dynamic areas over the last few years. While the City Council made appointments and reappointments to the HRC to bring it up to full membership again, Ms. Manke noted that the CEC was never given the same opportunity and even denied the opportunity to seek applications.
Under these circumstances, Ms. Manke opined that the City Council had been extremely unfair to the CEC, and questioned if anything had even been considered beyond the name issue tonight, and emphasizing “human rights” to the exclusion of other areas of focus. While the CEC hasn’t had an opportunity to meet since this came forward, Ms. Manke noted that the HRC continued to do so. Therefore, Ms. Manke asked that the City Council reconsider bringing the CEC and HRC back to their full membership and let the CEC pursue their ongoing work tasks going forward. Ms. Manke stated that she’d welcome the Task Force’s involvement and their input.
Mary Englund, 224 N McCarron’s Boulevard
Given the considerable strong feeling on including “human rights” in the name of this new commission, and other comments, Ms. Englund opined that this may not be the night for decision-making and voting. As a citizen, Ms. Englund stated her understanding of human rights; and stated that she saw community engagement as something totally different; therefore not making sense to combine them with fewer rather than more people involved. Ms. Englund opined that it seemed better to have them remain separate rather than combining them, especially given tonight’s feedback.
Molly Slade, 2216 Fulham, former HRC Commissioner
Ms. Slade spoke in opposition to the repeal and reorganization of the HRC; and provided a history of the State of Minnesota’s Human Rights inception and role of the City of Roseville as one of the original municipalities involved in that state and local effort. Ms. Slade spoke in support of those basic human rights principles to the state and city, and in welcoming the newest neighbor populations in a safe environment, including their municipal government. Recognizing the most recent quality and diverse applicant pool for one vacancy on the HRC, Ms. Slade opined that by removing “human rights” from the title and focus of a combined commission would be confusion and convey the wrong message at this time of current world and local events. Ms. Slade asked that the City Council not remove this cornerstone to Roseville city government.
Nya Harris, 1066 Lovell Avenue
Ms. Harris echoed the sentiments of previous speakers.
Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road W
Ms. Ramundt spoke in support of the HRC as articulated and of their important work. Ms. Ramundt further supported the CEC as a reinforced commission with good leadership and their current enthusiasm to do amazing things for Roseville. While a combined HRC and CEC could work collaboratively as well as from two separate approaches, Ms. Ramundt spoke in support of a broader base from which to accomplish the goals; and strongly encouraged the City Council to bring back the CEC.
City Council Deliberation (Attachment D)
Mayor Roe reiterated the two-stage process: that of the code language and then the title for the combined commission.
Councilmember Etten thanked the public for their comments. Specific to the Task Force report, Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation with the positive tone of the work group; in addition to his observation of last week’s HRC discussion and report. As to Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion that Section 205.01 (Establishment and Membership) in the draft ordinance be deleted, Councilmember Etten stated that he wasn’t sure about his agreement. Councilmember Etten questioned if there was a need at this point to provide more clarity beyond their generality in Section 205.02 to provide that additional focus. Councilmember Etten recognized agreement among council members that they could have done more to assist the CEC in its initial year or two to create that clarity.
Specific to Ms. Hansel’s concern that youth commissioners were not included in this proposed language, Mayor Roe advised that this was addressed in the uniform commission code and confirmed that youth commissioners would remain involved.
Councilmember Etten suggested the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Page 1, line 32
Strike “community relations;” since it represented a broad term. Even though there are human rights-related matters later in the document, Councilmember Etten noted that this was only the purpose statement.
Page 2, Line 56
Correct Subsection B to strike “recommendations and”
Page 2, Line 60
Revise to #1 to read: “Advise the City Council with respect to ‘human rights-related matters’ providing for equitable….”
Page 2, Line 83
Revise #1 to read: “Education programs and community dialogues on ‘human rights-related matters’ to assist in creating equitable..” Councilmember Etten noted that this was the current language of the ordinance creating the HRC.
Councilmember McGehee suggested the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Page 1, Line 42
Revise
to read: “The commission shall review and evaluate [on an ongoing
basis] the…
Lines 42 – 78
Councilmember McGehee suggested removal of the individual functions outlined in each of the three categories.
Addition of Objective D (after line 88)
Add “Provide naturalization ceremony and essay contest and other projects as directed by the City Council.”
General Comments
While agreeing with the language changes suggested by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee noted the need for “engagement” process as a strategy for this combined commission, including new technologies for that engagement and education.
Councilmember McGehee reviewed her original argument at the time the Community Engagement Task Force had been created as a precursor to the CEC, and its primary functions and successful accomplishments in developing the new city website and revising the land use notification policy. While those were great accomplishments by the CEC, Councilmember McGehee noted the remaining important function of the HRC was to work on diversity and issues around it, whether visible or invisible (e.g. dementia, autism) and other areas beyond ethnic diversity. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a combined CEC and HRC to pool their expertise with communication and human rights through a larger-sized commission.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the HRC had done a great job in bringing educational opportunities before the community and bringing Roseville’s diverse populations together for those conversations. Councilmember McGehee opined that to further those communication efforts over a broad range of topics, it would require a larger commission to get that word out. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for a combined commission with a common format in accordance with the Uniform Commission Code. As to the name itself, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of retaining human rights and community or civic engagement in the title to support the goals and issues of welcoming residents and making them feel welcome by and with their city government.
Mayor Roe noted the inclusion by the Subcommittee of the strategies and objectives versus the perceived extreme brevity of previous City Council charges; causing him concern if those elaborated foci were eliminated.
Councilmember Willmus suggested the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Support for Councilmember Etten’s edits and inserting “human rights-related” as noted.
Regarding suggested edits and removal of specific action or direction suggested by Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Willmus stated that he had more concern with that. As previously discussed by the City Council when considering bringing the two groups tighter in tighter formation, Councilmember Willmus noted the intent to provide the group with a clear purpose, objective, duty and function. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of how the draft ordinance was laid out to reinforce those functions, incorporating the HRC and CEC’s current work plans.
Regarding the addition of a new Section D as suggested by Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Willmus stated that his reading of the existing Section C (engagement) were part of that section (naturalization ceremony and essay contest).
Mayor Roe suggested the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Agreement with Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion of adding Section D or E: “Other duties as directed by the City Council,” as included with other commission ordinance language.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Agreement with revisions to lines 32 and 60 as suggested.
Specific to line 83, for the addition of “human rights-related” to the language, Councilmember Laliberte sought more discussion, noting that the Task Force didn’t want to limit community dialogue or events, and opined that this revised language may proscribe that. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the Task Force had worked in several places to avoid that and allow for flexibility for the new commission to create their own work plan. While in agreement with the specificity of the new format, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that it was different, but also that it achieved the intent to provide clear guidance; opining that by removing the numbers it also removed specificity.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of adding Section D or E allowing for the addition of other duties.
In response to Councilmember Laliberte on line 83, Councilmember McGehee stated her support for “human rights-related matters;” but if the interest was in specificity, that human rights reference was missing in Items 2 and 3.
Page 2, Line 83
In response, Councilmember Laliberte again referenced the work of the Task Force and specific language related to education, programs and community dialogues as outlined in this section. Councilmember Laliberte clarified that the intent was not proposed to remove “human rights” efforts from the work plan, but to include other opportunities for educational programs that might also be needed in the broader picture.
To add to that, Mayor Roe advised that as part of the Task Force’s deliberation, the attempt was to provide three areas, all referencing back to the purpose statement of the commission. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested adding “human rights-related” language to the purpose statement to make it stronger. If the City Council was not interested in specificity, Mayor Roe suggested that Section C, Item 1 might allow that to proceed.
Councilmember Etten agreed with that suggestion; however, stated that he felt strongly with having “human rights” addressed in the purpose statement, and if directly referenced in Section C, he was not as concerned in leaving that door open. With the statement on line 84 about programs eliminating discrimination, Councilmember Etten stated his support for including “human rights” in the purpose statement.
Motion (Ordinance Language)
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of Ordinance LANGUAGE as presented (Attachment D); amended as follows:
§ LINE 32, insert “human rights” in place of “community relations;”
§ Retain numerical items in lines 46-54;
§ Line 56, strike “recommendations and;”
§ Line 60, insert “human rights-related matters”
§ Retain numerical items in lines 60-78;
§ Line 83, strike Etten-suggested edit and leave as originally drafted;
§ Add Section D, focusing on “Other duties and objectives as identified by the City Council.”
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of retaining line items for more specificity.
On line 80, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the bullets state “shall” versus “may” engage residents, and suggested a friendly amendment; ultimately not accepted by the maker of the motion.
Amendment to the Motion
McGehee moved Line 80, Item C (Engage) language revised as follows: “Commission shall engage residents and businesses by developing and supporting events and projects that embody the commission’s purpose.”
Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Laliberte clarified that the Task Force had discussed “may” and “shall” and had intentionally left it at “may” to address instances where the members of the commission may not be responsible for the actual work (e.g. city staff as an option). For the other recommended changes, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation for the edits and suggestions, all serving to expand the efforts of the Task Force in making a better document.
Mayor Roe also spoke in support of the changes, hoping that they served to address some of the concerns expressed tonight. Mayor Roe recognized those public comments, and offered the City Council’s interest in being responsive to them; and the overall intent to help the commission get off to a good start.
Mayor Roe clarified that this motion was to approve revised ordinance language only, and did not serve as official adoption of the ordinance itself.
Roll Call (Ordinance Language)
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Motion (Commission Title)
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the newly-formed commission title as the “Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC).”
Councilmember Etten stated that tonight’s testimony, and emails and phone calls received to-date had steered him toward the need for “inclusion.”
Councilmember McGehee stated her support for “human rights” and “engagement,” but considered “inclusion” as a different issue in many ways and a result of giving people their human rights and engaging then, at which point they could be included or not as they wished. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for “Human Rights and Engagement Commission” rather than as proposed in this motion.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned the wordiness of the proposed title; admitting that the Task Force had also shared strife over the name to recommend; and clarified that the Task Force was not attempting to impose this name, but seeking this very discussion. In the wake of the Task Force work, Councilmember Laliberte reported that she had sought counsel of the experts at the Minnesota Humanities Center and the YMCA Humanities organization, neither of whom anticipated the strife or comments heard in tonight’s comments. Councilmember Laliberte further reported that “equity” and “inclusion” are considered go-forward names to keep local and state government accountable; while “human rights” as acknowledged in the past is now better understood as enfolded in the words “equity” and “inclusion.” Just to make sure everyone understood the additional input sought from outside sources, Councilmember Laliberte noted the recognition of “human rights” in the shortened draft title.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, stating that in his work on the Task Force, he was leaning toward “human rights” and “engagement,” but stated that he found the word “inclusion” more intriguing since it encapsulated the community aspirations as referenced in the preamble when talking about being inclusive, welcoming and respectful. While supporting the motion as presented, Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for amendments from his colleagues
As to the wordiness of the proposed title, Councilmember Etten noted other commissions (e.g. Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission), stating he would be open to any suggestions to make the title more succinct, but stated the clear community directive for “human rights” as part of the title.
When considering the ordinance and work of both the current HRC and CEC, as well as how the community has changed over the years and things it was striving to accomplish, Councilmember Willmus noted the things the community has chosen to celebrate, including Roseville area schools. In celebrating its diversity, Councilmember Willmus noted the main question for him became how the city could reach out and engage new members of the community by not only understanding their perspective, but also by bringing them into the mix and creating a place for them in their local government (engagement and inclusion). Councilmember Willmus stated that he saw the three as tied together and important to acknowledge; while also recognizing his personal struggle throughout the process with the term “human rights” and this commission’s role in hearing human rights cases or solving human rights grievances. While his perspective may be flawed, Councilmember Willmus stated that he looked to some of those things in practice; and suggested the title “Diversity, Engagement and Inclusion Commission.”
Councilmember McGehee opined that “inclusion” was the same as “engagement:” with Councilmember Willmus agreeing that they were somewhat similar. Councilmember McGehee opined that the overall goal was to include people; therefore, “Human Rights and Inclusion Commission” seemed less wordy and more concise to her.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn’t see “inclusion” and “engagement” to be the same, but considered inclusion as one group doing its part and another group not encouraged to reciprocate. While Councilmember Willmus’ proposed title was interesting, Councilmember Laliberte stated she liked the word “engagement” as it encouraged interaction versus the city imposing something.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of retaining “human rights” in the title. With the suggested title by Councilmember Willmus has merit, Councilmember Etten noted that if the city’s intent was to include new people in the process of engagement and that engagement speaks to human rights for those who may have been marginalized in past decision-making, his original title to include “inclusion” originating from Councilmember Willmus earlier today, tied them all together.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of any title that included “human rights” but nothing less than that.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that when saying “human rights,” it was assumed that civil rights were included; and suggested that shortening the title to “rights” versus “human rights” would open up that broader view.
Councilmember Etten opined that may open up a whole new area.
Mayor Roe also expressed concern in not including “human” in the title.
Amendment to the Motion
Willmus moved to keep Councilmember Etten’s suggested title but add “diversity,” creating the title “Human Rights, Diversity, Inclusion and Engagement Commission,” or some order thereof.
Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion to Call the Question
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, calling the question.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Roll Call (Original Commission Name Motion by Etten)
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Motion (Amended Ordinance Enactment)
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1526 (Attachment D as amended) entitled, “An Ordinance Summary Amending Selected Text of and Title Roseville City Code, Title 2, Commissions.
As noted by City Manager Trudgeon, the ordinance and title are amended as per tonight’s action, including corrected wording of the title in line 13 of Section 205.01; correcting the commission title to “Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC).”
Mayor Roe thanked all for their feedback; and reiterated that the City Council had made the decision in February related to retaining two commissions versus one combined commission. Mayor Roe stated his and his colleagues’ anticipation for the success of the combined commission that had served as basic rationale in this recommended action.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Motion (Ordinance Summary)
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1526 (Attachment E) entitled, “An Ordinance Summary Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 2, Commissions;” as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Going forward, Mayor Roe announced that the City Council Subcommittee would remain involved with the newly-created commission for the first few months, advising that they would serve as Chair for the first meetings until election of a Chair from the group as they moved forward. Mayor Roe advised that the intent of continued involvement of the Subcommittee was to ensure the success of the new commission. At this time, via poll of existing commissioners, Mayor Roe advised that the commission would meet on the third Wednesday of each month, which has been the schedule for current HRC meetings.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:48 p.m.
e. Review Cedarholm Community Building Site Plan and Image Options
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke introduced the consultant architectural team and updated preliminary site and floor plans and building images as guiding principles for the site.
Tim McIIwain, HCM Architects
Mr. McIIwain provided an update as part of his presentation, including initial site plan concepts and building appearance options, with an overlay of the expanded parking lot on the southwest corner of the site, increasing parking stalls from the mid-sixties to eight plus with improved access points and relocation of the building site itself. Mr. McIIwain noted the relocation of the putting green to the golf course itself, and larger area for reception and patio space, all indicated as highly desirable by the community and advisory committee. Mr. McIIwain reviewed other components of the proposed architecture and site topography, secure golf cart storage after hours and along the path.
As to the building plan itself, Mr. McIIwain presented several options showing more detail as to how the space was proposed to work as a community building for those members of the community desiring to use it outside golfing events; and programming for a building of 3,000 to 5,000 square feet total.
Van Moore, HCM Architects
Mr. Moore provided two potential elevations for initial review tonight and components of each and variables to consider with each iteration, and with the community’s desire that this building even if serving as a community building can still be distinct from other buildings recently installed in the park system.
Mr. Moore viewed the two options: one asymmetrical and one with a hipped roof. Mr. Moore advised that the details would be further refined as the process proceeds.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke reviewed the check-in process and City Council direction at the end of Task 1 with more refined numbers. For the purposes of tonight’s update, Mr. Brokke clarified that the consulting architects were looking for City Council preference as to an option and image choice as presented.
As brought up several times in the past, Councilmember McGehee reiterated for the benefit of the architects her concern with long-term maintenance, energy efficiencies, and as a member of the Audubon Society the need for windows addressing bird strikes as Roseville’s green space, just to the north east of the golf course is part of a flyover area, as well as solar orientation of the building if possible. Councilmember McGehee stated that she hadn’t investigated how and if their plan lay over existing vegetation, but asked that as the orientation of the building and parking lot was finalized, existing green space and vegetation be conserved to the greatest degree possible. Further, Councilmember McGehee asked for careful consideration for window placement and potential solar use on the initial roof design. Also, with the apparent proposal for vaulted ceilings, Councilmember McGehee asked that the aesthetics be balanced with additional consideration of higher energy and higher maintenance costs for vaulted space. As a representative of city taxpayers, Councilmember McGehee stated her concern that long-term costs be considered. Councilmember McGehee also asked that the building’s internal and external flow address criteria needs of the advisory group.
Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no issues with the parking lot’s layout; and expressed appreciation for the flow and angle parking, as well as ingress/egress for the site. As part of this building, but to also satisfy the needs of the broader community other than golfers, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in a building available for year-round use. When considering that, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for Option 2.b, with the hip roof design and southern-facing roof to be more accommodating for possible solar panel installation upon construction or in the future. Councilmember Willmus also expressed his interest in the wrap-around outside seating area to accommodate larger gathering and protect people from direct sunlight or inclement weather, allowing for some extension of the seasons.
Councilmember Etten also expressed interest in one of the two variables of Option 2 with hip roof, allowing for a hard covering for sun/shade versus a temporary solution allowing for more extensive use of the exterior gathering area. However, with that additional exterior coverage, Councilmember Etten expressed concern if that would impact the interior of the building by making it darker during the day, especially with a lower, hip roof and whether more windows may be needed. If so, Councilmember Etten offered his preference for allowing more natural light into the space, especially to take advantage of the western view onto the golf course.
Councilmember Laliberte also expressed her preference of Option 2 and the covered roof option if intended for use year-round in Minnesota. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten’s concerns with dark interiors and asked that the architect address that. Councilmember Laliberte stated her appreciation for the sloped roof on the south side for eventual consideration of solar panels; and asked if access from the community room onto the patio provided the ability for doors to open and allow for free air flow.
Mr. McIIwain responded that while the plan was developing in more detail than these proposals, the egress and direct access from the interior was provided for both halves of the space onto the patio.
Mayor Roe stated that he was gravitating toward Option 2.a or 2.b also, while remaining unsure at this point whether he liked the roof or lattice better, or perhaps a combination of the two. Mayor Roe shared the concerns in not cutting off the view to the west, allowing for showing the expanse of the golf course even in light of the drop off. Mayor Roe agreed with concerns with the overhang and concerns with windows and lightings, as well as not having ceilings too high and using too much energy, also asking that the architect carefully balance energy costs and full use of the building with sustainability of its design and potential future technologies throughout.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of Option 2.b; and agreed with Mayor Roe on the need to balance aesthetics and effective use (height of interior spaces).
Mr. Brokke displayed the anticipated next steps for design development (further refinement), preparation of construction documents, advertisement for proposals, selection of a contractor, and project timing for a potential construction start in September of 2017.
Discussion ensued regarding the Task 1 and Task 2 differences, with Task 1 defined by Mr. Brokke as finishing of design work; and Task 2 anticipated to end mid-June.
Mayor Roe stated the City Council’s expectation of a check-in late May with more refined dollars and details to develop final designs and specifications at that point.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe confirmed that the City Council appeared to have a consensus viewpoint on the design type for the proposed building; but clarified that it wasn’t the final design that would be further refined during the month of May by the architectural consultants to reach that final design stage.
Councilmember Etten further clarified that this is the City Council’s check-in on the process; and once at the end of Task 1, the details and dollars would be refined to move forward; and to review other pieces of information available at that time unless a glaringly obvious issue comes forward between now and then.
Mr. Brokke outlined the deliverables available at the end of the design process for the City Council’s information.
f. Consider a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 735 County Road B-2
As previously noted, this item was resolved by the property owner and removed from tonight’s agenda.
g. Consider a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 966 Sherren Street W
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund summarized this request and provided updated photos of the code violations as of today for this single-family, owner-occupied home, with the owner of record listed as Molly McCue. Mr. Englund reviewed current violations including an outside piling, storing and keeping of debris (407.03.H); storing of trailers in front yard (407.03.Q.1.a) and vehicle without valid license (407.02.O.4), vehicle constituting a public nuisance (vehicle without license plates – 407.02.O.4) and storing of inoperable motor vehicles (407.03Qc). Mr. Englund advised that abatement would encompass removal and disposal of items stored, piled and kept in the driveway; relocation of the trailer in the front yard to the driveway behind the front line of the home; and removal of the unlicensed vehicle removal of the vehicle at an estimated cost of $500.00.
As of today, Mr. Englund advised that the violations involving outside storage and trailer in the front yard had been corrected; with before/after pictures displayed of this complaint originating from area residents. Mr. Englund advised that in his conversations with the property owner today, they indicated that the vehicle was scheduled for donation and pick-up tomorrow; and requested that be duly noted in the requested abatement action.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance at 966 Sherren Street W by removal of the unlicensed vehicle if not removed by the owner by the end of business on Wednesday, April 26, 2017; with the property owner billed for actual and administrative costs; and if those charges are not paid, staff will recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Consider a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 2096 Fry Street
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund summarized this request and provided updated photos of the code violations as of today for this rental housing complex with four, four-unit building and a single family home, with the owners of record listed as Nips, Inc.; and not currently registered as a rental property. Mr. Englund reviewed current violations including accumulation of debris (407.02.D); and outside storage of junk, household items and other debris (407.03.H). Mr. Englund advised that abatement would encompass removal of the vehicle at an estimated cost of $1,000.00.
Mr. Englund noted that this originated as a resident complaint; and to-date staff had received no response from the property owner.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance at 2096 Fry Street by hiring a general contractor to remove and dispose of the outside storage of items referenced at this hearing; directing staff to bill the property owner for actual and administrative costs; with the property owner billed for actual and administrative costs; and if those charges are not paid, staff will recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she saw this area as a loophole in the city’s rental licensing program; with similar situations with multi-family housing needing registration and periodic inspection. Councilmember McGehee requested that, at a later date, Community Development Department staff bring forward recommendations to correct this loophole, particularly given the unresponsiveness of the landlord in this case.
Councilmember Willmus stated his agreement with Councilmember McGehee; suggesting future language address “units per site.”
Mr. Englund advised there were a total of eighteen dwelling units on this site.
Mayor Roe opined that this seemed to qualify, and if not, adjustments should be made accordingly.
While Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for Mr. Englund including a timeline as previously requested, Councilmember Willmus asked that it be condensed to a smaller sheet for subsequent presentations.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
i. Consider a Community Development Department Request for Approval of Proposed Text Ordinance Amendments of Roseville City Code, Section 307.06 (Duration)
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA and for the benefit of contractors working in the community.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1525 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Section 307.06: Duration.”
Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation to staff for looking into this and bringing it forward. When looking at housing costs in the community, Councilmember Willmus noted that often the largest impact for those costs is in government regulations.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, noting this would serve the goal of making it easier to do business in Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
j. Review and Provide Comment on the First Two Chapters of a Comprehensive Technical Update to the Requirements and Procedures for Processing Subdivision Proposals as Regulated in City Code, Title 11 (Subdivision) (PROJ-0042)
Due to time constraints tonight and the desire to allow sufficient time to review and discuss these proposed updates, without objection Mayor Roe tabled this item to the May 8, 2017 meeting.
8. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
a. Approve City Council Minutes – April 10, 2017
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the April 10, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 24, 2017.
a. Approve Payments
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.
|
ACH Payments |
$3,698,117.34 |
|
85149 – 85284 |
890,134.05 |
|
TOTAL |
$4,588,251.39 |
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, “2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,” updated March 31, 2017.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of trade in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for 2017 Pavement Management Project
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11412 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2017 Pavement Management Project;” to T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of No. St. Paul, MN in an amount not to exceed $2,877,613.82.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Approve Entering into an Agreement for the Water Booster Station Improvements
Councilmember McGehee asked if this study would also include information on options to correct the area of Roseville with insufficient water pressure.
City Manager Trudgeon responded that the study was comprehensive based on his understanding, but advised that he would double-check and report back to the City Council.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and AE2S for Water Booster Station Improvements.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Award Contract for Engineering Services for Rehabilitation of Walsh Lift Station
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and SEH, Inc. for engineering services for reconstruction of the Walsh Storm Sewer Lift Station, in an amount not to exceed $59,800.00.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Approve Retaining Wall Agreement at 1995 County Road B
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Retaining Wall Agreement (Attachment A) entitled, “Agreement of Assessment and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal:” at 1995 County Road B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Consider a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change at 211 N McCarrons Boulevard (PROJ0041)
Mayor Roe noted the requirement for a 4/5 vote on this comprehensive plan amendment.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11413 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Designation from Institutional (IN) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for Property located at 211 N McCarrons boulevard (PROJ0041);
Roll Call (Super Majority Vote)
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
i. Approve Authorization to Accept Grant Funding from Ramsey County Emergency Management and Homeland Security for Night Vision Optics
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager, and Roseville Police Chief, to sign a grant agreement (Attachment A) with Ramsey County Emergency Management & Homeland Security, thereby allowing the City of Roseville, on behalf of the East Metro Swat team to accept grant funding and proceed with the purchasing of night vision optics equipment.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
j. Consider an Interim Use Renewal Pursuant to Roseville City Code, Chapter 2009.03 to Permit Seasonal Household Hazardous Waste Collection at Ramsey County Kent Street Property (PF17-003)
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11414 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Five-Year Extension to Ramsey County’s Existing Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site as an Interim Use (IU) in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Chapter 1009.03.:
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
i. Appoint Annual Variance Board Members
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation to those commissioners willing up to leadership on the Variance Board, noting the heavy workload this year on the Planning Commission with the comprehensive plan update.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, ratification of the selection of Planning Commissioners Jim Daire, Chuck Gitzen, Julie Kimble, and Alternate Pete Sparby to serve as Variance Board members from May 3, 2017 to April 4, 2018.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
10. Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe reported a liaison update related to the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue group attended by him, Councilmember Etten and city staff last week. At that time, Mayor Roe reported that four at-large community members had been appointed as well as one Planning Commissioner to represent the City of Roseville on the Community Advisory Group. While it was hard to choose among interested applicants to serve in this capacity, Mayor Roe opined that those chosen seemed to complement those representatives appointed to serve from other municipalities, with eight representing the City of St. Paul, five from each suburban community and from each entity’s Planning Commissions. Mayor Roe stated that he looked forward to each representative providing a great contribution to this effort.
Councilmember Laliberte reported on the most recent Community Health Advisory Team (CHAT) seminar and panel discussion held last week focusing on advanced health care directives; and applauded this group on their continued work.
11. Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming meeting agendas.
12. Adjourn
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:41 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.