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 347th 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.