View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 9, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for May: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
With consensus, Mayor Roe suggested
that Agenda Items 3, 4 and 5 and 6 be moved forward on the agenda prior to the
joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Approve Application for Minnesota
Department of commerce Auto Theft Program Grant.”
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. Ms. Ilona Rouda, 946
Ms. Rouda noted the extensive
efforts she spends on her property’s landscaping and the frustration with the
ever-increasing deer population in their neighborhood and damages to their
shrubs and plantings. Ms. Rouda noted the significant amount of money spent on
deterrents, to no avail, and upon her return from spending part of the winter
in the south, the amount of damage found from winter feeding by deer in their
yard. Ms. Rouda noted staff’s opinion that an electric fence would not be
approved to deter this problem due to the City’s zoning ordinance and safety
issues; and asked that the City manage the deer population, estimating that
there were approximately 100 deer in the immediate community.
b. Greg Moder Ms. Rouda’s next door
Mr. Moder concurred with Ms.
Rouda; and opined that the deer population was taking away from their
neighborhood’s quality of life; and unless something was done, similar to the
work of the City of Little Canada and supporting those efforts, there would be
no relief. While not supporting deer harvesting, Mr. Moder opined that there
appeared to be no other solution.
Mayor Roe noted that the City had
been monitoring the deer population; however, it needed to take more proactive
action to address this issue.
c. John Chelstrom; 980
Lydia Avenue W
Mr. Chelstrom concurred with the
previous speakers and the ongoing deer problem. Mr. Chelstrom opined that this
was not only a nuisance issue, but also a safety hazard with deer crossing the
road. Mr. Chelstrom suggested that the deer appear to traverse through the
Little Lake Josephine wetland area to the Lake Owasso area.
Pam Jakes 943 Lydia Drive
Ms. Jakes noted that their
property wasn’t adjacent to green space or natural habitat areas, but their
homes were actually several rows of homes into the more urban area; indicating
that the deer were moving further into the neighborhood. Ms. Jakes expressed
concern, in addition to killing the vegetation, the potential of them carrying
e. Don Jakes, 943 Lydia
Mr. Jakes noted the significant
increase in deer over the last year; the deer jumping fences to access
backyards, and his observation of a half-dozen moving through his yard daily.
Mr. Jakes opined if the herd was this high now, another breeding season could
only serve to create more problems.
Mayor Roe thanked residents for sending
a clear message through their public comment; and asked staff to follow-up;
advising that the City Council and/or staff would report back to those
speaking. Mayor Roe and Councilmember Pust noted that they experienced similar
problems at their homes.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers
announced upcoming meetings/events and how to obtain additional information.
May 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm – Yellow Ribbon Community Organization –
kick-off organizational meeting at the Roseville Skating Center for any
May 11, 2011 from 7:00 – 8:45 pm - Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Implementation Community Meeting #2 at the Roseville Skating Center Rose
Room where preliminary outcomes of the recently-completed Master Plan
Implementation Survey will be available; and “next steps” discussed by
Implementation Team Work Groups; as well as opportunities to speak with citizen
leaders, neighbors, and staff on current parks and recreation needs
May 14, 2011 from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm - Pottery in the Garden at
the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum
May 21, 2011 from 9:00 am to 12:00 Noon – Free shredding day at
Roseville City Hall for residents; up to five (5) bankers boxes will be
accepted, with all documents shredded on site and then sent to a paper mill for
Rosefest Kick-off information and brochures are hot off the press
for this annual community celebration from June 25 through July 4, 2011; with
Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus
expressed their appreciation of the learning opportunity as they participated
and observed the Fire Department hold a controlled burn of a home on County
Road B and Chatsworth. Both Councilmembers noted their favorable impression
with the entire operation from administration, training, organization, and the
efficiency in the event.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
Proclaim May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace
Officers’ Memorial Day
Mayor Roe read a proclamation designating
May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in
the City of Roseville, MN.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
proclaiming May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace Officers’
Memorial Day in Roseville, MN.
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson;
Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
b. Proclaim May as Older
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
designating May as Older American’s Month.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
proclaiming May as Older American’s Month in the City of Roseville, MN.
Vice President Marilyn Hendricks of the North Suburban Area
Senior Council, and several other representatives of the Senior Council read a
brief statement and were recognized by Mayor Roe and the entire City Council.
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of April 25, 2011 Meeting
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions
were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the April 25, 2011 meeting as presented.
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson;
Willmus; and Roe.
Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
Planning Commissioners present
included Chair Daniel Boerigter; Vice-Chair John Gisselquist; Commissioner Joe
Wozniak; Peter Strohmeier; and Michael Boguszewski
Planning Commission Chair Daniel
Boerigter sought feedback from the City Council on topics they saw coming
before the Commission in 2011/2012, in addition to those already slated: Twin
Lakes Regulating Map; additional work on the updated Zoning Code. Chair
Boerigter noted that Councilmembers typically watched the Commission meetings
as well as receiving their meeting minutes, so were aware of the activities and
discussions at that level.
Councilmember Pust asked that the
Planning Commission carefully review the City’s Shoreland Ordinance from a
zoning and development perspective as it is updated following Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) mandated revisions; and taking into consideration
recommendations of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation
Commission. Specifically, Councilmember Pust noted past issues on Lake Owasso
and structures being built too close to the shoreland, with that entire issue
not currently addressed well in City Code; needing to be addressed from a land
use perspective as well as from an environmental stewardship perspective.
Councilmember Willmus requested
more timely copies of draft meeting minutes following their meeting,
specifically when an issue is coming before the City Council. While the City
Council typically receives excerpts of those meeting minutes as part of staff
reports, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference that a copy of the
complete minutes be provided.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
the City’s Communication staff was doing a great job in airing the Planning
Commission meetings consistently on Sunday evenings at 8:00 pm; usually prior
to upcoming City Council meetings, making it easier to stay aware of land use
Councilmember Johnson noted the
need for future discussion on buffers between medium and high density
residential properties and single-family residential properties; with Mayor Roe
noted that the topic was included on the City Council’s work plan. Mayor Roe
noted that it was one of several technical planning/zoning adjustments found
needing further revision following the recent Zoning Code adoption.
Councilmember Johnson noted the
need to address large and small lots throughout the community as well.
Chair Boerigter asked that
collectively, or individually, Councilmembers provide the Commission with their
goals for establishing buffers, so the Commission is not just relying on
staff’s recommendations, if the City Council was looking for greater buffer
areas; and if Councilmembers were looking at creating a large lot district.
Mayor Roe noted that the issue was
not a simple one, with one solution to satisfy the City Council majority and
community at large; as experienced over the last few years during numerous
Councilmember McGehee questioned
how the Commission felt about bringing issues of interest from their group to
the City Council, since they represented the citizens rather than serving as a
conduit between staff and the City Council; opining that she viewed their roles
as representative of the community. If the Commission had ideas for the
process, she expressed her interest in hearing from them; or if there were
ideas or issues arising from Commission deliberations that Commissioners
thought should be brought forward. Councilmember McGehee expressed her
personal interest in revisiting Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) as a tool for
specific applications for land stewardship; as well as an overlay district for
large lots. Councilmember McGehee opined that the Commission was in a good
position to initiate some things themselves and bring them forward.
Chair Boerigter, based on his
experience and involvement as a Planning Commissioner, opined that the Planning
Commission role is not to initiate changes to code; and opined that it had
never been their job, based on his understanding of the Commission’s charge and
direction from the City Council, as well as statutory provisions for a Planning
Commission. Chair Boerigter noted that land use issues and considerations
worked their way through staff and the City Council, and were then brought to
the attention of the Planning Commission for their debate and recommendation,
and an opportunity for public comment. Chair Boerigter opined that it was not
the Commission’s job to amend code or propose amendments; and if the Commission
observed any problem areas, they communicated that to the City Council through
staff and sought authority and directive to move forward toward finding a
solution. Chair Boerigter noted that the Commission was not charged with
engaging the City Attorney to amend code without first having City Council
Councilmember McGehee questioned to
whom the Commission made their comments if, during the process, they found the
need for corrective action; and how that was communicated to the City Council.
Chair Boerigter advised that those
deliberations and those actions without consensus were duly reflected in the
Commission’s meeting minutes; providing specific points that the Commission,
individually or corporately, recommended that the City Council provide
additional consideration. Chair Boerigter advised that, for the most part, the
Commission was dealing with specific land use issues from specific
applications, not looking for problem areas.
Councilmember McGehee noted
statutory language compared to the historical operation of the Planning
Commission in Roseville; and expressed her interest in having the Commission
take a broader role as a conduit between citizens and the City Council.
Mayor Roe noted that that broader
role already took place, as alluded to by Chair Boerigter, when the Commission
had been well discussed at the Planning Commission level and their individual
points of view and corporate recommendation on an application were forwarded to
the City Council; with the Commission recommending an additional or future
action. Mayor Roe opined that it made sense from the Planning Commission’s
point of view, not to spend considerable time on things that may not proceed;
without having come before the City Council first.
Councilmember Johnson thanked
Commissioners Boerigter, Gisselquist, and Wozniak for their extensive work on
the zoning code rewrite and the time required for those full and long agenda;
and welcomed newly-appointed Commissioners Peter Strohmeier and Michael
Boguszewski. Councilmember Johnson noted his additional learning curve on some
things that the Commission had worked on conceptually, such as urban
development for pedestrian friendly environments; and suggested individual
Councilmembers seek additional learning opportunities on the purpose and intent
of that type of urban development trend.
Commissioner Gisselquist noted the
spirited debates held at the Planning Commission level on building and parking
lot proximity to sidewalks, garages, and garage doors. Commissioner
Gisselquist noted that those zoning code amendments and pedestrian friendly
efforts had actually originated in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community
visioning process, but had provided some contentious debates on new urbanism
Councilmember Johnson noted the
urban development model as part of the Twin Lakes regulating map.
Commissioner Gisselquist advised
that the Commission had held that initial discussion at their most recent
meeting, and the concerns that needed to be addressed for building locations
and their relationship to streets and functionality in comparison to the
remainder of Roseville with wider streets; and how to realistically implement
that urban design concept.
Chair Boerigter noted that the last
Commission meeting was used for presentation of the Twin Lakes regulating map,
providing an educational overview on regulating maps and concepts of what the
area might look like; but that no details had been developed yet. Chair
Boerigter noted the upcoming public open house on May 25, 2011, to receive public
input on Twin Lakes regulating map; following which the Commission would hold a
special meeting in June with a Public Hearing to hear additional public
comment; followed by recommendation to the City Council the end of June, not
allowing much time to ensure that the regulating map fits with the Twin Lakes
vision, given that not everyone seems to agree on what that vision is, based on
various processes over a number of years. Chair Boerigter expressed his
concern that by the time the regulating map was presented to the City Council,
it may be found not to be the vision of the City Council; and require more
in-depth discussions on the Twin Lakes redevelopment area.
Councilmember Johnson encouraged
individual Commissioners to reiterate, at the time of their voting on
recommendations to the City Council, their rationale in voting an issue up or
down; allowing the City Council to review those meeting minutes and discern
their intent and any reservations.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her
interest in hearing comments from the Commission, such as this one, whether a
process is too accelerated to allow sufficient public comment and consideration
prior to the item being recommended to the City Council.
Mayor Roe suggested that it was
reasonable if the Commission wanted to continue a public hearing to the next
month, and opined that it should present no problem from the City Council’s
perspective. Related to the Twin Lakes regulating map, Mayor Roe noted that
the City Council recognized its purpose to establish how uses related to each
other and the street, and not to provide a 3-D model of how Twin Lakes will
Councilmember Pust suggested that
individual Commissioners share their views on what Twin Lakes should look like;
and when prompted by Chair Boerigter that individual Councilmembers share their
views first; declined.
Commissioner Gisselquist noted that
the Twin Lakes redevelopment area had been designated as Community Mixed Use,
suggesting businesses below and residential units above in some of those
instances; but that it was not meant to be destination retail such as a
mini-Rosedale. Personally, Commissioner Gisselquist opined that it may
actually make a good place for retail; while recognizing the controversial
nature of such an opinion; he saw the area moving more toward a medium retail
area with some residential mixes.
Chair Boerigter shared his personal
vision, and based on what had happened with various proposals over the last few
years; opining that the area would encompass more office use than retail; with
retail limited and tied to residential in that area, as well as
commercial/office uses. When considering traditional mixed uses, Chair
Boerigter opined that it was thought of in terms of retail on the first floor,
and office or residential above, similar to the developments at Snelling and
Larpenteur or Rice Street in Little Canada. Chair Boerigter saw those uses as
much more limited, since the area won’t have those types of mixed use
buildings, and therefore shouldn’t be the City’s vision. Chair Boerigter
didn’t anticipate significant residential uses either, but more
commercial/office uses; and from his perspective, suggested that those uses
were consistent with citizen preferences expressed for high quality jobs in
nicely developed uses mixed in with a little residential and a little retail;
not developing similarly to Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove, or Excelsior and Grand
in St. Louis Park with retail and mixes uses. Chair Boerigter suggested more
building types similar to those located across Cleveland Avenue, moving those
jobs over to the Twin Lakes development, with some residential and limited
retail. Chair Boerigter opined that it wouldn’t be another Rosedale; and that
citizens had already expressed their lack of interest in a Costco, and would
probably feel similarly about a Walmart. However, if only residential was
sought, Chair Boerigter didn’t see that happening either. Chair Boerigter
opined that, if the City wanted mixed use that was efficient and desirable for
the market as well rather than the mixed use that was in vogue several years
ago, it would be more concentrated with commercial/office, and minimal
residential and retail.
Commissioner Wozniak concurred with
Chair Boerigter, opining that he didn’t see much of a retail role in Twin
Lakes, or see it as a Grand Avenue scenario. Commissioner Wozniak noted that
he continued to support the Complete Streets concept moving forward; and saw
the area mainly as an office park with some medium and high density housing, with
both of those combinations working well together; and making an excellent
bridge toward Langton Lake and the entire park concept. Commission Wozniak
supported developing the park and trail connections to facilitate a green
working environment. Commissioner Wozniak opined that retail would continue to
e focused around the Rosedale area; however, he noted that there were many
unknowns, particularly if the Vikings Stadium were to locate in Arden Hills,
affecting many regional communities.
Commissioner Strohmeier concurred
with Chair Boerigter; and expressed his preference for a balance, not all
retail. However, Commissioner Strohmeier noted the need for the open house and
presentation of the proposed regulating map; and balancing where the office
space made sense, as well as where residential was indicated; and connecting it
all to parks and trails.
Commissioner Boguszewski attempted
to summarize discussions to-date; opining that it appeared that the Commission
should look at the Twin Lakes area from what was desired versus what was
achievable; with destination retail not a preferred option. Commissioner
Boguszewski concurred with Chair Boerigter , that the logistics were not
available to support a huge retail location for a mall mass, but rather housing
stock or apartments. Commissioner Boguszewski suggested that, based on the
projected demographics and growth of Roseville, that the free market had a say
in this; however, he noted that the unfortunate reality was that the highways
and road access may dictate what happens; and further noted that if residential
were a strong option, it would have happened already. Commissioner Boguszewski
opined that the most achievable and successful use would be for corporate use,
with some medium density high-rise residential to facilitate the City’s aging
population, not growing population; and opined that mass retail made little
sense; and that such a development scenario was very different than the modern
urbanism that had been talked about to-date.
Councilmember Pust concurred with
Chair Boerigter on his perceptions related to mixes uses such as Excelsior and
Grand or Arbor Lakes; and suggested that if that was what the new urban design
was trying to accomplish, those efforts needed to be re-evaluated, as it was
last year’s news. Councilmember Pust opined that single-family homes would not
spring up in Twin Lakes, but that additional multi-family housing was needed;
and would be suitable there. However, Councilmember Pust opined that it was
critical that the City Council and Roseville residents realize that the free
market had the whole role in the Twin Lakes area, since the City did not own
the property. Councilmember Pust noted that the community could talk about
what they wanted to try to influence in the area; however, there were private
pieces of property and the individual applications brought forward would need
to be considered on their own merits, not being designed by or for the City.
Personally, Councilmember Pust supported a Trader Joe’s store in the Twin Lakes
area if she were doing the design; opining that it was appropriately scaled for
such a neighborhood, and with new multi-family housing stock, it would be a
Commissioner Boguszewski noted that
Trader Joe’s did market to multi-family housing demographics; and noted the
attractiveness of existing commercial/office uses relocating to Twin Lakes to
provide a greener environment for their staff.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Commissioner Gisselquist’s comments; and reiterated cautions that the City
did not control the property, and the market would drive development.
Councilmember Willmus also cautioned that, if the regulating map was overly
restrictive and hindered a particular segment of the market that was recovering
earlier than other segments, such as retail versus office, it could seriously
impede development. Councilmember Willmus noted that the City had been
awaiting development for the Twin Lakes area since the late 1980’s and opined
that the more the City became involved or the more cautious about its
regulating map, the more difficult it would be to attract reliable developers.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal interest in office development;
however, he was unsure of the current market for that type of development; and
opined that the retail sector may recover faster than the office sector, noting
the considerable vacant office space currently available in the metropolitan
area. Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation of the Commissioners,
their comments, and the lively discussions held at their meetings.
Mayor Roe, in expressing his
personal vision for the Twin Lakes area, advised that he didn’t envision mixed
use to be vertical; but thought more of a mixture of uses spread throughout it,
with the purpose of the regulating map not to define use, but space those uses
and their relationship t the streets, pathways and park systems. Mayor Roe
encouraged the discussion remain focused in those terms, to provide a flexible
framework to provide the best opportunities possible to allow development to
happen in the current economic times. Mayor Roe opined that the development
would happen in a piecemeal way; but as long as the regulating map provided a
broad vision and definition or how it related to the rest of the community; the
City could prove itself a good steward and make it a successful development.
Chair Boerigter clarified that he
was not suggesting that staff was leaning toward a restrictive regulating map,
since it had yet to be presented; noting his concern was specific criteria for
new urbanism design fit the potential uses; opining that if the regulating map
prevented certain designs, would it hinder the market from moving forward.
Mayor Roe concurred with Chair
Boerigter that attention needed to be given to that valid concern.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Chair Boerigter; but disagreed with the City Council majority when stating
that the City didn’t own the land; and clarified that the City did control the
zoning. While Councilmember McGehee recognized that past Council majorities
had arbitrarily decided on mixed use designation for the Twin Lakes are; her
interpretation of its definition in the new zoning code had a potential to be
in conflict and not fit. Councilmember McGehee opined that retail jobs are not
good jobs and that retail was an expensive thing to host; and recognized that
Roseville already hosted more retail than any other city in the State of MN;
and noted the lack of willingness by Rosedale in sharing the costs, such as for
additional police patrols. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City needed
to be aware of its tax base and consider living wage jobs, not retail jobs.
Councilmember McGehee noted that the residents had supported and deserved parks
and other amenities, and unless the City was to raise taxes, it needed to
position itself moving into the future to consider the tax base and how to
increase it with infill development that would facilitate budgetary needs, not
through parking lots and lower paying jobs. Councilmember McGehee opined that
high-end housing should occur in Twin Lakes, such as on the Meritex property,
with development and connection of parks, pathways, and walkways through
existing businesses, and taking advantage of Langton Lake. Councilmember
McGehee opined that additional multi-family housing was not needed right now,
but more townhomes and condominiums. Councilmember McGehee suggested creation
of an Economic Development Commission in addition to the Planning Commission to
evaluate development proposals and whether those proposals met needs currently
unmet in the community and serving to significantly increase the city’s tax
Commissioner Boguszewski suggested,
given the varying opinions of individual Councilmembers, that the regulating
map needed to be flexible enough to move in multiple directions as the market
directed; and multiple uses on that broad site be compatible with common themes
in order to work together.
Councilmember Johnson suggested
that there had been substantial progress made, under the guidance of the City
Council and administration of Community Development Director Trudgeon, in
developing the Twin Lakes infrastructure and in cleaning up contamination to
make the area ready for development. Councilmember Johnson noted that, in
moving forward, the City Council needed to be good steward of the properties
undergoing changes, but driven by the free market. Councilmember Johnson
personally supported more technology and bioscience businesses in that area;
noting that those companies were growing and at a place where they could
acquire land and construct new facilities.
Councilmember Pust observed that
they would also need a Trader Joe’s.
Councilmember Willmus suggested
that individual Planning Commissioners feel free to contact individual
Councilmembers as they felt lead to do so, and if they felt passionate about a
particular issue; but not included in the meeting minutes.
Mayor Roe advised that, if there
were obvious issues coming forward and the Commissioners sought guidance from
the City Council, they bring forward a motion for City Council review; and as a
body the City Council could provide direction, rather than as individual action,
noting that both bodies worked on majority rule votes. Mayor Roe noted, as
Councilmember Johnson reminded him, of the City Council work plan that made
sense to forward to the Planning Commission once it was finalized. Mayor Roe
noted that one of the items included on that work plan was the recent issue of
pawn shops and similar uses that needed to receive further consideration from a
zoning as well as licensing point.
Councilmember Johnson also noted
the work plan also included the issue of how to determine circumstances for
larger notice areas and what triggered larger notice areas, using consistent
criteria; and expressed his interest in receiving the Commission’s input on
both of those items.
Mayor Roe and City Councilmembers thanked Commissioners for
their attendance at tonight’s meeting and their comments; as well as for their
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe,
City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under
the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Mayor Roe noted several items
listed as “fraudulent purchases,” and as confirmed by City Manager Malinen,
advised that those items would be reimbursed at a later date.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
62770 – 62430
Set Public Hearing to Consider Outback Steakhouse of Florida’s
Application for On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License Transfer
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
scheduling a Public Hearing on May 23, 2011, for On-Sale and Sunday
Intoxicating Liquor License for Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, d/b/a
Adopt Resolution of Support for Transportation Funding as
Requested by the Regional Council of Mayors
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No.10896 (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving the Request by the Regional Council of Mayors for Transportation
Funding;” requesting the Legislature to keep transportation funding a high
priority, especially for public transportation modes.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services
presented as follows:
Replace Network Switches
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve Application for Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto
Theft Program Grant (former Consent Item 7.c)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated May 9, 2011; requesting proceeding with the
application at this time, with no matching funds needed if the grant is
Councilmember McGehee questioned if this device had been tried elsewhere; and
questioned the benefit of scanning license plates of parked cars.
City Manager Malinen clarified
that the device scanned moving or stationary vehicles.
Councilmember McGehee further
questioned the amount of staff time required to complete the application for
this grant; whether the grant funds covered the full cost of the equipment, its
installation and maintenance, or actual costs from start to finish.
City Manager Malinen advised that
Police Chief Mathwig was not available at tonight’s meeting to provide
additional detail; however, if the City Council was not prepared to take action
tonight, he suggested deferring action until a later date when additional
detail was available.
Councilmember Pust suggested, if
action were deferred, for additional information related to probable cause in
scanning license plates to avoid perceptions of profiling.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised
that, in his experience, the device performed something already being done
manually by officers, but the equipment automatically read the plate; and in
terms of profiling, the device appeared to simply duplicate what was already
being done for routine registration stops, by running a registration check on a
publically-displayed license plate.
Mayor Roe noted a recent presentation he had heard by Police Chief Mathwig and
the City of Maplewood Police Chief; and suggested if so desired, that relevant
information could be obtained from the City of Maplewood’s department, since
they’ve already deployed the equipment.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
the City of Roseville had chosen to have a single versus dual officer mode in
squads; making this a safer option than an officer stopping to use a computer
to run a registration.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
authorization to the Police Department to apply for funding through the
Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Insurance Fraud Prevention, to
purchase an automatic license plat reader system, at a cost of approximately
$25,000, to deploy in its unmarked traffic squad in its ongoing efforts to
reduce auto theft and thefts from autos in the City of Roseville.
Mayor Roe suggested that, if the
grant was awarded, the additional information as discussed should come forward
with that action request to accept the funds.
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
11. Public Hearings
Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the Vacation of the Public Highway
Easement that covers the small triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna
Thomas Paschke provided a brief review of the request as detailed in the RCA
dated May 9, 2011; noting that the highway easement dated back to 1942; and
that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) interest was no longer
needed. Mr. Paschke advised that MnDOT had conveyed their interest in the
property to the City of Roseville; and that the City was vacating their
interest in the easement.
clarified that the easement was only a portion of the triangle portion shown on
the displayed map with a portion remaining as part of the frontage road.
opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public
comment on the vacation of the Public Highway Easement that covers the small
triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna Green
Charles Kelly, 1620 West Highway 36,
lives next door to this property
provided several photos indicating removal of a hedgerow of trees separating
Sienna Green from Rosewood Village property as part of the construction project
to-date. In further investigation, Mr. Kelly noted that the trees were
apparently removed in error; and while his concerns were not specifically related
to this particular property currently under discussion, he expressed concern
that another grove of trees would be removed to facilitate construction for
Sienna Green. Mr. Kelly expressed his anger that the trees, of significant
size, had been removed from the property, combined with the cumulative loss of
green space with additional construction. Mr. Kelly expressed further concern
that the property had inadequate on-site parking, requiring parking on both
sides of the frontage road, creating problematic site lines and narrow streets
for other residents in the area, specifically those in Rosewood Village. Mr.
Kelly expressed concern that this may be his last opportunity to ensure that
his neighborhood was more functional; and asked that the City not grant the
Johnson questioned if other owners shared similar concerns to those of Mr.
Mr. Kelly was
unsure of similar concerns; and recognized that the development was a
significant improvement from the former Har Mar Apartments; but reiterated his
concern about the tree removal.
Johnson questioned if Mr. Kelly had addressed his concerns to Sienna Green
Mr. Kelly advised that Sienna Green representatives used the excuse that the
trees were removed in error; and he was unaware of their intent to remove them
until they came down. Mr. Kelly noted that some smaller trees had been
planted to replace the larger trees.
closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Mayor Roe noted
that there were several actions related to Sienna Green on tonight’s meeting
questioned, and Mr. Paschke clarified, that there were forty-eight (48)
underground parking spaces proposed in the next phase of the project.
Lenhoff, AEON Representative
advised that the trees on Phase I of the project had been removed in error by
their general contractor; but AEON had since worked with the Rosewood Village
Association Board for a mutually-agreed upon and beneficial landscaping plan;
with some plantings already initiated and more to be done once Phase II of the
project is completed. Mr. Lenhoff noted that the trees removed were Cottonwood
trees; and that an additional 25-30 trees of various species were proposed to
be added to that site. Mr. Lenhoff noted that the trees on the triangle and
south of it that were proposed to be removed were also Cottonwood; and advised
that AEON representatives were working more closely with the contractor to
ensure only those trees proposed for removal were removed and the others would
parking, Mr. Lenhoff advised that fifty (50) new spaces were proposed with
Phase II for additional parking options; and recognized that some residents did
park on the street, which was permitted on both sides of the street at this
time. Mr. Lenhoff referenced a parking study done with Phase I; noting that a
number of residents didn’t have vehicles, but anticipated more vehicles needing
parking with Phase II. As part of past PUD negotiations and approvals, Mr.
Lenhoff noted that AEON had provided proof of parking for an additional
seventeen (17) spaces if a need was indicated.
McGehee questioned the location of that parking.
advised that five (5) would be underground; and the remainder directly at the
2225 building on the far side of the property; away from Rosewood Village and
near the stormwater management area.
Johnson questioned if green space had been enhanced to replace removals; with
Mr. Lenhoff advising that some green space was still within the triangle and
immediately south of the proposed building for a “tot lot;” and including green
space and some plantings, similar to how it looked prior to their acquisition
of the triangle property.
Johnson questioned the species of trees proposed for removal from the triangle
property; with Mr. Lenhoff advising that most were Cottonwoods; and there were
some Ash trees that were proposed to remain on site. Councilmember Johnson
noted that AEON may be doing the City and neighborhood a service by removing
the Cottonwood trees.
advised that they did not intend to replace any trees with Cottonwood trees,
but were using the City’s regulations and Tree Preservation policy and planting
McGehee clarified that only female Cottonwood trees posed a problem; and spoke
in support of increasing green space.
Mayor Roe noted
that any changes related to increased green space would fall under the PUD
Mr. Lenhoff advised that he would
have to calculate actual percentage of green space on the site compared to the
original development; however, he estimated that there was definitely more
green space with the new development than with the previous asphalt/gravel
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a Resolution Approving the Vacation of the Public Highway Easement that covers
the small triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna Green
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10897 (Attachment C) entitled, “A
Resolution Vacating a Portion of a Public Highway Easement.”
McGehee proposed a friendly amendment that additional trees remain and revising
the building’s footprint to not extend as far into the triangle as currently proposed.
clarified that this was only an action to vacate the easement and a friendly
amendment as proposed was not applicable.
advised that such an amendment would be an improper condition of an easement;
and clarified that the project had already been approved through a PUD
amendment; and any additional conditions would require reopening the PUD.
Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
Appointment to Grass Lakes Water Management Organization Board
Johnson seconded, appointment of Steve Barrett to fill the vacancy on the
GLWMO Board for the remainder of a three-year term to expire on December 31,
McGehee moved a substitute motion to appoint Rebecca Galkiewicz to the Board.
declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.
Willmus; and Roe.
Johnson thanked all applicants to the vacancy.
McGehee questioned why this appointment process was different than other
processes with individual Councilmember rankings; opining that it appeared that
there was some discussion prior to the meeting by some Councilmembers on the
recognized Councilmember McGehee’s point; and offered his assurance that he
would work harder in the future to provide consistency.
Meritex Preliminary/Final Plat at 2280 Walnut Street and Request by AirGas
North Central for Conditional Use for Outdoor Storage of Bulk Gas Cylinders
Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9,
2011; and unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission at their April
included private versus public stormwater easements for ponds at the request of
the City to avoid future maintenance costs; resolution of fencing materials for
an eight foot (8’) chain link fence with special slats to make it 100% opaque
and therefore meeting City Code.
Conditional Use related to Outdoor Storage
included types of gases stored and distributed, with most used for medical
uses; general conditions applied and detailed in the staff report for the
outdoor storage of those cylinders; and how to monitor and restrict types of
gases stored in Roseville to avoid any gases such as ammonia being stored on
Representative, Mike Cavalier, VP of Operations
reviewed the typical gases stored and distributed by their company to hospitals
and other medical users; advising that, while the company occasionally dealt
with ammonia, in general their firm attempted not to carry any toxic or
corrosive gases at their facilities; but rather shipped them directly from
their supplier to the customer to avoid that storage. Mr. Cavalier advised
that their storage of such gases required additional MPCA requirements, while
direct shipping from point of manufacture to point of use negated those
McGehee questioned if AirGas would object to an additional condition clarifying
that hazardous types of gases would not be stored at the Roseville facility.
currently having any customers using those types of gases, Mr. Cavalier
clarified that there were sometimes government agencies requesting their firm
to store ammonia; however, he didn’t anticipate the need to bring such requests
to staff for approval each time that request was made; and sought clarification
on what gases could not be stored. Mr. Cavalier advised that any quantities of
certain gases needed to be reported to the MPCA as well as the local Fire Department
for their awareness in case of emergency or if they were required to access the
site; and that that information went through a review board when such chemicals
were on site, as well as the company’s own emergency response teams, to address
any customer and/or employee exposure to those gases, via a contracted agency,
above and beyond any legal or legislative requirements. Mr. Cavalier noted
that it was imperative that the local Fire Department be aware of the flammable
gases on site, including oxygen cylinders.
Mayor Roe questioned
if AirGas could oppose a condition on the CUP that for the time being, AirGas
did not store any toxic or corrosive gases on site; and if so desired in the
future, that they return for additional approval.
Johnson clarified that only bulk storage was being considered; that while
AirGas may deal with ammonia, they were not storing it at their facility.
advised that any storage would be of 100 pounds or less total; and it would be
stored outdoors, not indoors.
Mayor Roe clarified
that the Conditional Use was only for outdoor storage of bulk gas cylinders,
and not addressing indoor storage, negating any condition on something not
advised that considerable discussions had been held with staff; and there was a
clear understanding on the part of both parties.
Willmus clarified that AirGas was not opposed to an additional condition on the
CUP that there was no storage allowed of certain materials in bulk on site.
called for any public comment, with no one appearing to speak to this issue.
Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10898 (Attachment G) entitled, “A
Resolution approving the Final Plat of Highcrest Park Second Addition
Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
noted that per Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements related to
chemicals, toxic and corrosives were two distinct categories.
discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Cavalier, it was determined that the
term “corrosive” would address intent and cover those categories of concern.
Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10899 (Attachment H) entitled, “A
Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage as a Conditional Use at 2400
(PF11-010);” amended to include an additional Condition (D) on page 2 of
the resolution as follows: “No bulk outside storage of toxic or corrosive
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:20 p.m.
Consider United Properties Request for Rezoning Ordinance and Resolution
Approving Preliminary & Final Plat for Assisted Living on Cleveland Avenue
Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the rezoning request as detailed in the RCA
dated May 9, 2011; with unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission.
McGehee questioned if there were significant differences between HDR-1 and
HDR-2 zoning that would require this change.
advised that the City had reviewed this project for this property a number of
years ago; and while this project coming forward now was similar to that for an
Assisted Living facility done previously approved as a PUD under Concept
approval, once the housing market had declined, both the Assisted Living and
Senior Cooperative projects had been put on hold. Mr. Paschke advised that,
due to that delay, and since original approval, the City had since adopted a
new zoning code, with PUD’s no longer allowed; and the HDR-2 zoning would allow
enough flexibility for the project to meet setback and number of units per acre
McGehee questioned if there would be a problem in the project proceeding as
envisioned if the zoning remained HDR-1.
opined that they would probably not meet requirements for the number of units
allowed; with density obviously impacted; and potentially setbacks.
McGehee questioned who the Development Review Committee (DRC) consisted of;
with Mr. Paschke advising that it consisted of one or more representatives from
all or applicable City departments.
McGehee asked if it was a standing group; and expressed curiosity on financial
questions related to tax increment financing (TIF) on this project.
advised that the DRC was a standing review committee for all applications and
permits; however, he advised that he could not respond to the TIF question as
it wasn’t within the realm of land use.
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon addressed the TIF assistance provided as
part of the first phase of the Applewood Point development and this property’s
location within a TIF District; with the intent that any tax value generated
would help support Phase I of the project; with this second phase of the
project not directly requesting any TIF.
McGehee noted that this project was being built for ownership or management by
a third party; and as a policy question, questioned the receipt of only
$240,000 in park dedication fees, when they had received $300,000 in TIF.
noted that, with the original Phase I and these additional eighty (80) units,
there would be significantly more monies realized going forward.
Pust seconded, enact Ordinance No. 1407 (Attachment H) entitled, “An Ordinance
Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code Changing the Zoning Map Designation of
Certain Real Property at 2990, 2996 and Outlot A of Applewood Pointe of Langton
Lake, from High Density Residential-1 HDR-1) to High Density Residential-2
McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that she was opposed in
principal and that the City didn’t need any more assisted living units in the
community, since there were already plenty; and that this project did not fill
a need in the community for the type of housing needed. Councilmember McGehee
reiterated her preference for additional townhomes and condominiums; and further
opined that this would not be a money maker for the developer in terms of tax
capacity according to her reading of materials presented previously by Ramsey
County Commissioner Jan Parker.
Johnson recognized Councilmember McGehee’s point; however, opined that this
project brought meaningful jobs and value; and spoke in support of it for that
McGehee, in speaking to the jobs in assisted living facilities, opined that
they were not well-paid and were similar to retail jobs, even if they were more
meaningful in terms of helping people.
Pust –noted that she had originally been opposed to this portion of the
proposed project when first coming before the City Council for approval.
However, Councilmember Pust noted that the Council majority supported the
project; and it was now on the books. While the City Council could decide not
to allow rezoning of the property; Councilmember Pust questioned how that would
benefit the property. Councilmember Pust reiterated past comments related to
how the City Council – not being in the housing industry – attempted to speak
to the type of housing needed; when a developer who was in the industry felt
confident enough to move forward based on their significant research and market
studies; as well as the confidence of the financial market in supporting a
particular project and type of housing. Taking that into consideration,
Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the rezoning, since the project had
already received initial approval and by moving forward, it would avoid a
vacant property similar to that of the remainder of the Twin Lakes area.
Mayor Roe noted
the current 3-4 single family homes and vacant lots and their current tax
capacity versus what it will be once developed; and the significant improvement
in tax capacity. Mayor Roe noted that he had supported the original project;
and further supported this proposed motion; with HDR-2 zoning serving as the
best way to address the zoning code and density issues set up for just such a
purpose as this.
briefly summarized this portion of the request, as detailed in the RCA.
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10900 (Attachment I) entitled, “A
Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake Second
Addition (PF11-08);” as amended with technical correction pointed out by
Mayor Roe in the “Now Therefore, Be It Resolved… portion from “is” to “are”
Consider a Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of
Lot 1, Block 1, Sienna Green Second Addition Plan
briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011.
McGehee questioned when park dedication fees or property was addressed for this
plat; and why a fee rather than additional park land.
advised that park dedication fees were addressed for the entire Sienna Green
project with the first phase; and there was nothing further to be incorporated
from this small portion of the triangle property.
advised that, as part of the PUD, Sienna Green was required to pay park
dedication fees to be submitted as part of the building permit process; and had
been determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission to be paid in fees
rather than as park land.
reference, Councilmember Willmus asked staff to clarify park dedication
information as part of the their staff reports and summaries.
Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10901 (Attachment F) entitled, “A
Resolution Approving the Preliminary/Final Plat of Sienna Green Second Addition
Consider Approving Joint Powers Agreement for Shared Engineering
Services with the City of Maplewood
Director Duane Schwartz provided a summary of the request as detailed in the
RCA dated May 9, 2011; with the City of Roseville being the requestor of
services, rather than their usual role in providing those services to other
municipalities or agencies.
Mayor roe noted
that this shared services initiative was in line with the goals and strategies
of the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process.
reviewed funding for the position within current budgeting parameters; and
intent for using this short-term alternative for the City of Maplewood to avoid
a layoff, and for the City of Roseville to alleviate the heavy workload currently
being realized by its engineering staff in overseeing the multiple projects
currently underway and those proposed. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had
worked with the City Attorney to develop the JPA to allow staff to flow either
way base on needs and as indicated; and as noted by Mayor Roe, the partnering
was consistent with the City Council work plan and the Imagine Roseville
2025 vision. Mr. Schwartz reviewed calculations for various engineering
tasks, which would be lower than those rates required to hire a consultant; and
depending the additional needs that may be required by the City of Arden Hills,
those could be facilitated as well. Mr. Schwartz noted that the partnering
concept continued to grow; and proposed that it be revisited at a future date
when CIP funding was more certain and general economic times improved.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that Roseville staff would
continue to manage projects and provide general oversight consistent with
Roseville expectations and policies/procedures.
Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the sharing of
engineering staff between the City of Roseville and the City of Maplewood.”
Consider Approving Roseville Housing Redevelopment Authority Banners
Director and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief
summary of the request to place “Living Smarter” banners on portions of
Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B-2 adjacent to Rosedale; previously approved
by the City Council for use by the Roseville Visitors Association (RVA). Mr. Trudgeon
provided a location map for the banners; proposed banners, revised with some
font changes for easier reading; total of nine (9) different designs. Mr.
Trudgeon noted potential change in Minnesota Wild trademark approval pending,
possibly negating that particular design. Mr. Trudgeon advised that Planning
Staff had been working in conjunction with the Public Works Department,
recognizing the in-kind cost for that department in this venture. Special
permission requested at this time mid-year; future annual January approval
among Councilmembers and staff included anticipated life expectancy of the
banners (two years) based on weather-related wear and tear; funding for their
purchase, related equipment and maintenance from HRA funds; improved quality
and initial investment for the banners to avoid future and ongoing costly
maintenance and/or replacement; estimated cost for all the banners of $1800 total;
in-kind installation cost estimated by the Public Works Department at $4,000;
and location of the banners on the City Hall campus for marketing by the
Skating Center and OVAL to reach regional traffic and visitors, not Roseville
Willmus seconded, to NOT approve the proposed “Living Smarter” banners or their
Willmus commended the HRA and staff for making ways to market and brand their
activities; however, he opined that there were more effective ways to spend
dollars; further opining that he wasn’t a fan of banners and their related
expenses. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of dollars going for
marketing at Rosedale.
Johnson offered that he was not qualified as an great art critic for banners or
posters; but supported marketing Roseville, and questioned the rationale of his
colleagues for their opposition.
Pust advised that she was not opposing it; as the HRA’s effective marketing
campaign with the “Living Smarter” model had been well-received to-date,
especially in conjunction with the annual Home and Garden Fair; and that
probably served as the HRA’s rationale in continuing to use that well-known
brand and concept in Roseville. Councilmember Pust suggested that the City
Council should defer to the marketing experts; and the communications plan provided
by professionals in the field and implemented in other venues over the past
year, and as previously reviewed and approved by the City Council.
McGehee opined that she was fine with the brand; however, she didn’t think it
added much to the community to have “posters flapping on light poles;” and
suggested simply advertising more on livingsmarter.org. Given other
priorities, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was not a reasonable expense
and was not an effective use of money at this time.
expressed no preference for approving the banners or not; and suggested the
banners may reach a different audience, increasing the variety of that
audience. Mayor Roe deferred to the experts; and spoke in support of allowing
the banner locations.
Pust; and Roe.
Johnson seconded, approval of “Living Smarter” banner locations on Larpenteur
Avenue, County Road B-2; and around City Hall Campus as shown on the location
map (Attachment B) as part of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 9,
Pust; and Roe.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
Council Budget Priority Rankings
Director Miller provided a bench handout entitled “Attachment A – City Council
Ranking – sorted by Department; attached hereto and made a part hereof;
for tax-supported programs for 2012. This amended attachment included the
rankings of all five (5) individual Councilmembers.
Johnson requested an electronic copy of the document; with Mr. Miller duly
noting that request.
staff was asked to make the bench handout, and other related documents
available on the City’s website under the Finance Department for budget
processes, as done in the past.
suggested that staff remove 2009 information from the website; and that City
Manager Malinen keep a placeholder for budget discussion at the next City
Resolution Requesting Reliability Reports for Electric Power for Roseville
handouts were provided related to this item, attached hereto and made a
part hereof: consisting of a letter dated May 3, 2011 from the State
Attorney General to Xcel Energy; and a May 5, 2011 response form Xcel Energy to
the Suburban Rate Authority information requests.
Mayor Roe noted
that this request had been generated by a resident and as a result of a
requested rate increase by Xcel Energy.
reviewed events since this item had last come before the City Council; and
since distribution of the agenda packet materials. Mr. Schwartz advised that
Xcel Energy had met with staff and Mr. Lambert to address his information
request and to discuss Xcel’s management of their system and devices scheduled
for replacement; and their outage history in the Brenner/Millwood neighborhood;
and related problems experienced that created those outages. Mr. Schwartz
noted that Xcel anticipated delivery of specific information to the City and
Mr. Lambert in the near future. Mr. Schwartz advised that Ms. Collette Jurek,
with Xcel Energy, was present at tonight’s meeting to respond to any questions
or concerns of the City Council. Mr. Schwartz advised that the proposed ordinance
had been drafted prior to the additional information having been provided; as
per Mr. Lambert’s original request. If the resolution was to be approved, Mr.
Schwartz suggested that staff include a cover letter updating events since Mr.
Lambert’s original request; and forwarded for the administrative hearing for
the rate case.
Jurek, Community Relations Manager for Xcel Energy
advised that Xcel was working with Mr. Lambert on good faith efforts; and
addressing previous outages; and was committed to providing the information
requested by Mr. Lambert, upon further review of that request in meeting new information
release standards related to Homeland Security issues.
reviewed national standards and specific data related to Mr. Lambert’s
neighborhood and the service reliability; average national and Roseville
results over the last three years and comparisons to east and west metro area
service centers in Minnesota; outage history summaries since 2007 and common
causes of tree interference with overhead lines and subsequent trimming; with
no outages reported to Mr. Lambert’s residence since July of 2010; and Xcel’s
need to recreate data similar to that received by Mr. Lambert from 2001 – 2003.
Pust noted that she also lived on Mr. Lambert’s street; and shared his
offered to return to the City Council at a future meeting to provide an update
once the data had been researched and analyzed.
Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue
As an engineer,
Mr. Lambert expressed the unreliability of averages and how they could be
misleading depending on how presented. Mr. Lambert reviewed his information
and average outages for his neighborhood; and his interpretation that the feeders
needed to be updated. Mr. Lambert suggested that the requested rate increase
by Xcel should allow additional funds to facilitate that needed work. Mr.
Lambert noted that the PUC could require that underperforming equipment be
corrected; and asked that the City’s cover letter reinforce that request. In
the proposed resolution, Mr. Lambert suggested striking language in line 35 to
remove “timely” and “area-wide.” Mr. Lambert opined that his request for
reports for 2008-2010 should not provide problematic from a Homeland Security
Pust questioned if a resolution from the City at this time wouldn’t serve to
confuse the issue and mix topics; and questioned why the resolution would be
provided as part of a rate increase proceeding by Xcel that the City would not
otherwise be involved in; and whether the resolution form the City would affect
the rate increase.
referenced the e-mail from the Suburban Rate Authority’s legal counsel; and
their suggestion for moving down another avenue that would not be part of the
rate case in front of the PUC and addressing customer concerns. Mr. Schwartz
noted that this issue had received significant attention within Xcel Energy;
and not adopting the resolution at this time would give them the benefit of the
doubt that they would come through with the requested information; and
recommended holding off on adopting the ordinance at this time.
advised that he had been told that having the City endorse his testimony before
the PUC would be very helpful and lend more emphasis. Mr. Lambert opined that
it didn’t seem to be an unreasonable time to make the request when Xcel was
seeking more money; and that the PUC could make demands for reasonable
information requests from its constituency.
discussion included whether to link the proposed resolution to the rate
increase or whether a letter could accomplish the same goal provided Xcel
Energy provided the information as requested.
Ms. Jurek asked
that Xcel be given adequate time to respond to Mr. Lambert’s request to update
his data; without having to involve the City Council and a resolution to the
Mayor Roe noted
the need, from a policy standpoint, to support Mr. Lambert’s communication
request in general and overall information on outages in the City of Roseville.
Willmus supported getting data on the entire City and provided to the City
Council on behalf of the entire City, including Mr. Lambert, rather than
directed specifically to Mr. Lambert; noting that he had concerns in his
neighborhood as well.
Johnson spoke in support of a letter at this, opining that it made more sense;
and noting Xcel’s response after one week and Ms. Jurek’s request to be given a
reasonable amount of time to respond.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to receive overall information on City outages, as well as Mr.
Lambert’s specific request.
McGehee noted that Mr. Lambert’s request was related to faulty feeder lines and
their relationship to any additional rate increases; while the resolution
didn’t address that request at all. Councilmember McGehee expressed confidence
that Mr. Lambert would receive the information he’d requested; and asked that
Mr. Schwartz draft a letter requesting an annual report for the entire City and
a review of feeders; and any failing.
advised that she received such requests from cities all the time to determine
liability within a community; and advised that Xcel could address reliability
concerns. Ms. Jurek advised that Mr. Lambert was the only property owner she’d
heard from in the last 1-2 years regarding any reliability concerns; and Xcel’s
immediate addressing of any problem areas. Ms. Jurek offered to meet with
neighborhoods to discuss reliability reviews; and offered to provide an annual
update to the City Council and discuss reliability and Xcel’s work plan to
expressed concern that management staff over Ms. Jurek’s head may stifle her
willingness to provide the requested information; and unless the City and/or
the PUC provided more weight, the request could be lost.
Johnson opined that it would be appropriate at this point for staff to send a
letter on behalf of the City of Roseville and Mr. Lambert to get the initial
report; and once it was known that the report could be generated; a policy be
addressed at a later date, thus allowing Xcel to respond in a timely fashion.
Mr. Johnson noted that, if Xcel was unable to meet their projected delivery of
the requested information, the City Council had two additional meetings prior
to the PUD public comment deadline.
advised that he was amenable to waiting; but still supported a policy based on
his previously-expressed rationale.
Pust opined that the City Council was not yet ready to adopt a policy, even
though it may be indicated in the future; and concurred with Councilmember
Johnson in addressing a letter as described.
Johnson suggested that the City send a letter supporting Mr. Lambert’s efforts
as well and his specific request for the report.
Willmus seconded, directing staff to send a letter as outlined above.
Johnson spoke in support of the motion; and since time is of the essence, asked
that Mr. Schwartz provide an update at each subsequent City Council meeting to
ensure the PUC deadline is met.
Willmus requested the information for the entire community of Roseville.
Mayor Roe asked
Councilmember Willmus to clarify if the information he requested was city-wide
or aggregate; with Councilmember Willmus clarifying that he sought aggregate
advised that Xcel was developing a new tool, following discussions with Mr.
Lambert, that should address his information request and following her
discussions with Mr. Schwartz.
a friendly amendment, accepted by Pust, that the letter of request include
information for the entire City.
Call (Motion as amended)
Public Hearing Date for Amendment to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 18
and Discuss TIF Agreement with AEON
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request
specifically setting a public hearing date for potential amendment to TIF
District 18 and discussion of a TIF Agreement, as detailed in the staff report
dated May 09, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the details would be addressed
fully on June 13, 2011 at the public hearing.
Mr. Lenhoff was
present, but offered no further comment, opining that staff had summarized the
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10902 (Attachment C) entitled,
“Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification
to the Development Program for Development District No. 1; and the Proposed
Adoption of a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 18;” scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011 at
approximately 6:00 p.m.
asked that City Council ask questions of AEON through staff; with Mr. Trudgeon
noting that a draft of the proposed amendment would be available on June 13,
Lawful Gambling Task Force Report
handouts were presented related to this item: en e-mail dated May 8, 20111 from
Roger B. Hess, Jr.; and a revised “SECOND Amended Agreement Related to the
Roseville Community Fund;” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Pust recused herself from the bench as a Councilmember, and advised that she
would not be participating in this discussion on behalf of the City Council and
would be abstaining from any action; and was serving instead as the President
of the North Suburban Community Foundation. Ms. Pust also introduced Don
Salveda (?) a member of the North Suburban Community Foundation since its
creation in 1991, as well as its Treasurer since the Foundation’s inception.
Ms. Pust noted
that the need for amendments and revisions to update the Agreement between the
North Suburban Community Fund, as administrator, and the Roseville Community
Fund, had come forth as a City Council subcommittee had been formed to review
the City’s current gambling ordinance, specifically how many locations a
particular organization could have in Roseville for charitable gambling. Ms.
Pust noted that her involvement relating to the NSCF was only part of the
discussion; and she was not addressing the initial issue at this time.
Ms. Pust reviewed
the background of the creation of the Roseville Community Fund, seen as on the
cutting edge of local level gambling regulation and recognized by Attorney
General Skip Humphrey at the time the City passed their ordinance in the
1990’s. Ms. Pust noted that at the same time, the State of MN had passed
legislation allowing municipalities allowing charitable gambling with options,
one of which was to establish a 10% fund, with all licensed entities paying 10%
of their net profits to this fund to be used by the City on various charitable
purposes, or funding Police and/or Fire activities, exclusive of any pension
funding. Ms. Pust noted that the City set up a 10% fund when passing their
ordinance in 1992, with no changes occurring since the resolution was adopted
in 1992. Ms. Pust noted that the City contracts with a non-profit
organization, the NSCF, to disburse those funds as outlined. Ms. Pust noted
that, in looking that the gambling ordinance, it was discovered that the City’s
Community Fund Agreement referenced multiple outdated statutes and other items;
and that an update of the Agreement was needed in order for the Ordinance and
Amended Agreement to be consistent. Thus, Ms. Pust noted that at the
recommendation of the NSCF she was in attendance on their behalf tonight.
Ms. Pust noted
that the only change in the Agreement Establishing the Roseville Community Fund
(Attachment D) to the RCA dated May 09, 2011 (Agenda Item 13.d) was
specifically correcting the name of the Foundation to “North Suburban Community
Foundation,” noting that the Foundation was not and never had been the
“Roseville Community Foundation.” Ms. Pust sought Council action to make the
corrections as indicated.
Second Amended Agreement, and REVISED Second Amended Agreement Related to the
Using the bench
handout provided, and entitled, “SECOND Amended Agreement Related to the
Roseville Community Fund; and superseding the agreement included in the agenda
packet, Ms. Pust noted that the contract dated October 4, 1991, and later
updated in 1994, needed several revisions.
Ms. Pust noted
changed were needed in the Seconded Amended Agreement, paragraphs and 1 and 2,
allowing for grants of up to 75%. Ms. Pust advised that the Foundation
received the 10% funds directly from the City’s Finance Director on a quarterly
basis; and 50% of those funds went into an endowment, and 50% of the funds, in
addition to interest earned on the endowment, were distributed to charitable organizations.
Having been in operation for twenty years now, the Foundation was seeking authorization
to make grants up to 75%, not currently allowed in the existing agreement.
Page 1, Paragraph 3 – Donor Advisory Board (DAB)
provided a background on the formation of the Foundation and its advisory group
(DAB) consisting of thirteen (13) people representing the organizations lists
in the agreement, who meet quarterly and accept applications from non-profits
seeking funds; hearing their presentations and how the funds would be used to
serve people in the community. Ms. Pust noted that the DAB made recommendations
to the Foundation.
suggested changes as indicated in paragraph 3 would no longer define those
organizations represented on the DAB, but would signify no changes in the DAB;
but would not list organizations that may not exist from time to time (e.g.
Chamber of Commerce).
Paragraph 4, Page 2
suggested that references to MN Statute 475.66 be stricken, since the statute
had been repealed.
moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting to 10:20 p.m.
Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Ms. Pust noted
revisions to the DAB’s fiscal year, and making recommendations with ninety (90)
days of that fiscal year; and recommendations for cleaning up and striking
references to the original agreement, no longer in effect once amended in 1994.
suggested two (2) changes that may appear substantive, but form her
perspective, were not; and based on how much the Foundation charged the City
for administration of the fund. Ms. Pust noted that the City’s agreement had
always stated “up to 3%;” even thought the Foundation had never charged over 1.5%;
and had no intention of increasing that fee; thus suggesting that redundant
language be stricken. Ms. Pust suggested striking “B” in its entirety as the
Foundation paid the entire audit fee and did not charge the City for the audit,
which worked to the City’s advantage.
Ms. Pust noted
the only change was a grammatical change.
Ms. Pust noted
that the board had met earlier today at 1:30 p.m. to make sure the Board’s
recommendations to the City Council were relevant.
Mayor Roe questioned
if the Foundation preferred that the changes be adopted now rather than when
the Ordinance was amended.
advised that, from the Board’s perspective, these were just administrative and
technical changes; and it was preferred that the Board not need to be
represented at an additional meeting.
among Ms. Pust, Mr. Salveda, and Councilmembers included identifying interest
earnings and capital gains on interest income; confirmation of the continued
representation on the DAB by the City Manager or his designee; allowing the DAB
to make decisions on representation, under the auspices of the NSCF, whose
advisory board it was; industry standards in charging administrative fees of up
to 3% identified by the City upon the Foundation’s creation, but that had never
been implemented by the Foundation and was not a future intent; and current
magnitude of the fund estimated at $700,000.
Ms. Pust noted
that make up of the Foundation was drawn from various organizations, including
youth athletic organizations, serving this community, and had been eventually a
compromise composition after much debate.
that the NSCF name be duly reflected in the City’s ordinance.
discussion, it was the consensus to bring back the agreement and ordinance at a
recognized the due diligence of Mr. Salverda in investing the funds, making the
organization able to withstand the latest economic downturn. Ms. Pust advised
that a law had now been adopted that would prevent speculative investing and advised
that the Foundation would be returning in the future with a resolution to that
effect for City Council action in recognizing this new legislation.
advised that there were numerous legal revisions needed in the City’s ordinance
due to the repeal of many referenced State Statutes; however, she deferred to
the City Attorney to make those revisions and recommendations to the City
Johnson opined, for the public record, that outside gambling foundations
seeking to manage gambling sites in Roseville be prevented form doing so.
Councilmember Johnson noted that the current ordinance is prohibitive for
existing gambling organizations in Roseville to have more than one site, additional
investigation had been done to determine if other non profits were interested
in sponsoring or hosting another license. In short, Councilmember Johnson
advised that Finance Director Miller had sent out a letter to those gambling
association licensees to seek their interest in carrying a second license, with
only two (2) affirmative responses: B-Dale Club and North Suburban.
Councilmember Johnson noted that Roger Toogood of the RCL had also sought input
within the community of other non profits that may be interested in hosting a
license; with no responses to-date. Councilmember Johnson noted that the RCL
endorsed Roseville-based organizations hosting up to two (2) sites at this
Johnson suggested several things for the City Attorney to add, including
language prohibiting non-Roseville gambling associations taking part in
gambling within Roseville City limits; and also revising the ordinance to
address references to antiquated or repealed statutes, as indicated by Ms.
suggested that the Task Force, consisting of Councilmembers Johnson and Pust,
work with the City Attorney on ordinance revisions.
Gaughan asked that specific amendments be provided to him by e-mail.
moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting to 10:35 p.m.
CIP Interim Update
advised that the Task Force review was underway and looking at extending the
CIP from ten (10) to twenty (20) years; with two recent actions occurring at
the staff level at the request of the Task force: a fund balance study on various
funds supporting capital purchases, using CIP plans for seeing where the City
was at and an annual gap, and on that basis, Mayor Roe advised that the Task
Force would then return with how to address those gaps. The second staff directive
was to determine a timeframe to build to a solution and defer capital purchases
as indicated; and a review of the CIP to make sure it was current and there
were no items that were no longer needed based on current visions and budgets.
advised that the Task Force anticipated returning in June with another report;
and that further study may take longer, as advisory commission review, such as
a review of special assessments for public works projects, would be sought.
Mayor Roe anticipated a partial recommendation coming forward in June at the
Moving forward, Councilmember
Johnson advised that the philosophy of the Task Force was to remove the Fire
Station and Parks and Recreation Master Plan from the CIP review at this time,
while setting them aside, but keeping them in view. Councilmember Johnson
noted that the Parks and Recreation survey results will help determine those
priorities; and this study would address all other capital needs in the CIP
that are currently tangible.
14. City Manager Future Agenda
City Manager Malinen
reviewed upcoming agenda items.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Johnson requested
that the May 16, 2011 agenda include discussion of the off-sale liquor
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:28 pm.