View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City
Attorney Charles Bartholdi were also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted
that Agenda Item 13.c entitled, "Community Development Department Request to
Perform Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 311 County Road B" had
been removed as violations had been resolved.
McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled "Request by Lakewest and
Commers Enterprises Southtown for Vacation of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501 -
2699 Patton Road" for questions.
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as amended.
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Roe announced several Parks & Recreation-related "Playground Builds" volunteer
opportunities this weekend at Materion and Howard Johnson Parks and available
shifts, with additional information available from Recreation Superintendent
Rick Schultz at 651/492-7104.
announced upcoming Rosefest activities from June 26 - 30; and July 4, 2014
events for Independence Day, with a list of family activities and events - many
free - available on the City's website or on the Rosefest Hotline at
651/792-7411 and times, locations and registration information if needed.
Laliberte advised that the next meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local
Governments (RCLLG) was scheduled for June 26, 2014 at Union Depot, with the
main focus on transit-related items, with her report on the meeting to follow
at a later date.
provided a brief update on the Cable Franchise Renewal with Comcast, and vote
by the North Suburban Communications Commission at their May 15, 2014 special
meeting to recommend that the ten member cities deny the Comcast proposal as
presented. Mayor Roe advised that ongoing efforts will continue for informal
negotiations; with the Roseville City Council scheduled to consider their options
and take action at the regular June 16, 2014 meeting. Mayor Roe advised that
an opportunity for public comment would be available at that time.
attempting to speak for them, at the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor
Roe briefly expanded on a recent newspaper article related to action of the
Shoreview City Council based on their concerns with negotiations to-date.
Donations and Communications
Recognize Girl Scout Gold Award Winners
On behalf of
the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe recognized Courtney Gastecki
for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl
Scout Gold Award, with projects to help educate the community on responsible
pet ownership and adoption; and declared June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in
the City of Roseville.
Etten seconded, declaring June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of
Roseville; and recognized Courtney Gastecki for her accomplishments as a member
of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with projects to
help educate the community on responsible pet ownership and adoption.
On behalf of
the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe recognized Madeleine Logeais
for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl
Scout Gold Award, with projects to help inspire students to participate in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Learning; and declared June
9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville.
moved, McGehee seconded, declaring June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the
City of Roseville; and recognized Madeleine Logeais for her accomplishments as
a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with
projects to help inspire students to participate in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) Learning.
Recognize New Police Officers and Volunteer Coordinator
Rick Mathwig introduced the City's most recently-hired City of Roseville Police
Officers Mitch Christensen, Zach Wiesner, and Crystal Jones, officially sworn
in on May 22, 2014; and read a brief biography for each officer in order of
the officers in their service to the City of Roseville and its citizens.
Patrick Trudgeon introduced recently-hired City of Roseville Volunteer
Coordinator Ms. Kelly O'Brien; and offered a brief biography and summary of her
work to-date in volunteer coordination.
invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. O'Brien thanked the City Council for recognizing
the potential of community engagement and the need for an infrastructure of
volunteers to address that. Ms. O'Brien expressed her enthusiasm for working
with the City Council and community residents to build a greater Roseville.
6. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Minutes of May 12, 2014 Regular Meeting
McGehee seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2014 as presented.
McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Minutes of May 22, 2014 Special Meeting
McGehee seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2014 as amended.
Lines 15 - 18 (Roe)
Councilmember Laliberte was the speaker; and corrected typographical error from
"per-empt" to "preempt."
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 Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
Willmus asked that the Check Register duplex printing be in a format that is
easier to read as done in the past; duly noted by staff as a copying error.
McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
73643 - 73930
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of
one (1) year, unless otherwise noted, for the following applicants:
Type of License
Feng Lee; Massage Xcape; 1767
Lexington Avenue N
Amanda Drake; Massage Envy;
2480 Fairview Avenue
Diamond Lake 1994, LLC, d/b/a
Cub Foods #6694
1201 Larpenteur Avenue W
Cigarette / Tobacco
Renaissance Fireworks, Inc.
Roseville Center Parking Lot;
1135 Larpenteur Avenue W
Sale of Consumer Fireworks
Rainbow Foods Parking Lot; 1201
Larpenteur Avenue W
Walmart Parking Lot; 1960 Twin
RBF, LLC of Wisconsin, d/b/a
Rainbow Foods #8802
Cub Foods West #31334; 2100
Walmart #3404; 1960 Twin Lakes
Church of Corpus Christi, 2131
Fairview Avenue N
For an event to be held on
June 21, 2014
Temporary On-Sale Liquor
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and
contracts for services presented as follows; and as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated June 9, 2014; and Attachment A entitled, "2014
Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 05/31/2014."
Data 911 Squad computer support
Upper Cut Tree Service
Diseased & hazardous tree removal
Affinity Plus Credit
Forfeited vehicle: lien payoff
Century Fence Co.
Split rail fence replacement
Vonco 11, LLC
Street sweeping dump charges
City Hall & N Garage roof
Retaining wall replacement
Project Management software
Authorize Acceptance of Cost-Share Funds and Approve Cost-Share
Agreement for Dellwood Street Drainage Improvements
McGehee seconded, accepting cost-share funds and approving the cost-share
agreement (Attachment A) with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District in
the amount of $100,000 for the Dellwood Street Drainage Improvements.
Authorize New Police Mutual Aid Agreement - Ramsey County
moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the City of Roseville to enter into the
Mutual Aid Agreement (Attachment A), with Ramsey County and parties as detailed
in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.
Approve a Resolution to Join the Petition for Rise Creek
Watershed District to Establish a Phased Basic Water Management Project
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11151_ (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution of Intent to Join the Amended Petition for the New
Brighton/St. Anthony Basic Water Management Project, Rice Creek Watershed
District Project 2013-01, to Acknowledge the Allocation of Local Project Costs
for the Mirror Lake and Hansen Park Project Components, to Allow Proceeding to
Project Phases 2 and 3 for Other Project Components, and Authorizing Amended
Consider Approving IT Shared Service Agreement with the City of
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A)
between the City of Roseville and the City of Centerville for provision of IT
support services by the City of Roseville.
Approve Agreement for AutoZone Development at 1255 Larpenteur
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, clarification was provided on Exhibit B
(extract of Variance Board meeting minutes) and verification that the 10-day
appeal period had already expired.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Agreement (Attachment B) between the
City of Roseville and AutoZone Development Corporation, identified as a flood
damage liability waiver, waiving and releasing the City of Roseville from any
and all claims, liens, demands, etc., arising from or related to any property
or personal damage or loss in connection with the property at 1255 Larpenteur
Avenue, and relevant to City requirements under City Code Chapter 1017,
Shoreland, Wetland and Stormwater Management.
Set Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of an Off-Sale Liquor
License to JE Roseville Liquor 2014, LLC (Cub Liquor)
moved, McGehee seconded, setting a Public Hearing on June 23, 2014 to consider
transferring the rights of the off-sale liquor license from RBF, LLC of
Wisconsin to JE Roseville Liquor 2014, LLC, for the remainder of the 2014 calendar
Set Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of an Off-Sale 3.2%
Liquor License to Diamond Lake 1994, LLC (Cub Foods)
McGehee seconded, setting a Public Hearing on June 23, 2014 to consider
transferring the rights of the 3.2% liquor license to Diamond Lake 1994, LLC,
for the remainder of the 2014 calendar year.
Items Removed from Consent
Request by Lakewest and Commers Enterprises Southtown for VACATION
of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501 - 2699 Patton Road
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the request as
detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.
McGehee stated that, from the meeting minute excerpt, she was unable to
determine if there was resolution regarding the turn radius raised at the
Planning Commission meeting.
McGehee further questioned if, when reviewing the plat map, there could be an
opportunity to require additional green space versus more impervious with this
request and thereby enhance the parking lot making it somewhat more pleasant in
this industrial area. While understanding that there was no potential use for
the right-of-way being vacated, Councilmember McGehee asked if such a trade-off
could be made to enhance the existing property.
Manager Trudgeon advised that there was little requirement for green space in
industrial districts; and he would need to verify the actual percentage
required, but since this is intended as a stall build-out, depending on parking
lot standards and requirements (e.g. islands), he would check into those code
requirements to determine if they would be applicable in this situation.
McGehee opined that it would make the entire block look more attractive with
additional green space, further opining that, from her review of the property,
this parcel may be pushing the 15% limit.
moved to direct staff to look into the impervious surface situation as it is
Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.
Laliberte asked if it was the applicant's intent to apply for the new
stormwater credit; and suggested if so, pro-active measures could be suggested
to the applicant as part of the negotiations to receive any credits.
Trudgeon responded that he was unsure if that extensive of a conversation had
occurred at this time.
Willmus noted that this easement was originally taken for a particular purpose,
later determined not to be needed; and questioned if there was any standing to
retain it at this point.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Bartholdi responded that it had been
determined that there was no longer a need for it and it no longer served of a
benefit to the City.
to the possible conditioning of the vacation, City Attorney Bartholdi clarified
that a vacation was black and white, and no conditions could be applied to a
vacation of easement. Mr. Bartholdi noted that the only question was whether
or not retaining the easement going forward was of benefit to the City as
originally taken and intended. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the vote for
vacation was simply yes or no, and once vacated, the applicant could consider
options for the property at their discretion, but not as a compliance measure
required by the City.
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11152 (Attachment E)
entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501-2699
Patton Road (PF14-009)."
Roe noted that, based on the aerial photo and map included in the RCA, there
were design limitations that may actually leave some green space there due to
stormwater ponding. However, Mayor Roe agreed with the City Attorney's advice
regarding any conditioning of this vacation.
Ordinances for Adoption
Amending City Code Chapter 303: Amusement Devices: Areas and Game Rooms
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request as
detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.
advised that this code amendment had come up at the request of Chuck-E-Cheese,
as they were working through the process to locate a new facility in Roseville
in the Sports Authority building at 1750 Highway 36 Service Drive with an
addition to the building on the south. Mr. Miller advised that, internal staff
discussions with the Police Department, Planning Department and other City
staff, the original rationale for separation was no longer necessary with the
updated Zoning Code that would be sufficient to regulate that separation.
Specific to this, Mr. Miller advised that a Conditional Use (CU) would have typically
been put in place providing another layer of control to address distance requirements;
however, City Planners did not feel a CU was necessary as long as the proposal
was consistent with zoning as a regulating tool. Therefore, Mr. Miller advised
that the proposal was to amend two sections of Code 303, as indicated in the
RCA; and a revised ordinance (Attachment A) as indicated.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon was unsure why the terminology
"video arcade" was specifically mentioned in the CU language; and if someone
applied after this change, a pool hall request that may be across from a school
would still need a license for gaming devices with City Council approval.
Etten questioned if the City gained more control by leaving the CU process in
place; with Mr. Trudgeon responding that the CU allowed particulars for the
use, and it would be reasonable to keep it if the City Council had concerns in
retaining controls allowed by a CU.
opined that it didn't make sense from a code writing point of view to have the
CU included in licensing code with no reference to it in zoning code. Mayor
Roe suggested that, if the CU requirement for this type of use and amendment of
the Table of Uses in zoning code was not approved tonight, it may make more
sense on a short-term basis to change the first part of Section 3 to facilitate
timing for this applicant, and leave Item B in code for now and move to correct
that section of code later.
clarified that this would essentially take out the distance requirement and
leave approval by a CU permitting process for now to facilitate the applicant;
removing the distance requirement completely.
Laliberte noted Source Comics, located adjacent to Erik's Bike Shop, had a
weekly gaming and game night, and it was situated within a residential
advised that he would need to follow-up on that situation and use and get back
to the City Council at a later date.
noted that this section was designed to address electronic amusement devices,
and he would also need to further review the definition and related code
Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1468 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 303 (Sections 303.04 and 303.02);" amended
to strike language on Line 94 after the first sentence, ending at "game rooms"
and to completely strike language from line 97 -114.
Mayor Roe noted
that this would leave the CU language requirement intact at this time; and
requested staff to return with additional information and potential updating of
Tables of Use at a later date.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:48 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting with the City
welcomed commissioners and recognized Parks & Recreation Commission Chair
Dave Holt. Commissioners in attendance included: Chair Holt, Commissioners Lee
Diedrick, Randall Doneen, Jerry Stoner, Mary Holt, Nolan Wall, Philip Gelbach
and Terrance Newby.
attachments were provided as part of the background and discussion items,
including: Attachment A (Goals 2013-2015); Attachment B (City Attorney Opinion
dated 3/14/14 - Park Board Legislation); Attachment C (Research and analysis of
a Park Board dated 5/7/13); Attachment D (SWOT analysis report on Park Board dated
5/6/14); and Attachment E (Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes dated
advised that each commissioner would be speaking on various joint discussion
topics as listed in the RCA.
Coordinator/Enhanced Volunteer Participation
Lee Diedrick and Mary Holt thanked the City Council for hiring Volunteer
Coordinator, opining that it was great timing as the Parks Renewal Program was
initiated, anticipating great results from coordinating volunteer efforts.
with Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC)
Doneen reported on the meeting of a subgroup of P & R and PWETC commissions
to discuss pathway extensions, and the work done by the PWETC to build on the
original 2008 Pathway Master Plan, along with those needs identified as part of
the park constellations during the Parks Master Plan process.
Doneen noted that it was interesting to see the difference in ranking trail and
pathway priorities based on two different sets of criteria; with both groups in
support of trails on County Road B2 and the trail (shoulder) connection west of
Cleveland Avenue along County Road B.
Doneen opined that overall it was a good collaborative effort and he
appreciated working with the PWETC.
Gelbach noted that he had met with Communications Manager Garry Bowman and
Assistant Parks Director Jill Anfang, as well as attending a meeting of the
Community Engagement Commission and discussions with Commissioner Gary
Grefenberg of that group, and would continue to follow their meeting minutes.
Commissioner Gelbach stressed the importance of communication efforts in
including everyone in what was being done, and looked forward to a good
relationship with these parties.
Gelbach advised that he would like the Parks & Recreation Commissioners to
meet more often with the City Council, similar to a schedule like the Housing
& Redevelopment Authority (HRA), on a quarterly basis if possible to
enhance that communication and provide more timely reports.
concurred, noting it went beyond communications, but would keep the City
Council in the loop and up-to-date, as well as keeping the Commission on task
as activities begin to move forward at a fast pace, allowing for course corrections
Recreation Renewal Program
package approval by the City Council, Commissioner Stoner asked that they
continue to provide feedback (e.g. wireless communications and access
considerations) to tell the Commission their areas of interest.
Stoner thanked the City Council for their attendance and support at the recent
Parks Renewal Program Kick-off Event; and asked that they continue to alert the
Commission to any questions and/or comments.
Resources Program including Forestry
Doneen noted the advantages of tying together the Master Plan volunteer
projects, volunteer coordinator, and natural resource programs of the
community. As an example, Commissioner Doneen addressed the recent Buckthorn
removal project at Reservoir Woods, and removal of brush for shipping. While a
small project and not well-advertised with the Commission for some reason
failing on every communication resource available to them, Commissioner Doneen
noted that over twenty volunteers still showed up to help. Commissioner Doneen
opined that this was indicative of the importance the community placed on their
natural resources in area parks and Master plan efforts to-date.
Doneen noted that this created a concern he'd heard from the community of the
need for management of those natural resources in the City environment, which they had not found active or adequate to-date; and therefore the inclusion in the Parks Renewal Program package of a specific program and the need for their restoration.
Doneen advised that he'd long advocated that natural resource needs be funded
annually to avoid big time expenses or their further degradation, through
Doneen asked that the City Council give that serious consideration moving
forward, opining that some of the City's most valuable assets are its trees and
forest, specifically the current dangers to Ash Trees, and the need to remove
diseased trees, but also replace them not just for aesthetics, but also for
their benefits for energy conservation, soils and water quality. Commissioner
Doneen suggested that proactive planning be done and monies set aside annually
as originally intended. Commissioner Doneen respectfully asked that the City
Council include natural resources in their long-term capital improvement
Doneen noted that staff had done a good job of leveraging the Department of
Agriculture for funding, but in the Commission's dual capacity as the City Tree
Board, they recommended moving forward from the basic Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
plan; and ramp up and plant trees in advance of any infestation. Commissioner
Doneen suggested that the City move from its limited forestry efforts with a
one part-time forestry employee, and opined that it would prove a wise
investment to increase the position to serve as a general resource management
person and provide expertise with tree preservation as the City redevelops
parcels with existing mature trees. As the Tree Board, Commissioner Doneen
stated that they would be more than willing to engage with the Planning Commission
in cross-efforts and endeavors for a reasonable tree preservation plan.
Willmus asked Commissioner Doneen if, in his involvement with the Natural
Resources and Trail System (NRATS) portion of the Renewal Program if he saw
continued work with the PWETC on some issues (e.g. water quality and tree
preservation), recognizing that there were commissioners on the PWETC that were
passionate about those topics as well.
Doneen recognized that potential, but having worked with that group already,
opined that his best sense was that a specific charge should be provided rather
than an ongoing relationship, whether with the Parks & Recreation, PWETC,
and/or Planning Commission, and at the discretion of the City Council for a
specific task and recommendation.
concurred, noting that the NRATS was looking for a more proactive approach and
specific direction from the City Council to develop action steps.
Terrance (Terry) Newby noted that there had been considerable discussion in the
past, including public surveys in 2011 and 2014, all identifying strong public
support for the idea of a community center.
Newby opined that the next step for the Commission was guidance from the City
Council as to whether they were charged with moving forward to pursue this
further, or if it should remain on the back burner as not being a top
priority. Given the expanse of the issue and amount of time it could consume,
Commissioner Newby sought direction in relationship to the other priorities of
the Commission at this time.
Councilmember Willmus noted that the City Council was aware of the interest and
survey data providing a fairly consistent message from the community for a
community center. Councilmember Willmus advised that he'd be interested in
learning more about how the City would propose to close the operational funding
gap. Even with the City of Shoreview and Maplewood community centers, and
their business models, Councilmember Willmus noted the annual financial gap
(e.g. $300,000 for Shoreview Community Center) and how those gaps could be
addressed if the project were to move forward; or how to offset that gap to
keep the facility going.
McGehee noted that, as long as she'd been a resident, this had been an issue;
and that was the reason for her being outspoken with the Parks Renewal Program,
that the buildings should have been funneled into a community center for one
building that was available and convenient for all residents. However, since
that wasn't done, Councilmember McGehee noted that now instead of one area,
there were six separate buildings to support, operate and maintain, even though
she didn't hear that preference expressed by taxpayers and survey data.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she couldn't see much hunger from the
taxpayers for more bonding or increased taxes following the most recent bonding
to the City of Shoreview about their apparent annual funding gap, Councilmember
McGehee advised that she understood that it was a deliberate attempt to keep
their membership at a price point so all residents could belong, and to continue
to leave it as is and provide public support to promote those efforts.
Councilmember McGehee opined that this discussion should have occurred earlier
to respond to the community's wants, needs and expectations for a community
center versus the buildings being constructed. While not having heard from the
community at large, Councilmember McGehee opined that the 2014 survey results
would indicate to her that the natural resource component was the second
highest, as in the 2011 survey as well; and many things now being financed are
related to maintenance issues that have been sorely neglected to-date; and
reiterated her previous concerns that a maintenance plan was needed going
Laliberte recognized that this had been talked about for a long time; but noted
that everyone envisioned a community center differently as to what it offered.
While survey respondents indicate they want a community center, Councilmember
Laliberte asked what they actually wanted, since some of those amenities may
already be available in the community but not used sufficiently. In talking to
a representative from the City of New Brighton recently, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that they were looking at major improvements and investments to
their community center, as they were finding that they lacked amenities,
causing the community to go to LA Fitness, and other nicer, newer facilities.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that Roseville already had four community
center-type buildings that are underutilized, and when someone wants a
community, there was a need to determine what features they were seeking.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she needed a clearer picture of that, and
such information would prove helpful to her future decision-making about a
Etten noted that discussion on how to fund a community center came up a few
years ago, with the actual construction discussed through a local sales tax
option, which has since filtered away. Councilmember Etten stated that he
looked at long-term costs differently than the actual construction of a community
center; with additional information needed on how to put the pieces together.
As part of the Master Planning process, Councilmember Etten noted that some
components were looked at, but there was no formal survey about what pieces
were most valued by residents (e.g. indoor walking track); and while some of
those amenities may already be in place in other facilities, recognized that
some may also have certain limitations (e.g. walking track at the OVAL). Councilmember
Etten opined that the important thing was to nurture all ages in the community
in different ways and bring them together in a common space.
echoed comments of his fellow Councilmembers, noting the difference in the
upfront cost for construction and ongoing operating cost, while also
understanding the high potential for a subsidy for long-term maintenance and upkeep
and understanding overall benefits to the community. Regarding the City's
financial picture, Mayor Roe noted that the community had just begun paying for
the Park Renewal Program bonds; however, conversely they were 3-4 years from
paying off the City Hall/Public Works Building improvement bonds, which may create
a potential fund to cover other infrastructure needs. As a way to address
local sales taxes, Mayor Roe noted that the legislature looked at regional
benefits in providing tax levy support; and suggested that shifting the OVAL to
that regional support as a regional facility may open up more funding to
operate that and shift available funding to a community center.
suggested that the Commission take those things brought forward tonight by
individual Councilmembers, with the charge for them to come up with more
concrete answers to look at more seriously in an effort to understand the financial
impacts to residents and businesses in the community.
Laliberte suggested having discussions with communities surrounding Roseville
that had community centers and/or private enterprises providing the preferred
amenities, and determine how to partner with them, or avoid competing with
those private entities. Councilmember Laliberte again opined that the past
needs of the community may be met with the new park buildings under
In speaking for
senior citizens in the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that they didn't
go to the private entities, but more often went to the community centers in
Maplewood or Shoreview that were more geared to the older community with
classes specific to their comfort level, further opining that those needs were
not being met in the commercial environment.
Chair Holt, in
recognizing the public engagement discussions through the Master Plan process,
admitted that it wasn't easy to define what actual amenities were desired,
since there was a multitude of interests. In addressing costs, Chair Holt advised
that the Commission, as part of the Park Renewal Program, had looked at them
quite extensively, and the cost of a community center as envisioned was more
than the entire bonding program. Not to discount the desire and/or need for a
community center, Chair Holt realistically advised that there was no funding
available for one, and providing a community center was not as easy as we'd
like it to be, with so many generations in the community needing to be
extensive work required, Chair Holt asked that the City Council provide direction
or a charge if they wanted the Commission to further study this and return with
that information. Regarding the maintenance plan comments by Councilmember
McGehee, Chair Holt advised that this was an important piece of the Renewal
Program to maintain what was being constructed. Chair Holt advised that the
Commission had no intention of not providing for such a maintenance plan, which
he hoped the City Council would support, to address planning and capitalization
efforts to avoid what led to the degradation of existing facilities in the
first place by lack of support. Chair Holt advised that those numbers were
being developed and would be put together as part of an upcoming annual and
noted that this had been brought to the Commission in the past as a goal and as
a potential funding for a community center. Chair Holt advised that the
Commission was again seeking guidance from the City Council as to whether
pursue the legislative process, which was also time-consuming. If the City Council
wanted the Commission to look at it further this year, Chair Holt asked that
they provide specific direction to the Commission as a request for more information.
noted that the City Council had tasked the Commission several years ago to
review and consider a Park Board versus a Commission, which had taken two years
to accomplish (Attachment C - research and analysis of a Park Board dated May
Wall addressed this issue, including the necessary steps to establish a Park
Board and the powers governing such a board under MN Statute, as detailed in
the March 14, 2014 City Attorney opinion (Attachment B). Commissioner Nolan
further referenced their discussion (Attachment D entitled, "Discussion
regarding the legislative action to change from a commission to a board," dated
May 6, 2014); and the subsequent motion passed unanimously that same date by
seven Commission members in attendance.
Nolan noted that this would be a significant and involved process; and asked
for the City Council's consideration, or any request for additional information.
Laliberte thanked the Commission for their work to-date, and information she'd
received from watching their meetings and the information provided by the
Commission, recognizing that it was well thought out. With all that being
said, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was still hesitant about creating
a Park Board due to the creation of a separate taxing authority and further removed one step from residents for non-elected officials to make decisions. Councilmember Laliberte noted that she understood the rationale based on past history of why such a board was desired, but remained hesitant. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she'd prefer to meet more often with the Commission as suggested to stay on top of things of concern to them as a starting point if it was the desire of the City Council rather than establishing Park Board. Councilmember Laliberte opined if by meeting more often, especially with initiation of the Park Renewal Program projects, it would avoid the reason why a $19 million Park Renewal Project was necessary to address things done being done when they should have been done.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's comments for meeting more often,
stating that she would not favor a Park Board at this time for many of those
same reasons, for the need for the City Council to retain that direct
relationship with residents and avoid the autonomy of a Board and its own
taxing authority. Councilmember McGehee opined that parks are a resource for
the entire community, and when the Master Plan process was underway, stated
that she personally supported a referendum and opined that the City failed its
residents in not pursuing a referendum. Even though 3,000 people participated
in the Master Plan process, Councilmember McGehee noted that this was less than
10% of the overall Roseville population; with the 2014 community survey
indicating that 70% of the respondents didn't know about the Park Renewal
Program, even though there were residents and the reason for them not using the
parks might mean that their needs are not being met even though a large
expenditure of public money had been made in the park system.
McGehee stated that she felt strongly that more public airing of the Renewal
Program was needed to determine what the real issues were, but what was being
done now and the subsequent maintenance needed for those buildings, were not
addressed or supported in either the 2011 or 2014 community surveys.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like to meet more often and have
more detail on the projects underway to address the different points of view of
individual Councilmembers, and to have a give and take discussion about
projects and ongoing maintenance, allowing the Commission and City Council to
keep track of resident needs and the use of public funds to meet those needs.
participated for years in the public airing of issues in his former role on the
Parks & Recreation Commission, Councilmember Etten opined that nothing in
Roseville's history had been as well-vetted as this Park Renewal Program process. Councilmember Etten opined that to state that it hadn't gone through a public process was not correct. Councilmember Etten admitted that he had been caught off guard by community survey responses about their perceived lack of knowledge about the Renewal Program, but while not sure what had led to that, suggested that it may have been the label of the program from 'ParkMaster Plan" to "Park Renewal Program." Given the number of meetings held in
community sectors, and additional educational pieces and meetings around the
program, Councilmember Etten expressed confidence that the process had been thorough
and informative community-wide.
Specific to the
creation of a Park Board, and the many discussions to-date, as well as
requirements under the Optional Plan B City Government of Roseville, Councilmember
Etten recognized that there would be a rigorous process to move such an effort
forward. Councilmember Etten suggested the potential for partnering with a
neighboring city (e.g. Falcon Heights and/or Lauderdale) to create a regional
board, or partnership of the City and School District for joint facilities, but
across levels of government and jurisdictions; giving consideration to the use
of local sales taxes for that regional effort. Councilmember Etten opined that
this would serve in a grander way to bring lots of pieces together to make it
happen, and get a Park Board operational to work jointly with joint funding
Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, noting that the
Park Board concept originated during the Park & Recreation Master Plan
process; and noted his enthusiasm to look at the concept and how it worked in
other communities, and how it may provide a different path to follow. However,
based on the process outlined in tonight's meeting materials, Councilmember
Willmus advised that it involved a totally different path for implementation
than he originally thought. Councilmember Willmus advised that he found it
interesting to hear comments from his colleagues comparing this to creation of
the HRA, since similar insecurities and hesitations were brought up in creating
that body as well. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that many good things
that had come from that collaborative planning effort that the City Council
would have been hard pressed to accomplish, and had become a great advantage to
the City and its residents.
that there were many pros and cons to creation of such a Board, Councilmember
Willmus noted that he disagreed that there may be less accountability, since
even the HRA "similar to a Park Board" came to the City Council to approve
its levy, which was the City Council's ultimate control measure. Councilmember
Willmus stated that he'd like to explore further whether a partnership with
other community was a feasible avenue to consider, as suggested by Councilmember
Commission frequently heard the City Council speak on operational efficiencies,
and in looking to potential partnerships with other communities beyond shared
programming currently done, and as the City continued to struggle with the
question of a community center, Councilmember Willmus suggested opportunities
to look to Shoreview or Maplewood for shared opportunities as well.
Councilmember Willmus thanked the Commission for their work to-date on the Park
Board issue and discussions, and opined that it should remain on the table as a
potential option down the road.
Since this Park
Board issue came up, Mayor Roe stated that he'd struggled with it, even though
appreciating the work, research and comparisons done by the Commission
to-date. In using the HRA comparison as a model reference, Mayor Roe opined
that was a minor portion of the City's annual budget and staffing needs
compared to the significant chunk of the budget represented by the Parks &
stated that he also had concerns with such a significant part of the City's
operations not being under direct control of the City Council, City Manager and
the process used to manage the rest of the City's government. Mayor Roe noted
that he found this troubling, not because he didn't think the Park Board would
do a good job, but for him it created too much distinction that would create
more problems than it solved. However, Mayor Roe stated that he did like the
idea of joint powers agreements for specific facilities, and joint efforts and
projects with other communities. Mayor Roe advised that his preference would
be not to pursue establishment of a Park Board further, but to seriously look
at those opportunities.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City was now making significant strides in addressing previously
inadequate funding of Park & Recreation maintenance and infrastructure
needs, especially in getting those CIP needs out over a twenty-year span.
While that process needed to continue improving, Mayor Roe opined that part of
his response was based on the need to continue those efforts and recognize them
in the overall funding picture. Mayor Roe stated that he liked the idea of
meeting more often, and suggested that regarding the CIP projections, the
natural resources component was an excellent place to address those community
needs and program them accordingly.
Roe stated that his response would be to use the tools already available and to
the best of our ability. In terms of a future City Council not being as
responsive to Park & Recreation needs, Mayor Roe opined that they needed to
be held accountable by the community as they served or sought to serve on the
City Council, especially in recognizing how parks & recreation aspects fit
into the overall community and were not a second-class portion of the City of
unification efforts, Councilmember McGehee opined that parks was an important
part of the community and should be considered an essential service, and
planning for its needs was an integral part of the City, not off on its own.
Councilmember McGehee also supported the idea of joint powers agreements, especially
for the southwest portion of Roseville, who frequent the Falcon Heights
community park system, given its location directly across the street, and a way
to address that neighborhood's needs rather than expending funds to acquire a
small and inadequate space in Roseville for that area. However, Councilmember
McGehee noted that Roseville residents had no way to access that building, and
it may be nice to be able to do so to provide a meeting space for residents in southwest Roseville.
wanted to ensure that the tone of joint meetings of the Commission and City
Council were not intended to be "us" against "you," and stated his intent to change
that perspective, since the Commission saw itself as an extension of and
working for the City Council, given the City Council's limited time and busy agendas dissuading their ability to delve into major issues to any great depth. Chair Holt noted that the City Council tasked the Commission to research this, which they did at length, and as Councilmember McGehee stated, considered itself to be an essential service to the community and would like to be positioned as such and strongly valued throughout the community, and expressed the Commission's interest in promoting that going forward.
Stoner stated that one of his concerns in the current system was about
transparency. From his perspective, and using the community center as an
example, Commissioner Stoner noted that the City Council had asked the Commission
to survey the community for what they wanted, and they wanted many things,
which had been reported back to the City Council; and based on the other
financial needs of the City, the City Council said "No, it costs too much
money." At that point, the Commission went back to the drawing board to
streamline the proposal and determine what could be eliminated. However, then
the taxpayer doesn't like spending money on a community center and tells the
City Council that, while the other side talks to the Commission with their
desire to have a center. Under that scenario, Commissioner Stoner questioned
where the transparency was in that process, opining that it would be better to
have all those discussions contained in one place where both sides were engaged
versus a back and forth dialogue. Also, Commissioner Stoner also noted the
many issues covered on a City Council agenda that limited dialogue, in addition
to half of the year being devoted to the annual budget and levy process,
further eliminating timely discussions and creating more problems with
transparency. Commissioner Stoner spoke in support of a "one stop shop," that allow all voices to be heard and identify a specific pool of money to be spend on Parks & Recreation programs and services, and the need to then pare things back with public comment on what was kept or what was out, which would serve to keep the community happy to know that everyone wouldn't get everything they wanted.
comments regarding transparency, Chair Holt concurred that it was key, and the
desire of the Commission was to make the process even more transparent to the
public, and that transparency was a big issue that he felt a Park Board could
address from that perspective versus the current Commission, allowing the
public to see annually what was being appropriated to the Park Board. Chair
Holt assured Councilmembers that their recommendation was not intended as a
control issue, but simply to make things more transparent to the public, with
the control obviously remaining at the City Council level, with the Park Board
focused on maintaining that essential service that was valued by all.
Laliberte stated that she didn't disagree with the transparency issue; but with
previous engagement issues, she remained concerned that some decision-making
would be made at the Park Board level with an empty room versus a more publicly
perceived City Council meeting. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she
needed to make that connection even though she wasn't confident all the
engagement and communication components had been addressed sufficiently.
their research about a Park Board, Commissioner Doneen noted that they varied
throughout the state, along with their duties which were established by the
City Council, and asked that this be given consideration as well, if there were
specific concerns or aspects that the City Council wanted to remain involved
in. Commissioner Doneen noted that it wasn't a "one fits all" aspect for a Park Board, and the City Council could decide what was needed and which areas would be more of a focus of the Park Board or for the City Council.
McGehee expressed appreciation of the Commission's work and expressed
understanding of the transparency issue; reiterating her support for a
referendum on this and ultimate disappointment that it was not done. Councilmember
McGehee stated that she saw that as an important engagement tool to educate the
public before they went to the polls, similar to the City Hall/Public Works
Building referendum, with changes made to the original plan as part of that
process, and openly discussed as part of the "People's City Hall." Councilmember
McGehee expressed her strong support of that process, but was unsure how to fit
that into the operation of a Park Board. From her perspective with large expenditures
of public funds, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was critical to have a
referendum to engage citizens and their opportunity to weigh in later.
Mayor Roe noted
that a referendum was required and clearly outlined by state statute for
bonding in some circumstances, and that was the determining factor, and
referendums were not based on the amount of money proposed to be spent.
establishment of a Park Board, Mayor Roe opined that it could solve things; but
consideration of a community center was a specific project and there were ways
available to solve funding issues without a Park Board.
Mayor Roe suggested discussion continue at the next joint meeting, with the
consensus of the City Council to schedule joint meetings quarterly.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:48 p.m.
Receive Community Survey Results
Manager Garry Bowman provided summary results of the community survey conducted
in April of 2014, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr. Bowman
noted that this was a scientific telephone survey of 400 Roseville residents,
divided into four quadrants: north or south of Highway 36 and east or west of
Snelling Avenue. Mr. Bowman noted that those delineations may have somewhat
skewed results due to heavier residential and/or commercial areas. Mr. Bowman
advised that the demographic and age mix of the survey closely matched the 2010
Bowman presented the key survey takeaways, with the presentation Mr.
Bowman advised that, if interested, the Morris Leatherman firm would be happy
to do a complete review of the survey as an alternative "brown bag" lunch for
staff, the City Council and interested members of the public; or at a future
City Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Bowman advised
that the firm would be providing an Executive Summary within the next few
months that would further analyze results.
moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING this discussion for a future City Council Work
Willmus began to move to table this discussion to a future City Council work
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised that he was preparing
a news release with attachments for Tuesday morning, June 10, 2014 for the
City's website and other sources.
interest expressed by Councilmember McGehee in pursuing the brown bag lunch
version and the official presentation at a City Council meeting, City Manager
Trudgeon clarified that their contract was for one or the other option, but not
Laliberte expressed interest in having a presentation by Morris Leatherman, but
also expressed her interest in the City Council reviewing the survey question
by question as it set its priorities in order not to shortchange that process
and justify the updated information now available.
moved, Willmus seconded to schedule a Work session designated for this item for
the purpose of setting priorities; and have Morris Leatherman present at that
meeting for in-depth consideration of any questions;.
a point of information, Councilmember Willmus requested a specific date for the
Manager Trudgeon advised that, if the City Council wanted to remain on their
regular schedule for the Work session versus a special meeting, the July 7,
2014 meeting's agenda was very light at this time, with the only business item
scheduled being a joint meeting with the HRA. However, Mr. Trudgeon suggested
that some flexibility remain for other topics that may need addressed and yet
to come forward that that meeting, but to retain the survey as the main topic.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Communications Manager Bowman confirmed
that the Executive Summary would be available by then; and advised that he
would contact both Mr. Morris and Mr. Leatherman to determine which if either
would be available for the July 7th meeting.
consensus, the motion was amended to include the specific date of July 7, 2014,
for the proposed work session.
11. Public Hearings
Hearing to Acknowledge the Expenditure of Tax-Exempt Funds for the University
of Northwestern - St. Paul
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the requested action as detailed in
the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr. Miller advised that representatives of the
University of Northwestern-St. Paul were present tonight to discuss the
projects and seek local City Council support to expend some of those proceeds
in the community.
McGehee reviewed the process for seeking a municipal stamp of approval and
related administrative fee to allow the University to purchase bonds at a tax
Director Miller advised that the purpose was to provide municipal approval for
the University to proceed for the specified uses; however, he clarified that
the City would not be collecting a fee as there was no cost to the City to do
this, and a fee would only be received if the City were issuing and
administering the bonds which in this case the City is not. Mr. Miller advised
that the requested council action assures that the University has the authority
to borrow money at a lower rate, similar to a municipal rate, to save dollars
on their bond issue by having the same ability to secure that more advantageous
financing to lower their debt costs, the same concept as with public bond
Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer, University of Northwestern
briefly stated that the University currently had three tax exempt bond issues.
In the process of securing financing for more bond projects, and with
significant law changes anticipated in 2016 and 2017 (Dodd Frank laws) and
significant refinancing costs forced on current letters of credit backing up
those bonds, Mr. Schroeder stated that with the costs in financing this bond
issue, it was thought to be in the best interest for the University to
recombine and put the bonds in a different package. Mr. Schroeder advised that
they anticipated $6 million in new financing for the current projects, including
acquisition of the current County Inn and Suites and conversion of that
facility into student housing, but refinancing their entire $25 million portfolio.
As stated by
Mr. Miller, Mr. Schroeder advised that tax exempt bonding is available to the
University as a non-profit, and if they were not required to pay higher
interest rates, they wouldn't need to raise tuition. Since the University, like most colleges, is facing declining enrollment, with staff and employee compensation adjustments only given twice over the last five years, Mr. Schroeder opined that the University thought this step allowed them to remain competitive and be good stewards.
opened the Public Hearing at approximately 8:10 p.m. for the purpose of
acknowledging the expenditure of tax-exempt funds for the University of
Northwestern - St. Paul.
Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood
questioned why the City would agree to the continuing degradation of his
neighborhood by allowing the proposed funding, when it had significant impacts
on his property value. Mr. Callaghan opined that he would not be able to hold
an open house in anticipation of selling his home if there was a game going on
at the University due to noise levels. Mr. Callaghan opined that he could see
no public purpose in this whole thing, and therefore, why do it; and further
opined that the City needed to protect where it stood on public bonds and
financing for the government to do its work, with this proposal removing $26
million from the government.
Since he has
found no recourse regarding this negative impact on his house, Mr. Callaghan
stated that he may have to seek legal remedies; opining that Northwestern had
been a bad neighbor for twenty-five years, and even though he continued to
bring complaints forward, nothing was ever done about it. Mr. Callaghan stated
that the University was not someone he considered a good neighbor, and he
didn't want them as one. Mr. Callaghan spoke in further opposition to taking
the County Inn off the tax rolls, even though when that facility was built with Tax Increment Financing District 13 financing, they promised it would remain on the tax rolls for thirty years after the TIF bonds were paid off, and even though they were not yet paid off, they were making this request. Mr. Callaghan opined that he found the University not to be a trustful place, with too many promises made over the years that they hadn't kept.
expressed his appreciation for the City Council's consideration of this request, and asked for their support. Mr. Stahl stated that Northwestern had been a constant thread in his life and one of the reasons he'd relocated to Roseville in 1991, and as a Northwestern graduate in 1995, had seen the training and education he'd received at Northwestern launch his career in the Twin Cities, 12 of which had been as an employee at Northwestern. Mr. Stahl opined that the college and radio station make a concerted effort to engage students in the Roseville community and the community in college activities and events, as well as making significant efforts to give back. Mr. Stahl noted the number of students and alumni involved in those efforts, including athletic venues available for community use throughout the year, and a major draw for students and alumni to draw to area motels and restaurants. Mr. Stahl noted that the college believed in partnering with the community; and opined that the growth of the college will benefit not only in monetary ways, but through their "service first" mentality.
Philby, 3010 Fairview Avenue
Specific to the
noise complaints, as a thirty-seven year resident in close proximity to the
campus, Mr. Philby noted his observation of the University's response and
reduction in that noise over the years. Specific to the tax-exempt status, and
location of the current County Inn & Suites, Mr. Philby stated that other
decisions could have been made in the past that would have removed that from
the tax rolls earlier; and further noted that Pippins Restaurant would remain
in place as a taxable entity providing a tax base for the City and adding value
to the City. Mr. Philby reviewed other improvements and renovations over the
years that the University had initiated that cleaned up areas of the community
and advantages provided overall. Mr. Philby opined that he saw this as an
advantage for the City and highly recommended their support of the request.
Gjerdingen, 2211 N Albert Street
As an employee
of Northwestern for the last seven years, Mr. Gjerdingen opined that this
current investment by the University was a wise idea to enhance the community
of Roseville and increase good activities in the area, allowing for increased
interaction between students and the community in this area of Roseville. Mr.
Gjerdingen opined that improved upkeep of the Country Inn property (e.g.
plowing) and walkability of this area would benefit everyone through partnering
with the University, bringing a net gain into this equation. Mr. Gjerdingen
also noted that additional tax based through the motel's move across Snelling,
replacing a vacant restaurant that had hurt property values, and provided a
good exchange for all parties.
closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:23 p.m.,
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11153 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota,
Approving the Issuance of Public Finance Authority Revenue Bonds in a Maximum
Aggregate Principal Amount of $26,000,000 for the Purposes of Financing and
Refinancing the Costs of Acquisition, Construction, Improvement, Renovation and
Equipping of Certain Educational Facilities of the University of Northwestern -
St. Paul and other Matters Relating Thereto."
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schroeder reviewed the refinancing, to be issued
in Wisconsin and owned by a bank with the lower interest, tax-exempt bonds more
favorable for the bank's ownership, and those lowered costs passed onto
Northwestern, due to their non-profit status.
McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, not because of the University, but
as a general principle and personal policy to support public and government
entity use of tax-exempt bond status as originally designed.
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of the motion, opining that this followed an example of funding over
the years with the City of Roseville issuing bonds on behalf of entities for
tax-exempt housing projects in Roseville, as a pass-through. Mayor Roe noted
that this in no way impacted the City's ability as issuing agency to bond for its own purposes, and the statement that it took away from the public entity was not accurate. Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to spend the money and assist in obtaining a lower interest rate to take advantage of this funding mechanism, and further opined that to oppose it didn't make sense.
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
12. Budget Items
Business Items (Action Items)
University of Northwestern Land Use TEXT AMENDMENTS to City Code
Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this joint text amendment request of the
University of Northwestern and the City of Roseville Community Development
Department, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr. Paschke clarified
that approval of the request would address four related actions:
1) Change the definition from "dormitory" to "student housing;"
2) Determine how and where student housing is allowed as a permitted
or conditioned use in Community Business and Regional Business Districts;
3) Identify the standards or requirements pertaining to re-sue of a
building or new construction in those districts; and
4) Support proposed changes to existing housing types in Neighborhood
Business and Community Mixed Use Districts.
Willmus discussed parking requirements (Section 1010.12.E) for student housing
and how they differed for hotel parking requirements as to the number of
stalls; the lodging threshold being used compared to student housing
thresholds; how to address overflow parking in the neighborhood as a result of
this student housing; and whether Northwestern had an overall parking plan to
address those issues.
responded that residential parking for multi-family building parking was
determined by the number of bedrooms and visitor stalls calculated on the
number of units; and for lodging uses, the code talks about the number of
overall rooms or units and the number of customers and/or employees.
Trudgeon advised that the site had 126 existing stalls, and through written
agreement with Pippins, 80 were for hotel use, or one stall per room, and 44
stalls reserved for the restaurant; with the student housing (lodging) use
requiring 86 spaces and 37 for the restaurant for a total of 123 stalls.
Since they now have 126, with a multi-family standard for 79 units for 99
spaces for housing and 37 for the restaurant for a total of 136 stalls overall,
Mr. Trudgeon noted they would be 10 stalls short of using a multi-family
calculation or creating a new standard. However, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he
thought Northwestern had plans to limit parking on the site.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to address this within current parking standards, and if deemed
necessary a future direction could be given to staff to pursue future considerations
on parking calculations.
12010.12.E.b, Councilmember McGehee noted the Sienna Green housing that
provided for no sprinkler system or ADA requirements, and stated that she did
not want to support any re-use that would not require meeting those requirements.
Etten noted that, permitted use versus not permitted or conditional, it made
sense to make it a conditional use, given the lower impact to the neighborhood
in this location. However, if the same situation were being considered on the
east side of Snelling Avenue, with a higher impact to residential properties,
Councilmember Etten opined that it may be preferred and influence the City
Council decision to determine that impact through a conditional use versus
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the apartments on the east side of
Snelling Avenue used for student housing were classified as multi-family at
this time since there is no current category of "student housing." Mayor Roe
noted that student housing standards would then apply to new uses, with
pre-existing uses legal, non-conforming at that time, and not under conditional
use status either, with that change being prospective.
Etten opined that it would influence conditional uses in the future if more
proposals came forward.
McGehee expressed her agreement with Councilmember Etten, opining that
conditional use versus permitted use was preferred.
Trudgeon clarified that the requested action is that a Conditional Use would be
required for a student housing use, no matter what district in which it was
located. Mr. Trudgeon suggested another option to create a distinction of
"C/P" in the Table of Uses, for a conditional use adjacent to LDR or MDR zoning,
but a permitted use when adjacent to commercial zoning.
McGehee spoke in support of conditional use across the board to address
sprinklers and handicapped accessibility.
Laliberte expressed interest in hearing from Northwestern on parking, opining
that student housing was becoming so limited on campus that students were
spilling over onto city streets, causing more issues in neighborhoods than this
may actually relieve.
Mayor Roe asked
to focus on the conditional use aspect first, then parking.
Willmus expressed interest in pursuing the conditional use across all
districts, which he would be open to at this time.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus and Etten spoke in support of
"conditional use" across the board versus permitted uses in some instances and
conditional uses in others.
feeling strongly about it, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her understanding
for the thought process of the Council majority.
Mayor Roe advised that there appeared to be majority preference for
"Conditional Use" status for all zoning districts.
Willmus opined that this provided the City Council an opportunity to weigh in
as proposals come up versus administrative issuing of a permit, which he found
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke advised that the Country Inn had ramps to
get into the building and elevators, so he presumed it was ADA compliant;
however, through the building permit process, a certain percentage of upgrades
would be needed to make the rooms compliant per those building code, but he was
unsure about the sprinkler status.
concerns with this use and its location, Mr. Paschke advised that the City
Council could create conditions as part of this process versus general conditions,
which would create a basic process needing approval; but would create special
and distinct conditions to review that use against all districts to make the process
more meaningful for the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mayor Roe noted
that creation of such conditions may not be feasible tonight, but creating a
base set of conditions in the future to apply to all potential uses may be
beneficial for future reference.
On Table 1005-1
under Civic/Institutional Uses, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the NP
status for two CMU Districts that were not related to student housing, and
staff's rationale for that recommendation.
responded that the only CMU District at this time was in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, and the intent was to reserve that for tax-paying entities,
since non-profits would not be paying into TIF or redevelopment funds, which
were difficult to come by.
Laliberte noted previous discussions for secondary schools that are for-profit
that could be suitable to relocate in Twin Lakes. Councilmember Laliberte
advised that she was not prepared to make changes in Civic/Institution uses
while those discussions about CMU in Twin Lakes were still active, and would
prefer to stick with student housing only at this time.
confirmed that a distinction had been made, as well as adding office-based
uses, similar to the previous Northwestern proposal for re-use of the former
Edina Realty building for such a use.
On a related
note, Mayor Roe questioned why to permit campus use in a Regional Business
District as a commercial business versus rezoning to Institutional, at which
time a decision could be addressed for non- versus for-profit uses. Mayor Roe
suggested delaying changes to Civic and Institutional uses on Table 1005-1.
tabling any changes to Table 1005-1 in the "Residential-Family Living" use
category. Mayor Roe stated that, to a certain degree, he needed to understand
staff's rationale better, and why they didn't recommend changing it to
conditional for attached single-family or multi-family in those areas, with
others changed from permitted to not permitted.
advised that most smaller corner nodes are Neighborhood Business designation
for small or medium parcels, with the rationale that some smaller projects or
uses (e.g. row homes or town homes) may be suitable for those areas. If the
designation was CU, it allowed a determination on whether or not they were
appropriate. As it relates to changing more apartments uses to permitted in commercial
districts, Mr. Paschke advised that staff saw no difference in that than in
mixed use development, allowing housing as a part of the redevelopment with
commercial uses on the lower level and rentals above, which was a goal of the
suggested that part of the discussion be deferred as well, since it was unrelated
to tonight's discussion; with consensus of the body to delay consideration of
changes to the Multi-family use category at this time.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified that, in determining
conditional or permitted uses, he considered the adjacent use: if
single-family, to look at conditional use, and if in a commercial area not having
the same level of concern, he could support permitted use status; however, he
advised that he didn't have a strong point of view on the matter, and would
consider conditional use across the board.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten related to student housing standards (line 140, c), Mr.
Paschke duly noted the maximum height of 45' in this section, while the
remainder of code says 40 feet for review and consistency throughout code.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schroeder responded to related questions:
students per unit and overall
advised that they anticipate 190 students overall, approximately two per room,
with more students in suites, probably 3-4 students; but mostly two students
for each standard hotel room.
advised that the County Inn & Suites building was fully sprinklered and
meetings at the University, Mr. Schroeder noted that parking was always an
issue for a campus community. Mr. Schroeder advised that the University
subscribes to a mixed housing approach, with students interspersed together,
not one separate dorm for freshmen and another for seniors, but together to
create better synergy and a process for their interaction of students, which
would also be the plan for this student housing facility.
noted that freshmen were not allowed to have cars on campus, which would leave
140 out of the projected 190 students in the building eligible to bring their
car and register it; a ratio of approximately 80% which had proven itself
consistently. Following that logic for the potential of 110-120 vehicles requesting
a parking permit, with only 80 spaces available, Mr. Schroeder recognized the
need for an additional 30-40 vehicles to be accommodated off-site. As a way to
advised that parking permits were color coded and specific to a lot and
designation; with tickets issues by their own public safety organization, defining
when and how students parked. Mr. Schroeder advised that resident students
were not allowed to bring their cars on campus during the day as it interfered
with parking for commuter students. Mr. Schroeder advise that the intent was
to provide overflow parking at their Northwestern Office Center (former Edina
Realty building) as their lot had approximately 100 spaces, and there were only
26 employees now using that facility, leaving 70 spots available, well within
the University's ability to designate parking within ½ block of the Country Inn
to parking opportunities, Mr. Schroeder advised that the University was in the
process of acquiring another lot on the east side of Snelling Avenue adjacent
to the apartment building to accommodate another twenty vehicles, and further
control traffic flow during the day by continuing use of its shuttle bus service
that made rounds from the main campus to the Northwestern Office Center, and
would serve the Country Inn site and apartment buildings as well. Mr.
Schroeder advised that the shuttle ran from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on a
regular schedule, and from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on call, with service also
available to serve students.
advised that the University had also observed student parking spilling onto
City streets, which was an ongoing dilemma. However, Mr. Schroeder noted that
students could park on public streets as much as other vehicles, and could do
so without paying a fee to do so, which they found attractive. Unless and
until the City implemented a "No Parking" ban on City streets, Mr. Schroeder
noted that they were unable to enforce students to further address the goals
and objectives of the University and City.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schroeder confirmed that the Northwestern Office
Center was used for nursing classes, which had approximately 30 students, with
some resident and some commuter students, but still leaving sufficient space
for additional parking availability.
Lindgren, Land Use Attorney for Northwestern
conditional versus permitted use consideration, Mr. Lindgren asked to speak to
that issue. Mr. Lindgren expressed his and the University's appreciation of
the great working relationship with staff over a number of months, and City
Planner Paschke's willingness to pursue this joint proposal to address housing
across the City. Obviously, Mr. Lindgren observed, on behalf of Northwestern,
they would request that student housing be listed as a permitted use in the Community
Business (CB) zone to accommodate this facility. Mr. Lindgren opined that the
CB was distinct from the others being considered and adjacency concerns to residential areas, which was not the case with this piece of property. Also, from practical considerations and while not adverse to conditions applying to approval, Mr. Lindgren noted that there was a timing concern with this request; and while understanding the City's processes, if they felt favorably to student housing in this area, asked that they approve this request accordingly in order to allow the University to close on the property, and move on with the renovation process to allow those rooms to be available for this fall's school term. If the Council wished to have more conversation on conditional uses, Mr. Lindgren respectfully asked that those conditions be determined tonight, but if parking was a primary use, to him it seemed that CB created a reasonable conclusion for allowing it as a permitted use.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Schroeder addressed vehicle needs of students
in commuting between campus and their housing versus for jobs and/or
internships. Mr. Schroeder advised that Northwestern was very much interested
in the possible extension of Bus Rapid Transit to the campus to transport
students; however, at this time it was difficult to accommodate student
schedules with current routes and frequency of service; as well as creating
additional cost for the University to shuttle students accordingly.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
expressed his views on student parking on streets and spoke in support of fees
for student parking permits, opining that while not being against rules, a
significant parking problem was being generated. Mr. Callaghan opined that a
lot of students parked on Lydia during the winter and were not concerned with
moving cars for snow emergencies or plowing.
asked if a traffic study had been done to determine impacts of additional cars
in an already congested area; and opined that the campus PUD needed review and
any expansion address congested traffic on Lydia and Snelling Avenues.
Rose Vista Court
As a former
student and alumnus of Northwestern, Mr. Leiba advised that parking permit fees
were charged, and typically paid as part of financial aid costs for students.
Mr. Leiba opined that students were not attempting to dodge fees to park on
streets, as they much preferred a parking lot to being ticketed by the very aggressively
observant Roseville Police Department and their diligence in ticketing. Mr.
Leiba further opined that parking issues on Lydia were not connected to
Northwestern, and whatever vehicles were parking there over the winter months,
were not student vehicles, with students either walking of using the shuttle
bus, or skateboarding or other ways to get to class.
noted the number of Northwestern buildings already around campus where classes
were held, which were walked to by students and staff (e.g. Mel Johnson
building where communications classes were held), and others already
mentioned. Mr. Gjerdingen advised that he would like to see more of that in
the future, but also noted that the first house on Lydia Avenue was a community
house and may be partially to blame for parking issues rather than
Northwestern. Mr. Gjerdingen opined that he saw no parking problem with
Northwestern, with ample parking available based on current codes.
Callaghan - rebut incorrect statements
rebutted statements by other speakers, opining that parking on Lydia may be
Eagle Crest employees or visitors, but once school is out of session, parking
problems on Lydia Avenue cease. Mr. Callaghan suggested running license plates
to determine who was parking there.
discussions and areas already ruled out on the Table of Uses, Councilmember
Etten suggested some standards for conditions, including ADA Compliance and
Fire Code Safety and Parking Standards, suggesting a rate of 7 or 7.5 spaces
per bed as a reasonable place to start.
McGehee concurred, but noted the need to facilitate parking for visitors to
students; noting the extreme difficulty in finding parking for family members
or visitors in lots at the buildings on the east side of Snelling Avenue. If
any further spillage happened in those areas, Councilmember McGehee noted that
it would be traumatic; and as an example noted that it was projected that the
Sienna Green project would have sufficient parking, but now there was a
continual problem with parking along the frontage road. Councilmember McGehee
suggested a parking ramp may be needed to accommodate students in the near future,
but a realistic number of spaces was called for now.
Etten concurred, but offered his suggested number as reasonable and higher than
ensued regarding back-up parking options if needed; potential signage at Eagle
Crest to avoid student parking in those lots; and the specific request at the
Planning Commission level to retain parking standards for elementary and middle
school uses as well.
requested asked City Attorney Bartholdi for an opinion on whether the City
Council could condition ADA compliance and/or sprinkler systems as a land use
condition, since this was covered in the building code area as part of the
project review process; and whether such conditioning would be problematic when
the building code spoke to them much differently and whether it would create a
Development Director Paul Bilotta made several suggestions rather than
attempting to write conditions at the table. Given a number of other potential
uses, Mr. Bilotta suggested language for a conditional use process such as "the
applicant has demonstrated that parking is adequate for its intended use."
Mr. Bilotta noted that this allowed Northwestern the opportunity to provide
other strategies, and if overflow is not a problem it could be addressed, but
in general the same parameters and standards would apply in different
situations (e.g. military school). Mr. Bilotta suggested similar language on
the building site, such as "the applicant has demonstrated that the site and
existing structure are adequate for its intended use."
Etten spoke in support of that suggested language.
expressed concern about requiring the CU process for this particular
application due to timing issues; and questioned how that would work.
noted that the staff report alluded to or analyzed this use related to the
existing use as a hotel, which was similar but one had more traffic with people
staying in units; with student housing less impactful than a multi-family
residential, with this use falling in the middle of lodging and multi-family
uses. With student housing, in this area mostly in business zoning, Mr.
Paschke opined that it would not be impactful to residential uses typical of using
a CU process; and from a planning/zoning side, he was not sure if was
appropriate or not to so condition it, even though that would be at the City
If the City
Council chose to approve an ordinance creating a CU process for this project,
Mr. Paschke estimated that it could be a two month process before it returned
to the City Council for approval, depending on the processing for Planning
Commission review and recommendation, but a minimum of sixty days from today.
Laliberte questioned why not to go "permitted use" in CB with Mr. Bilotta's
suggested standards in place of conditions.
advised that this could be done, either criteria or conditions, which would be
stated that the problem with conditions for a permitted use is that it pushed
the decision to staff to determine their adequacy; and may not have consensus.
Also, Mr. Bilotta noted that if the City Council did not agree with staff's
recommendation and due to the timing issue if these two conditions were not applicable,
it could be left as a permitted use and in August or September the final
conditions could be applied before final approval.
permitted use versus CU, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was seeking the
most protection in LDR-1 or LDR-2 zones; and would not have an issue looking at
this as a permitted use in the CB zone, with some of the standards previously laid
out by staff and looking at incorporating the parking standard. If that were
the case, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would support moving forward on
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke provided staff's perspective on the parking condition
of 7 or 7.5 proposed by Councilmember Etten; but without further research
offered no comment, since the code built into it shared parking agreements
off-site and he would need to review general language in order not to bind the
City to something. Mr. Paschke suggested it may be more appropriate to provide
flexibility for staff to negotiate and find a useful solution and solid agreements, once that information is available; with Council support of the project if the applicant met or assigned spots in other buildings to support the condition, which would not be much different than negotiating with other developments. Mr. Paschke clarified that code already supported shared parking.
Northwestern already operated under two PUD's, Councilmember McGehee questioned
why the PUD wasn't simply amended to address this expansion and put conditions
on that expansion.
advised that such a process would take another two months or more.
Related to the
PUD, Mr. Paschke was not sure if that was an option, and deferred to the City
Attorney. Specific to conditions, Mr. Paschke sought clarification on those
intended to be crafted this evening to include in approval.
While the 7.5
fit this situation, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if it fit other
situations going forward; and expressed her preference for language allowing
specificity for each project.
To that point,
Mayor Roe noted that as far as design standards and adequate parking, it was a
permit requirement anyway, to which Mr. Paschke concurred. Mayor Roe
questioned if the desire was to be so specific by adding additional requirements,
since the building permit process drove those issues and nothing was needed in
addition to that process.
Laliberte concurred with Mayor Roe's observation, and while it was beneficial
to address these things, if they were already addressed in other areas or
standards in code, there was no reason to add another layer in.
McGehee opined that they were not addressed in other areas (e.g. ADA and
sprinklers) and that she was not talking about this for any purpose other than
this CU currently before the Council.
Mayor Roe noted
that this particular use had already demonstrated the status for ADA and
sprinklers, and therefore, didn't need to be part of this consideration tonight.
specific to this tonight, Councilmember McGehee asked the City Attorney to
respond to the question of Mr. Paschke and her.
Bartholdi stated that the City had a contract with the PUD, and it could be
amended and have conditions added; however, he noted that the City no longer
had a PUD district anymore, and the current PUD could be amended as long as it
was mutually agreed upon by both parties. Specific to including sprinklers and
ADA compliance as a condition when it is addressed under the building code,
that would depend on whether the building code applied to re-used buildings or
only to new construction, which may need to be clarified.
Mayor Roe noted
that if a building wasn't already compliant, it may be tied to use, not new
construction; and in this instance, the building was already compliant, so any
amendment should be a consideration for future discussion.
McGehee opined that it would be easy to craft a simple agreement between the
City and Northwestern to amend the PUD for this use; and stated that she was
prepared to say parking was adequate and since the building had elevators and
sprinklers, it would be a simple solution to amend the existing PUD in that
manner and get an agreement by both parties.
Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1469 (Attachment B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville
City Code;" excluding the Residential/Family Living Uses and
Civic/Institutional Uses and referenced; and correcting height references in
Section 4.12.a from 45' to 40' (Line 30).
Etten opined that he would like to take staff's suggestion to move forward in
leaving this as a permitted use to allow Northwestern to move forward; with
staff to return in the future with a discussion and recommendations to address
additional concerns and issues raised in tonight's discussion.
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. 1469 (Attachment C)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1001, Definitions and Table 1005-1 of
Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code."
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Consider University of Northwestern Agreements
Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed his recommendation for the City to
enter into a PILOT Agreement and Charitable Pledge Agreement with the University
of Northwestern-St. Paul, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr.
Trudgeon expressed appreciation to Northwestern staff for their voluntary willingness
to these agreements; opining that it initiated a framework for the City to
start a new relationship with Northwestern.
this case, Mr. Callaghan advised that he didn't have a big objection, but questioned
rationale in not applying the funds toward the TIF District to help pay it off
versus the proposed use for economic development efforts.
Manager Trudgeon responded that the TIF District was set to expire in 2018, and
all obligations of the District had already been met with no bonds remaining to
be paid off, with the District proposed for decertification sooner than later;
and the TIF District involved an area larger than that of the hotel location.
Callaghan opined that as long as the District was set to go away that was good,
and it would be nice to see more of them go away.
concurrence by staff, Mayor Roe noted that approximately $400,000 was projected
to come back to the City upon decertification of this TIF District.
moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement (DRAFT Attachment A) and Charitable
Pledge Agreement (DRAFT Attachment B) with the University of Northwestern - St.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 9:48 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:54
Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement
for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 311 County Road B
previously noted, this item was resolved prior to the meeting.
Presumptive Penalty Approval - Smashburger Restaurant Alcohol
Police Lt. Lorne Rosand provided a history of this first semi-annual round of
compliance checks with two failures of the sixty license-holders visited on May
1, 2014. Detail of the failure was provided in the RCA dated June 9, 2014 and
Rosand noted that this was the second compliance failure of Smashburger in the
last thirty-six months, with the previous failure on September 13, 2011. Lt.
Rosand also sought City Council discussion and direction on the violation by
the license holder related to training requirements, providing sufficient
ground for denial or non-renewal of 2015 licenses.
Willmus seconded, continuing the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. curfew to complete
MN Attorney Kate Becker
Becker, and two representatives of Smashburger, the District Manager and Local
General Manager, were present. Ms. Becker noted that Smashburger took this
compliance failure seriously and was very regretful of the violation, having
captured the attention of local and corporate office manage in Colorado.
Becker reviewed actions of the firm since the violation, including City training,
beyond their previous utilization of the ARM program through the University of
MN, whose records were kept on line and not accessible after repeated attempts
to provide written proof of that training to the Police Department. Ms. Becker
advised that within one week of the violation, all employees had completed the
Roseville training, and provided proof to the City of that training.
Becker further advised that the employee had been terminated and a new policy
implemented that a purchaser not only had to provide identification, but the
manager on site had to be called in to verify their age.
the presumptive penalties proposed, Ms. Becker respectfully asked that, in
light of the steps taken by Smashburger subsequent to the violation, the City
Council consider reducing the fine or eliminating some days of the suspension
from five to two or three days.
revamped penalties for liquor violations a number of years ago, Councilmember
Willmus noted that a significant discussion had been held at that time
regarding suspensions and the timeframe for multiple violations within that
timeframe, including a dollar amount and length of suspension. While appreciating
the efforts made by Smashburger going forward, Councilmember Willmus advised
that he was not inclined to deviate from that policy.
moved, Laliberte seconded, allowing the Roseville Police Department to issue
and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville
City Code; for alcohol compliance failure at Smashburger Restaurant, 2100 Snelling
Avenue N, on May 1, 2014; with a penalty of $2,000 and a five day liquor license
to the training requirement violation, Mayor Roe reviewed potential ramifications
related to denial or non-renewal of a license and additional optional penalties
for suspension up to 60 days and/or fine up to $2000; and asked the City
Council to address that particular issue.
Laliberte questioned why the U of MN could not verify server training; and
suggested the program needed revised if that was the case.
Becker responded that Smashburger was continuing to try to obtain the information,
but log-ins for each employee were tied to that verification, and since
employees had not recorded those passwords, management was still attempting to
get access and would continue to do so.
Laliberte questioned why the information as not recorded in Smashburger's
individual employee files for verification as well.
Ms. Becker responded that the training was done in the summer of 2013 and since
that time the franchise was under new management, and records were found to not
be filed or recorded appropriately. Ms. Becker advised that now verification
is filed for each alcohol server and available at each restaurant.
Roe thanked representatives for their information and attempt to obtain information
for evidence, which he advised would certainly be a mitigating factor when
consideration was given for renewal of the license this fall; and hoped that
the information be available at that time.
reviewing the November 14, 2011 City Council meeting minutes, Councilmember
Willmus noted that there were issues with training at that time as well; and
while also not willing to take action tonight on this training violation, he expressed
hope that the applicant would amend future training to comply.
Roe concurred, and suggested better record keeping efforts be pursued as well.
Becker assured the City Council that Smashburger would continue its efforts.
e. Presumptive Penalty Approval - Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant
Alcohol Compliance Failure
Police Lt. Lorne Rosand summarized this compliance failure, similar to that of
the previous licensee, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Lt.
Rosand noted that this was a first-time violation for this licensee. In
reviewing training records, Lt. Rosand noted that 21 of the 34 employees, or
62% had completed training, while other training was incomplete or done after
this compliance failure.
Macaroni Grill General Manager Tony Carbone
Carbone apologized for this violation, expressing his embarrassment and the
ramifications in losing a ten-year member of their team due to these events.
Mr. Carbone assured the City Council and Roseville Police Department that they
took this very seriously, and it brought to light the need for training moving
forward and lessons to not become complacent and make sure documentation of
training was thorough and complete. Mr. Carbone expressed appreciation to Lt.
Rosand for his guidance throughout this situation; and respectfully asked that
the store not be charged with a one day suspension, but was willing to accept
the punishment deemed appropriate.
moved, Etten seconded, allowing the Roseville Police Department to issue and
administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville
City Code; for alcohol compliance failure at Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant,
1595 W Highway 36, on May 1, 2014; with a penalty of $1,000 and a one day
liquor license suspension.
McGehee suggested that servers concentrate on the red mark "Under 21" listed on
applicable driver's licenses rather than the actual birth date in the future.
with the previous violation, Councilmember Willmus advised he would not
recommend further penalty related to the training violation, but it would be a
consideration at the time of renewal.
Willmus requested that Lt. Rosand, when the violation is the second or more,
copies of the minutes of those previous Council meetings be included in the RCA
as background information; duly noted by Lt. Rosand.
Consider Support for Sherman and Associates, Inc. Redevelopment
of 2785 Fairview Avenue, and Finance Options
Development Director Paul Bilotta and Acting RHRA Executive Director Jeanne
Kelsey were present. Mr. Bilotta briefly reviewed this first step in the
financing need process, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Following
his summary, Mr. Bilotta noted two actions were requested for approval, or
other options as noted.
Hughes, Twin Lakes Project Manager for Sherman and Associates
briefly presented the proposed project and financing needs at this time.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Hughes confirmed that the parcel was intended to
be replatted, with the two multi-family buildings on the same plat eventually,
but each separately financed.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Hughes advised that Sherman and Associates had no
intention of selling any of these components of their portfolio in the future,
as their business model continued that they remained long-term owners and
operators of the facilities they built.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Hughes clarified that anticipated funding from
Metropolitan Council to construct Twin Lakes Parkway was already committed as
part of the financing package, with the project attempting to leverage as much
funding from that source as possible, but not available to further reduce the
funding gap as it was already assumed as part of the projected financing needs.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kelsey responded that this project is structured so
none of the parcels can be split off or not developed due to requirements of
TIF housing districts and the allotment for affordability housing which would
be met by one of the buildings, but would not meet the legal requirements if
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the current Ramsey County
market value was $1.6 million for the land, and a value of $1,000 for the
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11155 (Attachment G) entitled,
"Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account
Funding and Authorizing an Application for Grant Funds to Assist with the
Redevelopment of 2785 Fairview Avenue;" AND adoption of Resolution No. 11154
(Attachment H) entitled, "Resolution Expressing Intent to Create and Administer
a Housing Tax Increment Finance District and Consider the Waiving of Sewer
Access Charges for the Redevelopment of 2785 Fairview Avenue."
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the total SAC funds available
were approximately $1.2 million.
wished Mr. Hughes good luck with the next steps in the process.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Consider Park Building Network Connectivity with Electronic Door
Access Control, Video Security and Public Wireless Internet
requested by the City Council, Director of Parks & Recreation Lonnie Brokke
briefly summarized requirements for network connective with electronic door
access controls, video security features, and availability of public wireless
Internet for newly-constructed buildings and/or existing buildings, as detailed
in the RDA dated June 9, 2014 (page 4). Mr. Brokke noted that the 2014 CIP
budget included video security for the park system, and those funds were
proposed for use moving forward at the discretion of the City Council.
Technology Network Manager Terre Heiser was also present to review and clarify
the technical issues for these amenities, and considerations for updating some
existing controls at City Hall and the Skating Center as another component to
consider, and similar to the managed access available for the new fire station.
reviewed some of the challenges in accessing facilities, various modules for
door access, and distinctions between DSL Internet, Wireless 4G Broadband, or
Comcast High Speed Data using a cable modem and costs for each option based on
the location of the parks, structures, and cable or fiber optic networks. Mr.
Heiser advised that Verizon was used for Police Squad cars, as it provided the
best performance to-date in and around Roseville.
Mr. Heiser further
reviewed staff familiarity of video security systems and door access
management; and problems with "City Guest" for open WIFI in parks as it related
to coverage and other management concerns. While the City currently uses "City
Guest" wireless service for Roseville buildings and eighty-nine other public
buildings throughout the joint powers agreements with other cities and
agencies; Mr. Heiser advised that there was not sufficient bandwidth to manage
it on an open network and still maintain the other items.
among Councilmembers and Mr. Heiser included split tunneling and challenges in
providing that service to park users based on terms of service under the City's
licensing agreement with providers; limited availability for users at various
access points and necessary software to provide access points/codes; and 4G
service at approximately $60/month but potentially higher for this metered
service and lack of access controls.
Etten suggested secondary door access for larger park buildings (e.g. warming
areas for ice rinks during winter months).
McGehee spoke in support of having WIFI available and easy access to park
buildings to make them usable.
discussion included which buildings had fiber optic available and/or their
nearest connection; proximity of park buildings related to the City's sanitary
lift stations to include them in the direct connection, since most are
currently using wireless or radio connections, with last weekend seeing lost
communication to one of those lift stations; the reliability of fiber versus
radio communications; and how to allocate funding and distribute costs to get
the connections made correctly and the most cost-effectively.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would look into
whether or not Communication Fund dollars could be utilized for all or a
portion of these items.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Heiser addressed options for having the 4G
Verizon connection for the City's infrastructure and another DSL connection
available for public use; and areas to separate and others suitable for
combining, recognizing the slow DSL service in the Roseville area at this time
due to the distance from that local office.
concurred with such a combination of both services and staging it at some
facilities to provide Internet user access, especially where shorter fiber runs
were available as well as funding in place; with phasing of a certain number of
buildings initially and programmed in subsequent years.
clarified that the consensus of the City Council appeared to be for staff to
identify funding sources to get things done and do them right.
Laliberte stated that she felt more strongly that Internet access be provided
in larger building versus spending significant money for smaller community
buildings not used in the same fashion. Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr.
Heiser and Mr. Brokke for the invaluable information, wishing that it had been
made available sooner so it could have been incorporated into initial spending
rather than trying to find that funding now.
McGehee suggested the Parks budget provide some funding for this as well to
make their buildings more user-friendly. However, Councilmember McGehee spoke
in support of providing the services for all park buildings, not just larger
buildings, equipping them all the same to meet expectations of the public to be
able to use the buildings appropriately and to ensure security.
Laliberte clarified that she was not recommending no security at small
buildings, and was only referring to Internet availability at larger facilities.
recognized the intent of Councilmember Laliberte for prioritization of how
Internet access was staged, with Councilmember Laliberte's concurrence and
confirmation that security and access should be the priorities.
Etten noted that some buildings may be easier to install fiber, while DSL may
be the answer for other buildings not so easily accessible; while some may be
closer to a lift station and move into a new category of discussion. Overall,
Councilmember Etten advised that he was looking for different solutions in the
clarified the direction to staff to come back with revised versions for
installation of Internet service for all buildings, in some form or another.
sought clarification related to whether or not that included a fiber component,
since there were options for service that would only change the threshold for
monthly operating costs for the City. Mr. Heiser reviewed some of the options
and projected costs, and contract terms (e.g. Comcast terms are that the City
did not make their Internet connection openly and readily available to other users);
other tiers of service providers that may be available for redistribution; and
connections into routers as buildings come up; with an IP network needed to
wire and control door access.
clarified that those options were not being requested tonight, but the City
Council was seeking staff to provide the most cost-effective approaches to
provide Internet access in all City-owned buildings.
discussion ensued regarding moving from key to controlled access for park
buildings; identification of which lift stations could be upgraded to fiber;
and a review of city-wide fiber with a report in process from Mr. Heiser for
updates and a build-out projection for a fiber plan and how it may relate to
thanked Mr. Heiser for his assistance with this information and recommendations.
stated that, in recent conversations he'd had with the mayor of another community served by a JPA with the City of Roseville for IT services under Mr. Heiser's management, that mayor couldn't say enough good about Mr. Heiser and acknowledged the great job he was doing.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 11:02 p.m.