City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

February 14, 2011

 

Mayor Roe presented his State of the City Address at 5:00 pm.  

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. City Manager Bill Malinen called the roll: (Voting and Seating Order for February: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe).   City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.

 

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.n entitled, “Approve Public Improvement Contract and Public Improvement Easement and Maintenance Agreement for Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake (PF 08-020).”

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.  

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 

 

a.            First Lt. Kathryn Helland,  of the 347^th Regional Support Group based out of the Roseville Armory

Lt. Helland advised that she had recently received orders to serve as the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Outreach Coordinator for the purpose of establishing networks in the local area, in conjunction with other networks being established throughout the State of Minnesota, through working with those communities having armories located within them.  Lt. Helland noted that this was a priority for the Minnesota National Guard to create support for military families serving in all branches; and in anticipation of a near future deployment of another 2,400 Guards.  Lt. Helland advised that it was the intent of the Guard to partner with community members and organizations and other key community groups in each community to create an action plan for annual update, with the initiative recognized by the Governor’s Office.  Lt. Helland noted that the City of Maplewood was already participating, and sought City Council support for creation of this network in the community.

 

Lt. Helland advised that she would leave a brochure detailing the program and a business card with City Manager Malinen for the City Council’s review and consideration.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that she had met with the previous representative for this program last summer, and enthusiastically supported the program.  Councilmember Pust advised that this topic had been discussed at the most recent Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) meeting, with various jurisdictions represented, and their suggestion had been to band together as a county-wide group to achieve a broad group of participants; and Councilmember Pust recommended that we continue discussions with those interested communities and work on the project through the RCLLG.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought additional information on the types of support being requested and what it meant to be part of Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network.

 

          Lt. Helland advised that the level of participation and project were specific to each represented committee according to specific needs and their interests; and listed several ideas such as after school programs for students whose parents were deployed; support networks at schools for children with their peers for social and emotional support; assistance by employers and businesses in addressing job seeking skills needed of development of resumes.  Lt. Helman clarified that this network was not about fundraising or money, but about time and partnership opportunities for military families seeking those connections.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Lt. Helland for her presentation; and suggested further follow-up.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

 

Mayor Roe announced the next seven (7)-week Roseville University session, beginning on April 7, 2011 from 6:30 – 9:00 pm on Thursday evenings at Roseville City Hall.  Mayor Roe noted that the sessions were free, but pre-registration was required as space was limited; and encouraged citizens to seek additional information on the City’s website or through calling City Hall, and also for obtaining an enrollment form.

 

          Councilmember Willmus announced for hockey fans, a Minnesota Wild hockey practice at the John Rose Guidant OVAL in Roseville on Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 11:30 am. 

 

          Councilmember Willmus noted a number of City Advisory Commissions having vacancies and seeking applicants to serve; and encouraged interested citizens to apply before the end of February when applications close for a position on the City’s Ethics Commission, the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, or Human Rights Commission.

 

For staff’s attention, Mayor Roe noted the need to revise the title for this agenda section, as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) report had been relocated to Business Items (Presentations/Discussions) by City Council action at their 2011 organizational meeting.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.            Approve Minutes of January 24, January 31, and February 7, 2011 Meetings

Councilmember McGehee and Mayor Roe had submitted their comments and corrections to each specific set of draft meeting minutes prior to tonight’s meeting; and those corrections were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 24 and January 31, 2011 meetings as presented.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the February 7, 2011 meetings as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 7, Lines 21-23 (Willmus)

Correct to read: “Councilmember Willmus questioned whether additional setback requirements fro more intensive uses may impact smaller parcels zoned for MDR [or HDR], and whether such a requirement would diminish them having a [the property value of the] higher use.”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Pust

 

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

Councilmember McGehee had several questions on specific claims:

·         Page 1, Stork Twin City Testing Corp. for Geotechnical Exploration; with Public Works Director Duane Schwartz clarifying that this expense was for soil borings as part of the preliminary work for 2011 pavement projects.

·         Page 5, to Roseville Area Schools for a Stage Rental from July 1 - December 31, 2010; with Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advising that this was for the use of the stage at Fairview Community Center for dance programs.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.    

ACH Payments	$661,558.35
61268-61548	857,336.36
Total	$1,518,894.71

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses

          McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location	Type of License
Katie Ballman at Juut Salonspa; 1641 County Road C	Massage Therapist

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve a One-Day On-Site Gambling Permit for Smiles in Life Foundation to conduct a Raffle on August 15, 2011, at 2489 Rice Street, #70

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Smiles in Life Foundation’s request to conduct a raffle on August 15, 2011 at 2489 Rice Street, #70.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Approve a One-Day On-Site Gambling Permit for Parkview Center School to conduct a Raffle on March 25, 2011 at 701 West County Road B

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Parkview Center School’s request to conduct a raffle on March 25, 2011 at 701 West County Road B.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:

 

Department	Vendor	Item/Description	Amount
Water	Ferguson Waterworks	Water meter replacements (335)	$34,459.13
Water	Ferguson Waterworks	Water meter radio transmitters (500)	46,426.33

 

 

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Establish Lawful Gambling Task Force

Councilmember Johnson advised that Mr. Roger Toogood had expressed interest in serving on this Task Force, representing the Roseville Citizen’s League (RCL).

 

Mayor Roe suggested citizen appointments at a later date, with tonight’s action to establish the Task Force and appoint City Council liaisons.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, establishment of a Lawful Gambling Task Force; and appointment of Councilmembers Pust and Johnson to the Task Force; and establishment of a May 9, 2011 deadline for the Task Force to report their findings or recommendations to the City Council.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

g.            Establish Infrastructure/CIP Financing Task Force

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, establishment of an Infrastructure/CIP Financing Task Force; appoint Mayor Roe and Councilmember Johnson to the Task Force; and establish June 13, 2011 as the deadline for the Task Force to report their findings or recommendations to the City Council.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

h.            Accept the 2010 Citizen Corp Program $6,580 Grant

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to accept the 2010 Citizen Corporation Program Grant in the amount of $6,580.00.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

i.             Accept Ramsey County Emergency Management/Homeland Security Grant for a Thermal Imager to be installed on East Metro Swat Bear Cat

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing acceptance of the grant award for the Thermal Imager and installation.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

j.             Establish a Public Hearing on February 28, 2011 for the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association’s Request for Placement of Water Ski Course and Jump on Lake Owasso

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, establishing a public hearing for the City Council meeting of February 24 [28], 2011 to provide for public comment regarding placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso for the 2011 season.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

k.            Adopt a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Dale Street

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10874 entitled, “Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard (Project M-11-02).”

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

l.             Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2011 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining Project in the amount of $479,868 to Michels Corporation of Brownsville

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10875 entitled “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2011 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining” to Michels Corporation in an amount not to exceed $479,868.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

m.          Adopt a Resolution Approving “No Parking” on Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10876  (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard;” as amended on line 39 to read, “…and prohibited along the prohibited on all other segments of Dale Street…”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

o.            Adopt a Resolution Accepting Work Completed, Authorize $9,903.10 Final Payment; and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2010 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10877 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – 2010 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;” approving the work completed; initiating the one-year warranty period; and authorizing final payment of $9,903.10.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

p.            Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2011 Apportionment of Assessments

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10878 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2011.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

q.            Claim for Transformer Damage

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, staff resolution of resident claims through a Release (Attachment A) arrangement with homeowners; and authorizing staff to continue to pursue contribution and indemnification of those claims against Xcel Energy.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.            Approve Public Improvement Contract and Public Improvement Easement and Maintenance Agreement for Applewood Point of Langton Lake (PF08-020) (Former Consent Item 7.n)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 14, 2011; for approval of the Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake Public Improvement Contract (Attachment A); and Public Improvement Easement and Maintenance Agreement (Attachment B) as presented.  Mr. Malinen advised that these represented standard public improvement project agreements between the City and the property developer, United Properties.

 

Mayor Roe clarified this was related to the construction of a public street on this parcel.

 

Councilmember Willmus, in his review and research of 2008 City Council meetings when this development was discussed, observed that staff had initially recommended a 32’ wide roadway from the cul-de-sac to the intersection of Mount Ridge Road.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that it appeared that the developer was proposing a 26’ wide roadway up to the intersection of Mount Ridge Road, and then the width would increase to 32’ to Langton Lake.

 

Public Works Director Schwartz advised that he and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon had conferred; and their recollection was that staff had originally recommended the 32’ wide roadway; however, subsequent City Council discussions and actions upon questioning by the developer for a 32’ wide roadway, had led to the proposed reduced width for a portion of the roadway as indicated.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if there would be any hardship in delaying action on this item to allow further verification and determine rationale for City Council action other than that recommended by staff; and whether the action had majority City Council support.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that a brief delay should not cause any immediate hardship to the developer; noting that a Conditional Building Permit had been issued that was set to expire on February 16, 2011, but that staff could extend that timeframe to accommodate the delay.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she would support further review.

 

Mayor Roe recalled that the revised width was based on concerns by the developer in having parking at the entrance/exit by the parking garage that could create traffic conflicts; but concurred with further research to clarify the road’s width.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if the proposed Park Dedication fee of $96,000 was standard for this size development.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that the current fee was based on the number of units at this time, but did not include Phase II of the project; which would bring the development to approximately 100 units.

 

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, tabling action on this item until the February 28, 2011 regular City Council meeting.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

9.         General Ordinances for Adoption

10.      Presentations

a.            Receive Roseville Area Schools Report by Superintendent Dr. John Thein and School Board Chairperson Lisa Edstrom

Dr. John Thein and Roseville Area Schools District 623 Board Chair Lisa Edstrom were in attendance to provide an update to Councilmembers and the public on annual demographic statistics for the District, with a copy of the presentation included in agenda packet materials.

 

Dr. Thein took the opportunity to publicly express the School District’s appreciation to the City, especially its Department Heads for the services and partnership they provided for the District in the protection of its most important resource, its students and citizens.  Dr. Thein opined that their cooperation and relationship with the District provided for unique and viable partnership.

                       

Dr. Thein presented the demographics, updated annually in October, with this data from October of 2010; and used by the District for the purpose of establishing and funding and allowing for future planning efforts.  Dr. Thein reviewed the ever fluid ethnic and financial composition of the 6,627 students currently in the District; noting the vast amount of mobility and rotation rates of families and students for each classroom.  Dr. Thein addressed the District’s limited Open Enrollment process and stipulations, and cleared up some public misconceptions in that the process provided greater revenue and less cost that had direct impacts on taxpayers and overall District costs, and compared ethnic demographics of resident versus non-residents, and further noting that more affluent families are usually the ones with the ability to take advantage of Open Enrollment opportunities.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought additional clarification on the data and comparisons across the District over the seven (7) different communities and just those of Roseville, or data identified by the 55113 zip code; with Dr. Thein advising that there was very little difference in the data: 33% and 35% respectively.

 

Councilmember Pust sought data related to Special Needs students versus General Need students, with Chair Edstrom advising that across the District and across the School system, the percentage of Special Needs students was 13-14%, which was very comparable to neighboring school districts, as well as being very representative of surrounding areas and across the State of Minnesota.

 

Councilmember Johnson sought a breakdown of information on students of color in the elementary grades versus high school grades; and asked Dr. Thein’s experience in whether those numbers transferred to the higher grades or if the mobility factor voided any consistencies.

 

Dr. Thein opined that it should transfer, since the District was experiencing families moving into Roseville looking for the same things sought by families 50 years ago: a great community in which to live; a great place to raise their children; and good schools.  Dr. Thein further opined that in the next 5-10 years, the community would become even more diverse.  Dr. Thein identified immigrant families as being very conscientious about their children’s education and promoting the “great the American dream,” more so than many middle class or higher income families; and that those students had superb attendance records and were serious in knowing the need to receive a sound education.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted the annual trends for free/reduced price meals and questioned if the data indicated a delayed response to the recent recession; or if the program was not fluid in 2008 and just now just responding.

 

Dr. Thein responded that historically schools often lagged behind the economy; and with the strong growth in those trends evidenced in elementary grades, it was probably due to young families having had to struggle more over the last few years, indicating that those young families needed just a little assistance to stay current.  Dr. Thein noted the vast number of colleges in the area, including the University of Minnesota, Northwestern College, Bethel; and the number of married students in affiliated housing or area apartments or homes, attempting to address school, housing and school costs for their young families.

 

Chair Edstrom noted that the numbers were not inclusive of every family in the District who would probably qualify, as the District was aware of families not applying even if they met income guidelines.

 

Dr. Thein concurred, noting that if they would apply, it would actually help in funding the programs, as that funding was compensatory and title money was tied to it.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned modeling or projecting over the next few years; with Dr. Thein responding that it had been done, but that the models were outdated already, which was a surprise to the District.  Dr. Thein noted that Brimhall has historically been used as a bell weather for the District; however, it was now the District’s average and within 1-2 students of losing funding.

 

Councilmember Johnson requested financial and income guidelines used to determine whether assistance could be provided.  Dr. Thein advised that the guidelines were based on family size, with the District seeing more single parent families than ever, he didn’t have that information available tonight; but would obtain it through the Districts food service program and make it available to City Manager Malinen for forwarding to the City Council and for public awareness. 

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that in the past that information had been sent home with students periodically, but he didn’t recall seeing it for some time.

 

Lisa Edstrom presentation

Chair Edstrom provided the School Board’s response to reflect the face of the community as it changed, noting the challenges it provided, but also the many opportunities.  Chair Edstrom presented the District’s Mission Statement detailing their core purpose in order to provide a strategic road map, incorporated in their Equity Vision and Values, providing guidance to the Board in working with Administration to build an effective operating plan.  Chair Edstrom expressed pride in the document and the community input received in its development.

 

Dr. Thein noted that each Strategic Direction had a ‘vision card” attached to it that served to hold the District accountable to accomplish; and would be available in the near future on the District’s website for public awareness.  Dr. Thein noted that there was a lot of work to be done, but he expressed pride in the accomplishments to-date.  Dr. Thein expressed pride in the District’s seven (7) represented municipalities and their working relationship between the District and those municipalities.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Dr. Thein and School Board Chair Edstrom for their presentation; and echoed appreciation for the partnership from the City’s perspective as well.

 

b.            Receive Annual Reports for 2010 Land Use Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) Activities

Codes Coordinator Don Munson presented annual reports for the Community Development Department, including the Land Use Enforcement 2010 Year End Report; the Neighborhood Enhancement Program’s 2010 Year End Report; 2010 Abatement and Court Citation Cases Status Report; Abatement Billing in 2010; and an informational brochure developed by the department entitled, “City of Roseville Property Maintenance Guidelines.”

 

Mr. Munson provided details and statistics on reactive land use enforcement cases opened and those closed; the types of cases; and a summary of closed cases; highlighting the positive cooperation received from citizens.  Mr. Munson provided a location map for cases occurred, with minimal trouble spots indicated.  Mr. Munson noted that the recently enacted Nuisance Ordinance would provide additional incentive for cooperation from repeat offenders.  Mr. Munson reviewed those resource options provided by staff in their enforcement efforts through the Housing Resource Center, faith based and/or community volunteers; and other opportunities to avoid enforcement proceedings being sought by staff.  Mr. Munson provided some before/after photos of recent abatement cases; noting that staff was seeing a significant improvement in nuisance cases, with the majority of residents being receptive; and cooperative relationships developed with volunteer groups and banks; and that staff anticipated further reductions in nuisance properties in 2011, that staff would be proactively addressing through the Nuisance Ordinance and through reorganization of department staff and assigned duties.

 

Mr. Munson highlighted the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) created in 2008 by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) addressing smaller nuisance situations before they became major concerns through an educational process by staff to Roseville residents.  Mr. Munson advised that originally the first cycle for inspecting the entire community was proposed for four (4) years, but had been accomplished in three (3) years; and provided exterior inspections for all of the City’s single-family, duplexes, and up to four (4)-unit apartment complexes.  Mr. Munson noted that the program was scheduled to continue in 2011, with an even more proactive cycle for inspecting properties throughout the community.

 

Mr. Munson reviewed similar data specific to this program, with the majority of cases closed within 120 days due to the positive cooperation by residents upon their awareness of the problem areas and their receipt of an initial nuisance letter seeking compliance.  Mr. Munson noted the annual reduced percentage in cases from 7.6% to 3.7% over that three (3) year cycle, with only 1 in 20 homes having violations.  Mr. Munson reviewed the lessons learned from the first cycle of the NEP, and indications that the program was working as intended by the HRA, and receiving many supportive comments from residents.  Mr. Munson advised that staff would attempt to track more data to better identify trends. 

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Munson included future cycles for the NEP program being undetermined at this time depending on compliance rates and HRA determinations as to whether to continue the program annually or delay if for a few years; program costs for abatements representing proportionate costs for staffing, facility, and vehicles; with clarification that the NEP program was funded entirely through HRA levy funds at $20,000.

 

Further discussion included rationale for not performing commercial or residential properties higher than four (4) units based on HRA funding priorities that were currently focused on smaller residential properties.

Councilmember Pust, in her role as HRA Member/Council Liaison, noted that HRA functions and funds were not limited to residential properties; and that future discussions may indicate moving in that direction; however, at this time the HRA had not directed staff accordingly.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that nuisance properties represented a substantial number of comments that he estimated at 50% and had received when campaigning for the City Council in 2008; and expressed encouragement by the positive trends and statistics indicated.  Councilmember Johnson expressed curiosity in hearing from most recently-elected Councilmembers on their experiences with similar comments during last year’s campaign.

 

Councilmember Willmus indicated that it remained a frequently-expressed comment, not as high as 50%, but estimated at between 10-15%, and he saw that decreased complaint as a direct result of greater education with the NEP program.

 

Mayor Roe opined his surprise in seeing the reduced trend in violations given the increasing trend in foreclosures; noting that he had anticipated that the trend would point in a more negative direction.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Munson reviewed a status report of 2010 Abatement and Court Citation Cases; and 2010 Abatement Billings.

11.      Public Hearings

Recess Regular Meeting

Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals

 

At this time, Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, recessing the regular business meeting and reconvening as the Board of Adjustments and appeals for the City of Roseville, Minnesota.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Roll Call

Chair Roe called to order the Roseville City Council, convening as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.  City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.

 

Consider a Resolution with Findings, Affirming Petitioners do not have Standing pursuant to City Code 201.07 to Petition for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Chair Roe noted the process that had ensued since the last meeting of the Board and its reference of this issue back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the process referenced by Chair Roe and as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011; along with the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the petitioners did not have standing pursuant to Roseville City Code, Section 201.07 and that the Community Development Director made the proper decision not to proceed with the request made by the Woods Edge Homeowners Association and the Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents in their petition.

 

Councilmember Pust expressed confusion as to why citizens continued down this path when they had been told that they had no legal authority for this path to work for them.

 

Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this step was a culmination of the process that had originally been started by the citizens.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the citizens could have withdrawn their appeal at any time at their discretion.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, when the citizen group had initially come forward in November of 2010, they had been provided no distinction between the process for requesting rezoning and requesting an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which distinction had been brought up much later in the process.  Councilmember McGehee provided her perspective on the intent of the citizens, opining that they hoped that the strength of their advocacy in the process would be heard.  Councilmember McGehee reviewed her concerns with the process over the last ten years and land use and zoning designations of the subject properties; and further questioned rationale in requiring this distinction.

 

Mr. Trudgeon clarified the citizen petition process and staff’s awareness of the petition during the process, without the value of having been able to assist the citizens in the appropriate process to follow, providing better direction for all parties.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the legislative changes over the last several decades moving from zoning trumping comprehensive plans, and now comprehensive plans trumping zoning; creating the need for compliance of both documents in accordance with state law.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the subject properties had been zoned one way and the comprehensive plan had guided for HDR land use designation for decades, and had only been brought into consistency during the most recent Zoning Code Update completed in 2010.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the proscribed petition process served a value for residents to petition for change, and further advised that staff was sensitive to the issues currently before the Board; and noted that any rezoning application request and process may bring up new information that staff would forward to the City Council, along with recommendations as to whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be initiated.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the City Attorney letter addressing differences in Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and questioned the specific rationale to have two (2) parallel paths.

 

City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed the justification for the distinctions and the parallel process specific to this issue, noting that Zoning Code changes did not need review and approval by the Metropolitan Council, but that Comprehensive Plan Amendments required their review and approval.  Mr. Bartholdi noted that zoning changes were therefore under the control of the Planning Commission and City Council, with distinctions in place as to subject property owners and adjacent or neighboring property owner rights.

 

Chair Roe refocused discussion on the issues at hand; advising that if additional and related discussions were pursued, it should be when the Board recessed and reconvened as the City Council.

 

At approximately 7:37 pm, Chair Roe opened the meeting up for public comment on this matter.

Public Comment

Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8

Ms. Mix advised that she had sent a letter with her written comments yesterday, and referenced them in her verbal comments at this time.  Ms. Mix expressed concern that the City Council was not putting faces to the names on the petition; and advised that many of those signatures were from elderly residents unable to attend the meeting and not having access to e-mail.  Ms. Mix opined that the petition was their main voice to explain what they wanted for the Old Highway 8 neighborhood; and it was the impression that those voices and others were not easily heard and that tonight’s proceeding was to silence those voices.  Ms. Mix questioned whether if their being declared as having no standing meant that their voices did not deserve to be heard.  Ms. Mix asked if the City Council had heard their message or was it being obliterated because they didn’t understand the process rules.  Ms. Mix noted that neighbors were not available during past discussions on development of their area and decisions were made by a previous City Council.  Ms. Mix advised that they were here now as a result of that past decision; and asked what the responsibility of the current City Council was compared to those Council’s of the past; and asked that the current City Council restore their faith in the City and find a compromise on development density on the two subject parcels; and to work with the neighbors to achieve what is best for the neighborhood.

 

Member Pust asked Ms. Mix if she and the neighborhood did not understand the last time they appeared before the City Council that they were attempting to proceed on a path that was not legally an option for them; but they appeared to be continuing on the same path.   Member Pust clarified that the term “standing” was a legal concept to explain that they had no legal standing to continue on this path, but that they did have a right to ask the City to change the zoning, but were not asking that.

 

Ms. Mix stated that she thought they had done and the City Council had said, “No.”

 

Member Pust advised that the last time the group appeared before the City Council, it was discussed that the neighbors could go back and petition for rezoning and that the City Council could consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; but instead they appeared to be simply appealing something that they had already been told that the City Council had to deny as the neighbors had no legal standing.

 

Ms. Mix advised that the neighbors thought they could start with another petition for zoning within 500’ of the subject properties, and still deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but that to apply to rezone, it would cost the neighbors $600.00.

 

Member Pust advised that the cost would be just like any other applicant seeking rezoning; and that the City Council had offered to make arrangements for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process to run parallel with their rezoning application in order to assist their group with the only legal path available to them, but that ultimately it was the neighbors’ choice to make.  Member Pust opined that she thought the City Council had made the process clear when this was last discussed; and further opined that she knew that City staff was willing to assist them; and that she failed to understand the continuing miscommunication.

 

Ms. Mix opined that she didn’t understand that to be a choice for their neighborhood and that she assumed that this process of appeal needed to be completed.  Ms. Mix further opined that the Planning Commission had first initiated a discussion for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and that it was important to complete this process that was started under a different set of laws and that the new law or code just went into effect on January 1, 2011.

 

Member Pust clarified that the new code did not change procedural options; and suggested that the neighborhood’s representatives sit down with staff to clearly review options.

 

Member McGehee concurred with Member Pust’s interpretation of current rules, noting that she had made the motion at the last City Council discussion to move this back to the Planning Commission and City Council hoping that she would get majority support to do so, but that did not pursue that path.  Member McGehee opined that she got the same impression when three (3) options were before the City Council and only the  one that the neighbors had no standing was referred back to the Planning Commission.  Member McGehee opined that it was her understanding that the Planning Commission was once again willing to reaffirm their compromise for MDR zoning and land use designation and could have referred it back to the City Council under their authority, but were not encouraged to do so or advised to bring the request back before the City Council.  Member McGehee noted that the City Council could also initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning Request without the neighbors having to pay $600 or continue to jump through hoops.

 

Community Development Trudgeon agreed with Member McGehee’s statement that a request could be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council without the City charging itself a fee; and that the applicants had been encouraged to move forward with their request.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while the Planning Commission had discussed whether to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, there appeared to be no collective interest in doing so through a formal vote.  Mr. Trudgeon further clarified that it was not for staff to make such a recommendation in that situation.

 

Member McGehee questioned if the group could return with a petition to initiate the review process.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that it should be in the form of an application and fee, not a petition, just as it would apply to any property owner.

 

Member McGehee opined that the application process was primarily written for development scenarios rather than a cohesive neighborhood group.

 

Member Pust clarified that an individual homeowner would be required to hold an Open House and make application with the $600 fee if they were seeking rezoning; in accordance with the City’s adopted fee schedule, and that the fee couldn’t be waived and that it should be differentiated from other applications since the City Attorney would advised the City Council that such action could be interpreted as “gifting public monies,” which the elected body could not do.

 

Chair Roe noted differences in the standard: 500’ and 50% of property owners in that area, not just those abutting property owners.

 

Member Pust opined that it was important to emphasize that there was another path available to the citizens if they determined to pursue it; noting that while there may not be majority support from the City Council to proceed, she didn’t want the neighbors to leave tonight’s meeting under the impression that they had no way to be heard, which was the message she was receiving based on the tenor of Ms. Mix’s remarks.  Member Pust assured them that they could be heard and that the City Council would hear them.

 

Chair Roe noted that this was simply a procedural process at this point, and that once the body reconvened as the City Council, further discussion could ensue that could shed more light on individual City Councilmember positions.

 

John Runquist, Trustee for the Owner of One of the Subject Properties

Mr. Runquist advised that he had become Trustee of the property upon the death of the property owner, Mr. John Hens; and had been trying to close out the Trust since then, while it had been an uphill battle, everything was now completed with the exception of the sale of this property.  Mr. Runquist noted that the heirs have waited over five years without receiving their inheritance from the Trust; and that two of the three heirs had predeceased settlement.   Mr. Runquist noted that Ms. Mix wanted to put faces on the parties; and his comments were for the purpose of doing so from his perspective.  Mr. Runquist reviewed past attempts for negotiation of issues between the interests related to this property and that of the townhome association, and the unwillingness of Ms. Mix as President of the Townhome Association in negotiating in good faith.  Mr. Runquist elaborated on those two issues: survey errors causing three of the twelve townhomes to be built across property lines, which he opined was caused by a City employee error approving the association’s development plan; and failure of the association to install a tile system to facilitate drainage of their site.  Mr. Runquist advised that the delays have cost approximately $11,000 for the heirs in property taxes to Ramsey and Hennepin Counties and to the City for utility costs on a vacant building over six years.  Mr. Runquist reviewed the eventual resolution of those issues with the association; and the current and long-awaited Purchase Agreement pending since September 23, 2010 due to this petition process.  Mr. Runquist asked that the City Council not change this from HDR and keep the heirs in flux any longer; noting that there was no development or sale pending on anything for MDR designation and anything other than this long-awaited proposal, with the Purchase Agreement including a condition that it remain HDR with a plan for thirty-seven units; and that the property had been marketed according to HDR for over three years.

 

At the request of Member Willmus, Mr. Runquist advised that he had provided an easement and allowed the association to keep their encroachments in place in order to settle the boundary issues. 

 

Joe Giannetti, 3209 Old Highway 8

Mr. Giannetti spoke to the signage for marketing the property disputing the HDR allegations on the sign.

 

Chair Roe clarified that the property was previously zoned single family but guided by the Comprehensive Plan as HDR.

 

Carolyn Busher, 3305 Croft Drive NE (St. Anthony Village)

Ms. Busher advised that she and her neighbors were concerned about safety due to added traffic, given the small children and schools in the area with such a high density use; as well as concerns with negative impacts to her property and home value.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10879 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution of the Roseville Board of Adjustments and Appeals Confirming the Decision of the Community Development Department Denying the Petition of the Property Owners Abutting/Surrounding 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.”

 

            Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and reconvening to the regular business meeting at 8:02 pm.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None

Regular Business Meeting

13.      Business Items (Presentations/Discussions)

a.            Council discussion of Old Highway 8 properties’ zoning and comprehensive plan designation (at the request of Councilmember Willmus)

Councilmember Willmus advised that he had requested this agenda item to allow the neighborhood to have some indication of individual Councilmembers on how an approach by their group for Open House and application for rezoning would be received by the City Council prior to their proceeding with that step and expense.

 

Individual City Council Positions

Councilmember Willmus opined that he was personally in favor of MDR based on the underlying zoning of the property as it was for a number of years, and not based on the Comprehensive Plan designation over those same years.  Councilmember Willmus noted his experience with property management for a number of years, and understood that land use decisions were not made on Comprehensive Plans or interest in property, but were based on zoning, which was single-family.  Councilmember Willmus noted that he had viewed this parcel as a transition parcel buffering single family homes on the north side of County Road C-2.  However, Councilmember Willmus advised that he did not want to create a situation where a Comprehensive Plan Amendment failed for lack of a super majority vote and zoning goes forward without that parallel support.

 

Councilmember McGehee offered her strong support of MDR; and advised that she had personally contacted the former Mayor and City Manager who ware active at the time when the two Planned Unit Developments (PUD) were put there and that they had confirmed the comments made by Ms. Mix that the area was always intended to be developed as MDR with townhomes similar to those adjacent to it.  Councilmember McGehee noted that at the initial meetings, she had brought up the question of a PUD to address drainage issues; and opined that this was a perfect location for a PUD, allowing the City Council and Planning staff to take advantage of and arrange townhomes in such a way to correct existing drainage issues and ensure there were no sight line issues from the townhomes to senior condominiums; and that the green space would be preserved and housing  clustered around an interior green space.  Councilmember McGehee reviewed Metropolitan Council density requirements and her calculations, based on mixes use designation in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and the Applewood Pointe development, indicating density requirements would be easily met by an MDR designation.  Councilmember McGehee opined that HDR was not right for that community or that neighborhood; and reiterated her preference to move forward with a general reinstatement  of the PUD into the zoning “toolbox”  so Planning staff could assist in making a nice development in this area; and further opining that MDR was a reasonable compromise.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City  under the new zoning regulations did not have the ability to address what neighbors wanted, and was supported by the voice of the majority, with 69% representing a fairly convincing majority within the neighborhood.  Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus that the subject properties were zoned R-1 and that the Comprehensive Plan was a guiding document only.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed his appreciation for all the communication provided by the neighbors, and noted that while he was unable to take advantage of their offer to meet, Mayor Roe had served as his liaison in doing so.  Councilmember Johnson advised neighbors that he had heard them, that he had listened, and that he had understood their feelings.  Councilmember Johnson referred to his voting pattern and where it fell related to the Comprehensive Plan; and advised that he had not changed his mind on that issue.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the properties were now zoned HDR as he thought it should be, and that the Comprehensive Plan designation was consistent.  Councilmember Johnson recognized neighborhood concerns with traffic and property values; however, he opined that he did not necessarily agree that the proposed development would negatively impact either.  Councilmember Johnson noted that, during any development project and process, responsible plans will be presented in accordance with state and local code requirements, and would include traffic studies.  Councilmember Johnson advised that he had toured the neighborhood and would be supporting this land use.  Councilmember Johnson reviewed the actual events from the Planning Commission where they chose not to make a recommendation to the City Council without majority support, since their original recommendation for MDR had been presented on a split vote.  Councilmember Johnson noted that it was obvious that not everyone on the Planning Commission was supportive of MDR as was being alleged.  Councilmember Johnson recognized that this was a hard decision, and while he didn’t like disagreements, he was attempting to be reasonable; and was sticking with his vote to support HDR.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he had a chance to meet with Ms. Mix as she hosted him in her home and provided a tour of the area.  Mayor Roe echoed the comments of Councilmember Johnson and repeated past comments.  Mayor Roe advised that the City Council had heard the neighbors asking for previous zoning of LDR and guided HDR land use designation; and City action to make the zoning match its land use guidance.  Mayor Roe advised that he was supportive of that action at that time.  Mayor Roe reviewed his rationale in his assessment that MDR with 12 units per acre, while stated as a compromise, was not a fair compromise due to such a low limit of units per acre; and in comparison to other developments in that area over time, such as the Executive Manor condominiums.  Mayor Roe reviewed calculations for units per acre based on current standards; and addressed building height and setback concerns that had been expressed.  Mayor Roe opined that these concerns were not solved through MDR, but were in fact comparable to standards for HDR under the City’s zoning requirements.  Mayor Roe expressed his confidence that the zoning, storm water management, and parking requirements would regulate what could be done and where it could be located on the property.  Mayor Roe noted that, during the City Council’s recent Work Plan meetings, he had expressed support of reviewing building heights and setbacks to determine if the City Code needed adjustment.  However, Mayor Roe opined that he didn’t think MDR was a fair compromise on these parcels.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that her vote had not changed, and that she would support HDR.  However, Councilmember Pust noted that her bigger concern was that she had only heard from the townhome owners on their properties, and not from any other property owners in the neighborhood, making her question what the group had done to involve them or work with them or the Trustee of these properties to find a resolution.  Councilmember Pust noted that there were tough balances to be considered when neighbors were not in agreement with what was proposed for a neighbor’s property; and questioned how they would react if the situation was reversed.  Councilmember Pust questioned if the neighbors were proactively working together for a compromise; and opined that she did not get that impression, and that they were reacting to a comment made at the Planning Commission level for a possible compromise.  Councilmember Pust opined that these properties were all of greater density than those south of County Road C-2, and that the road itself served as a buffer.  Councilmember Pust noted her consistency throughout this process in supporting the HDR zoning and land use designation.

 

Councilmember Pust recognized traffic issues, and had previously asked that the five-way intersection be reviewed in light of the young children and number of schools in that area.  Councilmember Pust expressed her confidence in staff’s review of the intersection, while admitting she was not aware of considerations being made by Saint Anthony Village related to the intersection.  Councilmember Pust opined that neighbors concerned about traffic today as well as with further development in the area, should have previously complained to the City about the traffic issues prior to this development coming forward.  Councilmember Pust further opined that the City Council was put in a difficult position whenever they heard, “Not in my backyard! (NIMBY);” however, she opined that, given the density already in that area, this seemed to be an appropriate use.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that the neighbors should not consider who “wins” or “loses” as had been postured, but what was the best use of those properties, and opined that she didn’t see MDR serving as a significant buffer as had been presented.  Councilmember Pust suggested that of more concern to the neighbors was that they enjoyed their current view; and noted that concerns that drainage would be impeded by this proposed development, but assured neighbors that that would not happen, as it was the City’s job to address those concerns during the development phases of any project.  Councilmember Pust noted that it was the City Council’s job to balance everyone’s property rights, including that of the subject property owners; and when she considered the overall picture, she remained supportive of HDR. 

 

Public Comment

Carol Busher

Ms. Busher assured Councilmembers that she was unaware that this development was being proposed until just recently; and in her subsequent discussions with staff at Saint Anthony Village, she was not convinced that there would not be negative traffic and home value ramifications.  Ms. Busher noted that her unemployed status of over three years did not alleviate these concerns.

 

Ms. Moose Gianetti, Woods Edge, 3209 Old Highway 8

Ms. Gianetti advised that she had only been a resident in the area for six months; and didn’t realize this was going on.  Ms. Gianetti referenced her e-mail, that was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof; speaking in opposition to HDR land use designation at 3453 and 3261 Old Highway 8. Ms. Gianetti opined that concerns expressed regarding property values was valid, and provided recent sales of two of their twelve units over the last six month, each selling for substantially less than previous sales; and offered that as proof that disclosure to buyers of the proposed development was negatively impacting home values even before it was developed.  Ms. Gianetti also addressed current traffic; and took issue with the NIMBY comments made by Councilmember Pust.  Ms. Gianetti asked that the City Council hear their valid concerns, and opined that MDR made all the sense in the world, based on her real estate sales experience of over seventeen years, and her past experience as a former City Councilmember in the City of Lauderdale recognizing the difficult role for Councilmembers.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that it had been his intent for this discussion to clarify for citizens where individual Councilmembers stood.

 

Councilmember McGehee reiterated her strong belief that this would be a good location for a PUD; and sought individual City Council interest in allowing Planning staff to pursue a PUD policy to be included in the Zoning Code.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she would not take a position without a development proposal before the body.

 

Mayor Roe noted that there was no longer any allowance for PUD’s in the City’s current code; and that it was on the agenda for City Council consideration in March of 2011.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that the setback issue and building heights were compelling issues and provided other venues for action other than PUD.

 

Mayor Roe noted that not having  the need for PUD’s in the process was due to updating the zoning code and addressing those concerns raised in PUD’s in code requirements; but noted that sometimes there could be other positive and negative implications.

 

Public Comment

Pat Wells, 3221 Croft (SAV)

Mr. Wells opined that if the proposed project reached development phase, the City Council would experience many more neighbors coming forward to speak.

 

Mayor Roe noted that as part of any development proposal, traffic studies were reviewed.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:28 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:42 pm.

12.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Consider a Resolution to Authorize City to Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011; reminding all that those property owners listed (Attachment B) had the opportunity to pay the balance prior to certification.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10880 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer, and Other City Charges for Payable 2012 or Beyond,” as detailed in Attachment B to the Request for Council Action dated February 14, 2011.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Johnson clarified, and Mr. Miller responded affirmatively, that the large amount outstanding on the former Fuddrucker’s property would move forward for resolution by any new property owner or resolved as part of a negotiated closing settlement.

 

b.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 511 Hilltop

Codes Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the request for abatement for unresolved violations of City Code at 511 Hilltop as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011.  Mr. Munson noted that there were several revisions to the request from those listed in the packet.  Mr. Munson reviewed the history of this property, with it having received over nine neighbor complaints over the last five years; and previous City Council abatement for building maintenance violations; and the property owner’s consistent practice of waiting until the last possible moment to address issues.

 

Mr. Munson provided pictures of this rental property in January of 2010 when it was vacant and without siding; and property notice in September of 2010 that the Building Permit was null and void due to inactivity, and subsequent request by the property owner for an extension to complete it.  Mr. Munson advised that, with ongoing lack of resolution over eighteen months, and staff had initiated this abatement proceeding with no siding as of one week ago; and as of last Friday, the property owner had completed siding installation.  Mr. Munson provided updated pictures, noting that there remained discarded construction debris on site; garbage on a trailer in the front yard; and debris on the side of the garage still visible to neighbors and probably some buried under snow.  Given the history of enforcement issues with this property owner, Mr. Munson asked the City Council to authorize staff to proceed with abatement of any remaining violations unless completed by the property owner by March 1, 2011; with staff providing such notice to the property owners.  Mr. Munson advised that the estimated city abatement cost was therefore reduced to approximately $500 for remaining work.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Munson included validity of building permits for six months unless extended; concerns with the garbage on the trailer, not necessarily the trailer itself that could be easily moved to the garage; possible other materials and debris under the snow that needed to be addressed suggesting a longer period for compliance; past history and frustration of staff and Councilmembers in getting the property owner’s response and resolution of issues; and support of the City Attorney in the proposed action by the City not being arbitrary or capricious as it was for completion of the siding work issue previously noticed, and did not represent a new and separate action that would need to be re-noticed.

 

Mayor Roe verified that the property owner was not present, and no one else appeared to speak.

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, recommendation that owner complete the siding installation project by removing all construction debris no later than April 15, 2011; or the City will contract to have the work completed and bill the property owner for actual and administrative costs; and if charges are not paid, staff will recover costs as specified in Section 407.07B of Roseville City Code.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 590 Highway 36

Mr. Munson provided a summary of the request as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011; noting that the property was currently in foreclosure, and had come to staff’s attention as part of monitoring properties where Xcel Energy had turned off utilities.  Mr. Munson reviewed outstanding home maintenance issues for siding and soffits; deteriorating exterior stairway; outside junk, debris and brush needing to be cleared; and an unlicensed vehicle in the driveway.  Mr. Munson provided pictures of the property taken in October of 2010.

 

Discussion included siding materials on the dormers; outside debris and material; clarification that the Public Works Department had turned off the water in the street; winter shut off rules not applicable since the heat and power had been turned off before October 15; and the length of the process due to tracking ownership and mortgage holders of the property to provide notice to the bank as well; with staff noting that processing foreclosed properties took longer for noticing.

 

Mr. Munson advised that when the notice to repair the structure was processed by staff, no response had been received; and the Notice of Abatement had been posted on the property for one month; as well as notice given to the property owner of record and the bank with no response.  Mr. Munson advised that the proposed total abatement was estimated at $5,200.

 

Further discussion included potential city action by May of 2011 based on receipt of bids for the work to be completed; and staff review and inspection of the entire property site once Xcel Energy provides notice of the utility shut off and when obvious City Code violations are evidenced, with staff knocking on the door of the subject property prior to walking around the property.

 

Property Owner and Resident, Rob Ethan

Mr. Ethan disputed several points made by staff as background information, acknowledging that there were several areas needing repair and repainting.  Mr. Ethan advised that he was a single father, and referenced comments made earlier in the evening by Dr. Thein regarding the significant impacts and economic difficulties.  Mr. Ethan advised that his son was a fourth generation Roseville resident, and asked for sufficient time to handle this without abatement.  Mr. Ethan admitted that cost was a current issue; but clarified that the home was not in foreclosure, although very close, but assured Councilmembers that he was doing everything possible to prevent foreclosure.  Mr. Ethan reviewed the attempts he’d made to complete the work on his own, and the difficulties he’d encountered with the outside staircase and remaining work needed.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if the unregistered vehicle was still on site; and Mr. Ethan responded that it was, and was functioning, but not registered.

 

Mr. Ethan advised that he was not aware that it was a violation and thanked Mr. Munson for alerting him to that and advised that he would simply put it in the garage to serve as a replacement for his current vehicle.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted the many resources available to Mr. Ethan through the City’s HRA to assist him, including volunteers who could help with painting and carpentry projects.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Munson advised that staff had received no neighbor complaints on this property to-date.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Ethan for an estimated timeframe for completion of the work.

 

Mr. Ethan responded that the real constraints at this time were financial, making it difficult for him to provide a timeline, but requesting 90-120 days at a minimum.  Mr. Ethan advised that he had been unemployed for over a year, but was confident things would soon be resolved, even though he remained concerned.  Mr. Ethan assured Councilmembers that the work would get done without a City abatement process.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed his compassion for Mr. Ethan and his circumstances; and noted the City Council’s history of working cooperatively with homeowners in these situations to resolve issues; and expressed his support in extending the timeline for Mr. Ethan to accomplish the work on his own.  Councilmember Johnson encouraged Mr. Ethan to talk with Mr. Munson for information on applicable volunteer support; and offered his support to Mr. Ethan going forward.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if it was necessary for the deteriorated exterior stairway to remain in place, or whether it would be feasible to remove it.

 

Mr. Ethan advised that if it remained, the foundation would need to be reconstructed with new materials, and given their cost, he needed to delay repairs.  Mr. Ethan advised that another option would be to build a small balcony and demolish the stairs.

 

It was Council consensus that no action would be taken at this time.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that it would be good to hear that Mr. Ethan was working closely with staff for resources if it was later necessary for him to return to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe expressed hope that volunteers may come forward after viewing tonight’s meeting; with Councilmember Johnson concurring.  Mayor Roe advised Mr. Ethan that the City would extend to 120 days for Mr. Ethan to complete the work on his own, and if not completed, staff would likely return with an abatement request, or hear from Mr. Ethan as to the cause of any further delay.

 

Mr. Ethan thanked the City Council for the information on possible resources; and noted that Xcel Energy had been taken care of.  Mr. Ethan advised that much of the material in the backyard was for an outdoor ice rink.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Ethan for his attendance tonight and for providing a better understanding of the situation.

 

d.            Consider Approving The Cuningham Group to complete the Community Mixed Use/Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan and enter into a Standard Agreement for Professional Services

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011; noting that the requested work was for a technical document to replace the existing Urban Design Principles for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, as described in Section 1.2 of the RCA.  Mr. Paschke reviewed the five finalists and three responses with The Cuningham Group the lowest at $14,500.  Mr. Paschke advised that the project was budgeted through the Community Development Department’s Professional Services budget.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included consultants to-date for the Comprehensive Plan Update and Zoning Code rewrite.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned why it was proposed at this time; and whether this would stifle or enhance development in Twin Lakes; and opined that the citizens and property owners in the area should be surveyed beforehand and prior to spending another $15,000 on consultants.

 

Mr. Paschke clarified that this Regulating Map and Plan was a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and necessary prior to staff review of any developments for that area.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff address Councilmember McGehee’s comment that proceeding with the Regulating Map may stifle development.

 

Mr. Paschke noted that this was not a Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan process to guide land development as indicated by Councilmember McGehee, with that process having been done a number of times to-date.  Mr. Paschke advised that the recent Zoning Code Rewrite had created the Community/Mixed Use District and now it needed a Regulating Map and Plan to bring it to fruition; and was the only way any development could proceed in that area.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if it was fair to say that the Map and Plan were akin to the tables existing for setback requirements and building placement on lots addressed in other parts of the code and used as regulatory standards.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that this is the technical component for the Twin Lakes area.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if this document would define uses and their location in the Twin Lakes area.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that it would not, that those items had already been addressed in the standards for that District.  Mr. Paschke advised that the City had made a huge investment in infrastructure in that area, and this document addressed how that infrastructure would connect and serve future development; and that it would create, as an example, a Map and Plan to show how buildings would front next to corners.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the difference in this document and existing standards, charts and tables found in other areas of the code, was that it tailored it to this specific area based on the uniqueness of that area.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that it may not be specific to all of Twin Lakes, but would only refer to Phase I, and exclude newer buildings already constructed, but taking older development sites and provide for their incorporation; with the existing Medical Center and four office/showroom buildings not being included in the proposed Plan.

 

Councilmember Willmus observed that, from his perspective, this area had properties with multiple owners, and this document would put all those redevelopment issues within the same technical guidelines so all parties would know what their property would eventually look like.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that they property owners could then bring forward standards based on design standards already in place.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of The Cuningham Group to complete the Community Mixed Use Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan and enter into a Standard Agreement for Professional Services

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

e.            Consider Budget Calendar

Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the materials provided and detailed as part of the RCA dated February 14, 2011.  Mr. Miller noted the template was primarily as prepared by Mayor Roe, and that the resolution (Attachment A) served to formalize the action; and included supporting documentation (Attachment B) similar to that provided in prior years allowing the current City Council a perspective if they chose to adopt the proposed budget calendar.  Mr. Miller noted that staff was attempting to anticipate questions of the City Council to determine and facilitate their information needs and the context in which they wanted to receive them. 

 

Mr. Miller noted that one thing not factored into the timeline was the work of the subcommittee and sought Council input on those specific scheduling considerations and how to incorporate them.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with Mr. Miller that the timeline came largely from his efforts in attempting to reflect on his observations on how the budget process had transpired over the last few years and possible ways to improve that process.  Mayor Roe noted that the timeline provided the opportunity for an early round table discussion among staff and City Councilmembers on programs and priorities from the City Manager and staff as an initial step; as well as providing for earlier City Council and public input.  Mayor Roe noted that there were 2-3 opportunities to review the preliminary and final levies.  Mayor Roe noted that the document listing on pages 3-4 are lifted directly from his original submission and captured past discussions to tie into this process.  Mayor Roe noted that if the City Council went in a different direction or followed a different process, it may need different documents.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned whether this timeline included adoption of a biennial budget process; and if so, it appeared that additional dates were needed to review that second year and make mid-year corrections.  Councilmember Pust expressed some concerns with the proposed document listing, opining that she didn’t want to pass a resolution referencing specific documents and lock in those documents.  Councilmember Pust noted that this City Council had not discussed the document format they preferred, and opined that the listed documents may prove helpful to some, but not necessarily each individual Councilmember.  Councilmember Pust noted that at some point in each budget process cycle, there were other documents requested; and suggested further discussion prior to adopting the resolution and referenced documents. 

 

Councilmember Pust noted copies of 2010 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 412.701 (Attachment C) related to municipal budgeting; and Chapter 412.711 (Attachment D) related to consideration of the budget and tax levy; and noted certain information required in those budgetary documents requiring a breakdown of salaries and wages.  Councilmember Pust noted that this was always one of her annual stumbling blocks when no line item was included to factor in real salary costs for each program/service; causing the process to have impractical limits for her.  Councilmember Pust opined that, under those circumstances and without that salary information, the City Council was not ready to adopt the resolution tonight.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the resolution didn’t adopt the documents, just the timeline.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that Event No. 2 on the Resolution specifically stated that the City Council approves the 2012 Budget Work Plan, “including required documentation;” indicating that the identified documents were all inclusive.  Councilmember Pust noted that staff was always receptive to providing whatever was requested; however, she preferred a broader discussion.

 

Mayor Roe opined that those documents are based on what was provided in the past and references to the list begin on page 3, noting that it was more defined that just these attachments; and the documents included to-date were intended to serve only as a starting discussion point for documentation requests.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember Pust verbatim; however, he expressed support for the proposed calendar dates, but suggested that adopting the resolution tonight may be premature.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmembers Pust and Willmus, advising that the documentation she would request was not that included in the document list; and questioned when the roundtable discussion would be held to request their document preferences; and whether Mayor Roe would like those requests at the February 28, 2011 regular meeting.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the sooner received the better to avoid delaying the process and allowing staff time to prepare those documents.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned where criteria was for prioritizing the second year in the process, with 2011 including the “must do’s” and “ought to do's” but not laid out for 2013.

 

Mayor Roe noted that it was the same budget.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned whether it actually was the same, since it needed to remain fluid for all departments the ability to identify mid-2011 on long-term plans for that year.

 

Mayor Roe advised that the biennial budget process was coordinated with the calendar for review throughout the two-year budget cycle; and was directly related to Councilmember Pust’s comments to add milestones and dates to address the second year; even though the City Council will still adopt an annual levy.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the second year didn’t include such items like mill and overlay projects, and that was the type of criteria he was suggesting needed additional conversations.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it should be provided as part of the two-year cycle, and could be lumped together over that period, or if the Council so directed, could be separated for 2012 and 2013.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested that, as part of the staff/City Council roundtable discussion, the “must do’s” needed to be determined for the second year as well.  While not being critical, Councilmember Johnson noted that it wasn’t done for the 2011 budget, and needed to be done at some point.

 

Mayor Roe noted that at the Work Plan meetings, the City Council and staff had presented and priorities their “must do” and “ought to do” lists, after which they decided on the biennial budget.  Mayor Roe opined that he hoped not to have the entire 2013 Work Plan discussion, but factor it into the discussions with staff.

 

Councilmember Johnson asked that staff plug that information into the timeframe and plan through a memorandum to the City Council to make sure it was relative to this year’s discussion.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that Attachment C be reviewed to determine the context and detail needed for revenues and expenditures prior to February 28, 2011; opining that it would prove very helpful to her and provide additional information.  Related to the biennial budget, Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in predictive factors for ongoing projects in terms of development and redevelopment and how the economy may impact those revenue sources; in addition to any major capital items that would impact program changes under consideration; basically addressing all those items listed in the second portion of Attachment C.

 

Mayor Roe noted receipt during the process, as noted on the calendar, information from the County Assessor; and initial recommended budget for response before fully vetted to determine what individual Councilmembers wanted the levy to be set at.  Mayor Roe addressed statutory document requirements, opining that the Council could decide where those breakdowns best fit in the documentation they reviewed, using #4 as an example in the document list “Budget Expenditure Summary” for each programs actual and proposed costs; with that document possibly serving as the best place to add a breakdown for personnel and material/supply costs.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t’ care where the documents were listed, but she would like to have all the documents as outlined in State Statute, which had not been provided in the past.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned how Mayor Roe would propose salary information could be obtained in relationship to former budget processes.

 

Mayor Roe noted that there were already several pieces in place, including this year’s budget document on the City’s website showing personnel costs as well as supplies/materials costs for each program/department; along with several other breakdowns.  Mayor Roe suggested that if the personnel costs and FTE’s for the same function it accomplished, it would serve as a salary breakdown allowing the City Council to make a decision on what more level of breakdown they preferred.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed satisfaction in being able to decipher that information on a general basis, noting he did not need specifics or individuals.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that position descriptions would be helpful for her use.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that the Statute seemed quite prescriptive, and she was unaware of their existence before tonight.

 

Mr. Miller advised, specific to salaries and wages, that with past City Councils staff had asked them to adopt a compensation plan listing all positions and their respective salary ranges; and subsequent to that unless there was a change to a position or how it was categories, staff had simply asked the City Council to approve COLA’s for those various positions and levels within the organization.  Mr. Miller clarified that past City Council had adopted the position, not the current five members.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that this was not her reading of the Statute.

 

Mayor Roe opined that municipalities had some freedom in the format of their budget, and needed to agree on that format.

 

Councilmember Pust referenced the last sentence of Attachment D addressing actual line items in accordance with State Statute.

 

Mayor Roe opined that both Statutes went hand in hand from his understanding and that the municipality retained the right to determine what detail they chose.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Bartholdi advised that he could not provide a legal opinion at this time, but could research the matter if so directed by the Council majority.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that this information lent itself to more of a line item type of budget than done in the past.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she would prefer more detail than provided in the past.

 

Mayor Roe noted the breakdowns by division or program area (Attachment B) as an approach or a total cost broken down by those categories and summed up across the whole budget.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that individual Councilmembers take time to digest the information and have additional discussion and provide direction to staff on February 28, 2011.  Councilmember Pust expressed her interest in hearing the perspective of City Manager Malinen.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that individual Councilmembers provide their preferences in writing to City Manager Malinen and Finance Director Miller prior to the February 28, 2011 meeting.

 

Mayor Roe reminded Councilmembers of Open Meeting Laws and the need to address that correspondence to the City Manager’s office for distribution as applicable.

 

City Manager Malinen expressed the importance, from his perspective, to continue the process begun by the City Council several years ago focusing on the programmatic level and their priorities when considering levels of reduction.  Mr. Malinen note that the process envisioned was to use City Council priority rankings to make budget adjustments, with staff providing the City Council with appropriate ways to reduce the budget based on those priorities; and remaining programmatic, not arbitrary.  Mr. Malinen recommended that individual Councilmember input keep that process in mind.  Mr. Malinen opined that a biennial budget was an important next step, in addition to saving time and energy for staff and Councilmembers.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that it had been a suggestion of hers for some time, and she was fully supportive of a biennial budget.

 

City Manager Malinen noted that the biennial budget process was not advocated by staff earlier in order to allow everyone to acclimate to priority-based budgeting; with that process now running quite smoothly and not needing refinement at this time, with staff having developed better understanding of program costs.  Mr. Malinen reiterated his recommendation that the next step be a biennial budget and not an overhaul of priority-based budgeting.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that individual Councilmembers keep that as a basis in the process, and work around that in what they prefer for documentation.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred, suggesting tweaking as opposed to a complete overhaul.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the whole idea was that reductions were needed, and that priority-based budgeting was not moving the City any closer to that goal.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that prior to priority-based budgeting, the past process better allowed for a serious look at the budget and recommendations for cuts in programs; however, priority-based budgeting states that programming should remain, causing more expense to be build on the base with each cycle.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she was not going to be excited about the program; but would submit her specific document needs.

 

Mayor Roe sought comments of other Councilmembers on the priority-based budgeting process and whether it was preferred to continue it with further refinement, or to scrap it completely.

 

Councilmember Johnson stated that he was prepared to compromise; opining that there were some criteria that would be helpful to him, but that he was not prepared to abandon the system completely, when so much time had been spent to-date building it.  Councilmember Johnson further opined that it was still a fluid system and could be opened for additional criteria; noting that 81% of the City’s budget was personnel-related and while addressed indirectly, it represented a huge item not to be addressed.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it required more scrutiny than it had received over the last two years; and offered to put forward his document requests and recommendations supporting the system.  Councilmember Johnson further opined that the system worked to the degree they wanted it to work, and expressed in adding to the information provided this year.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that each Councilmember needed to come to the conclusion that, whatever system they worked within, they needed to work within the parameters of State Statute; and that they played a significant role in how to move forward, whether through priority-based or line item budgeting.  Councilmember Willmus opined that detail would be needed, and while it may not fit the budgeting for priorities mold, staff should be cognizant of the need for that type of level going forward. 

 

Mayor Roe noted that part of the priority-based budgeting not used in the past allowed for reductions in low priority items; and suggested that the pending review of capital needs and infrastructure replacement costs may accomplish those reductions in the CIP or eliminating lower priority programs, that would also address personnel decisions.  Mayor Roe expressed his continued support in pursuing the priority based approach with that additional level of detail as discussed to facilitate the process moving forward.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he would work with staff to incorporate additional event dates for the second year of the biennial process prior to the February 28, 2011 meeting.

 

Councilmember Pust requested working the CIP report into the schedule as well.

 

Mayor Roe concurred; noting that the capital budget needed to be incorporated throughout the process.  Mayor Roe encouraged individual Councilmembers to look at the documents in tonight’s budget packet in detail and the document descriptions to determine how to move forward on February 28, 2011.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that he would work aggressively in setting up meeting dates for the subcommittee as part of that process.

 

Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to individual Councilmembers for tonight’s discussion; and the need to have a better understanding going into the process and everyone’s expectations.

 

Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus expressed appreciation to Mayor Roe for creating the framework for drafting the biennial schedule.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions (continued)

a.            Discuss NE Diagonal Corridor

Councilmember Roe noted that this was a holdover from the February 7, 2011 Work Plan meeting; and Councilmember Johnson concurred, noting that was brought forward as a courtesy to Councilmember Pust who was unable to attend that meeting, and the item was not discussed, but that she may wish further discussion.

 

Councilmember Pust summarized her intent in ensuring that the needs of Roseville and the area are well represented at the Metropolitan Council level during area transportation discussions.  Councilmember Pust noted her ongoing interest in regional transportation issues; and her strong interest in continuing to build relationships for recognition of the City of Roseville in those discussions.  Councilmember Pust volunteered to continue to participate in regional transportation discussions, and opined that there was no need for Council action unless deemed necessary by the City Council at this time.

 

It was the consensus of the City Council that Councilmember Pust continues to serve as a liaison for the community and its elected officials as she outlined; and to provide periodic reports to the full body as so indicated; or if she felt there was more proactive involvement needed by the City Council beyond her role as observer.

 

Mayor Roe noted that additional conversation may be indicated for the City to participate in regional organizations through reinstating memberships in those groups.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted Roger Toogood’s interest in transportation issues; and suggested that Councilmember Pust contact him for any pertinent ideas.

14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Willmus requested a status update on the super or simple majority question that remained outstanding pending further City Manager research from the annual adoption of City Council Rules of Procedure.  City Manager Malinen advised that he was still completing the research and that a report should be forthcoming to the City Council in the near future.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested future City Council discussion related to formulating a City ordinance requiring town home and condominium associations to have sufficient reserve funds in place.  Councilmembers concurred to hold further discussion at a future meeting.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the need to correct the Upcoming Public Meeting schedule at the end of the Agenda template to verify dates; as well as double checking the latest version of the 2011 City Council meeting calendar, as there appeared to be some confusion in actual 2010 and 2011 dates.

16.      Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 pm.

                 Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.