View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Council member Willmus
requested removal of Item 8.d from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Receive Update on Rice Street Garden Project
Sherry Sanders and
Ron Peterson, representing the Garden Leadership Council provided the 2016 Rice
Street Gardens Final Report and a short video presentation on this first year.
Ms. Sanders thanked supporters of this effort as detailed in the final report
provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
In turn, Mayor
Roe thanked the volunteers and community supporters, noting this was an amazing
testimony of what can happen when a community gets together - without
government involvement - in doing for each other and their neighbors. On
behalf of the community, City Council, and personally, Mayor Roe stated he
looked forward to the 2017 growing season.
Sherry Sanders, Co-Founder of "Do Good Roseville"
representing Do Good Roseville, provided a bench handout entitled "Race in
Society, Science and History" inviting area residents to join in viding and
discussing a three-part series revealing how the myth of race took hold and had
retained is power. Ms. Sanders provided logistical information for the three
episodes; with the information available online at DoGoodRoseville.com/Racism.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced several upcoming events, including the upcoming SE Roseville
Community meeting regarding the best use of the former National Guard Armory
building and property, following the City of Roseville and Ramsey County not
exercising their rights-of-first refusal to acquire the site; and now seeking
community input on future zoning of the property as it most likely goes on the
market in the near future.
announcements made by Mayor Roe included the Fourth Annual Ovalumination;
volunteer opportunity to stack and drag precut Buckthorn at Cottontail Park;
and the Third Annual Roseville Area Business Exchange; along with logistics and
contact information for each event.
As City of
Roseville representative to the Ramsey County League of Local Governments
(RCLLG), Councilmember Laliberte reported that city membership dues for 2017
would remain unchanged.
Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) dated November 14, 2016 and related attachments.
Canvass Results of City Council Election
Trudgeon referenced the updated final tally received from Ramsey County after
dissemination of the meeting packets, and provided as a bench handout tonight.
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, declaring the candidates elected to the office of the Roseville City
Council as follows:
Jason Etten 10,683
Lisa Laliberte 10,173
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the 2016 Sanitary Sewer
Mayor Roe noted
that, while the final amount for this project was over the original contract
due to additions, it only resulted in an approximate 1% increase; and thanked
the Public Works staff for their efforts in keeping the project costs in line.
Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11373 (Attachment) entitled,
"Final Contract Acceptance - 2016 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;" initiating
the one-year warranty and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed
Twin Lakes East PIK Parcels Registered Land Survey
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified the tracts and
specific ownership of the various tracts related to this survey.
Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11374 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Registered Land Survey for Parcels of Land within
the Twin Lakes Area;" known as the Twin Lakes East PIK Parcels.
Issuance of Two 1-4 Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor Licenses
Laliberte seconded, approval of two 1-4 day Temporary Liquor License
applications for Bent Brewstillery as it hosts two events entailing the selling
of spirits on site at 1744 Terrace Drive; as detailed in the RCA dated today's
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
d. Consider a Conditional Use pursuant to Table 1005-1 and Section
1009 of Roseville City Code to Allow a Yoga Studio at 1940 - 1844 Lexington
Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated November 14,
2016 and related attachments. Mr. Trudgeon noted the revised draft resolution
(Attachment C) provided as a bench handout tonight.
concerns in this area, Councilmember Willmus asked staff if there was an
existing parking agreement in place for the adjacent hardware store and this
City Planner Thomas
Paschke responded that there was not an agreement in place.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11375 (Attachment C, as revised)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Yoga Studio/Fitness Center as a CONDITIONAL
USE at 1940-1944 Lexington Avenue."
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Text Amendments to Employment Districts, Chapter 1006
and Section 1009, Procedures, to include Motor Freight Terminal as a Conditional
Use (PROJ 0017-Amdt. 30)
Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request for text amendments as detailed
in the RCA dated November 14, 2016.
clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Paschke that the request was for general
text amendments allowing for future applications for such a Conditional Use,
and not related to a specific application for a Conditional Use on any particular
site at this time.
McGehee referenced the truck terminals currently operating in Roseville, and
stated that while she had no opposition to this text amendment in particular
she was concerned about the deterioration with long-term storage of the
semi-trailers. Councilmember McGehee asked if there was any way to condition
that the trailers had to be maintained to some degree versus resulting in
advised that once a Conditional Use is reviewed for a specific applicant and
property such a condition for approval could be considered along with other
site-specific use. Mr. Paschke noted that any reasonable condition that was
germane to a use could be added (e.g. screening, additional setbacks, and site
issues related to adjacent property uses).
asked if there was any provision for an approved access plan for semi-trailer
parking from the Fire Marshal.
responded that staff looked at sites and uses differently depending on whether
they were analyzed and recommended for approval under a Conditional Use or
Interim Use and their respective parameters, such as specific plans and spacing
that had been addressed for the last three Interim Use permits vetted by the
city. Mr. Paschke noted that current uses for those zoning areas did not allow
semi-trailer storage, thus the application for an Interim Use. Mr. Paschke reviewed
the differences for the outdoor storage of trailers under an Interim Use in
designated zoning areas where they would not typically be allowed and those considered
more "active" sites with semi-trailers stored outdoors storage under a Conditional
Use, such as would be applicable if this text amendment was approved for Motor
Freight Terminal uses.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke distinguished between the
already-permitted Warehousing use and this proposed addition of Motor Freight
Terminal as a Conditional Use, with Warehousing generally involving storage for
longer terms versus simply trans loading merchandise from one truck to another
in the Motor Freight Terminal use.
Mayor Roe noted
the reference in the RCA (page 2) consisting of an excerpt from the 2010 Zoning
Code update that defined "Motor Freight Terminals" with staff determining that
the use had been inadvertently omitted from the table of uses in that update.
stated he wasn't sure he agreed that it was an oversight, but actually a desire
to limit this type of use.
staff's research and available information, and based on the definitions for
"Industrial District" and Zoning Code definition of "Motor Freight Terminal,"
Mr. Paschke reported that to the best of staff's knowledge it was simply an oversight
in not listing that particular use. Mr. Paschke stated this was supported more
given the number of such uses and their preferred location on the west side
versus the east side of I-35W.
Specific to the
narrative related to a principle use or structure, Councilmember Willmus asked
how it was determined if there was more than one on a site.
responded that there could actually be two or more primary buildings on one
site, and two or more separate uses. Mr. Paschke opined this was true on a
number of sites in Roseville that would be no different than the narrative from
the one applicant referenced by Councilmember Willmus at 2600 County Road C.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City Council was cognizant of the discussions held at the Planning
Steingraeber of Winthrop & Weinstine on behalf of a Roseville property
owner, Koch Trucking
Steingraeber reiterated comments on record from the Public Hearing held at the
Planning Commission in October and November, along with their request related
to Section 37.a. Ms. Steingraeber noted their request was to remove the text
for a blanket prohibition for parking between a building and street, and
consider that on a case by case basis under a Conditional Use and then
conditioned accordingly. Ms. Steingraeber opined that this would serve the
city and future applicants as well and allow for a one-step application process
versus a two-step approach for a Conditional Use and Variance process.
for the City Council's consideration of her client's request, Ms. Steingraeber
advised that they would accept the City Council's decision; and due to timing
concerns, had already taken steps for consideration of their Conditional Use
and Variance at the December Planning Commission meeting.
Buss, Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., 42000 Vahlberg Drive, Minneapolis,
MN (looking to purchase 2500 County Road C)
Mr. Buss asked
for a decision by the City Council tonight, noting that there was a timing
conflict to the degree that the next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled
for December 7 and the last City Council meeting of 2016 was prior to that on
December 5, 2016.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff's rationale for
including the language in Item 37.a for locations of outdoor semi-trailer
storage was tied to how they are considered in city code, specific to "outdoor
storage." Mr. Paschke advised that this language was consistent with other
city code regulations on all sites, including Industrial sites. While
recognizing the merits brought forward during public comment and their desire
that this be considered on a case by case basis, Mr. Paschke advised that
staff's intent was to address outdoor storage and how it relates to buildings
with more than one public street to remain consistent. However, Mr. Paschke
advised that staff wasn't necessarily opposed to the City Council deleting it.
Etten clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Paschke that a review of other parts
of city code would consistently list that "no outdoor storage was allowed
between a principle building and street." Councilmember Etten asked if an applicant
could receive approval for such outdoor storage as a condition under a
Conditional Use without the added Variance process.
reviewed how staff analyzed outdoor storage, including but not limited to
semi-trailers parked anywhere in the yard, that would be taken into consideration
under a Conditional Use application and specific mitigation efforts by the city
and others addressed on any given site. With each site reviewed individually,
including how many principle uses were involved and how many streets were
adjacent to the use(s), Mr. Paschke advised that part of the analysis would
include whether or not an upgraded site plan for a project and potential
screening or appropriate placement of outdoor storage (e.g. semi-trailers) were
appropriate as related to a public street and adjacent properties and uses. Mr.
Paschke noted this allowed a review for each individual property and use versus
a blanket condition saying "No Parking" on the site at all.
Mayor Roe asked
if there were exceptions to Section 37.a from staff's perspective.
responded that there could be, but this particular section dealt specifically
with outdoor semi-trailer storage, and other "outdoor storage" could involve
numerous things. Mr. Paschke opined that this particular section took that "outdoor
storage" to a different level in the process.
application of city code to future situations, Mayor Roe asked if there may be
problems if a given site and situation where outdoor storage might be allowed
between a building and adjacent street if some type of mitigation was done. If
recognizing the proposed language as the default - no storage between a building
and any street - Mayor Roe questioned if this set the city up for unintended
consequences or served to preserve more flexibility on a site.
noted he couldn't respond either one way or the other, but reiterated the
preference for review on a case by case basis.
Based on his
understanding of Mayor Roe's question, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised if
the language was retained as recommended by staff for Section 37.a (lines 78-84
of the RCA), the city could attach a condition permitting semi-trailer storage
between a principle building and adjacent public street if applicable to a
given site and use.
In trying to
understand the language and future uses, Mayor Roe advised he was trying to
ensure the process going forward for a Conditional Use and/or Variance to
facilitate similar applications.
Willmus noted this discussion and staff's responses were consistent with the
discussions held at the Planning Commission as well.
Laliberte stated she would err on the side of consistency with language found
elsewhere in city code; and also spoke in support of utilizing the Variance
process for unique situations that may arise. Since the City of Roseville is
so developed, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there may be many properties
with unique situations, and that language could not be developed tonight that
would address each of those issues going forward. Councilmember Laliberte stated
that she recognized the scheduling issue brought forward by one applicant's
legal counsel speaking tonight and at previous Planning Commission meetings and
their situation, but stated the City Council should also not be making general
citywide decisions under that rationale.
McGehee voiced a different perspective based on a Conditional Use addressing
screening for an entire site and the role of the City Council and Planning Commission
in reviewing those applications. Councilmember McGehee noted that a condition
could be imposed by either body for no trailer storage on whatever side is
chosen and a determination made at that time. Councilmember McGehee questioned
if she was supportive of that being part of the Variance process, but instead
supported it as part of an overall site plan review that would not only provide
more flexibility for conditioning a Conditional Use, but allow the City Council
some control over those conditions as well versus consideration by only the
Willmus referenced the meeting minutes from the October 5, 2016 Planning
Commission and their reference to different definitions related to principle
uses and things to be vetted by the City Council subsequent to that meeting;
and the Commission's tabling any action after concerns had been expressed by
them that this additional language change had not yet been properly vetted by
staff, nor had it received any public feedback as it hadn't been part of the
initial staff request for text amendments. Councilmember Willmus asked if
staff was aware of any other text amendments potentially yet to be addressed;
with Mr. Paschke responding that he was not aware of any others at this point.
reviewed the options available for the City Council to consider tonight. Mayor
Roe stated his concern in removing the language altogether as requested by the
applicant's legal counsel speaking tonight was there was then no reminder that
it was an important point to consider. Therefore, Mayor Roe stated that he
would not be supportive of removing that reference completely.
Willmus stated his reluctance as well to taking the language out completely,
depending on what the city preferred and what direction they wanted to move
forward with related to outdoor storage. When reviewing this issue,
Councilmember Willmus stated that he got a sense that some of the controls in
place for the city and future land use were no longer available if the language
was struck; noting his concerns with that ramification.
From the other
perspective, Councilmember McGehee asked what would be amenable if there was a
selected primary street by definition that would serve as a flag for staff to
address with any other abutting streets.
clarified that he also preferred to err on the side of leaving the language as
recommended by staff, allowing the City Council to retain some flexibility if
they so desired.
Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1514 (Attachment C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Table 1005-1 and Section 1009.02.D of
Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance);" amended as follows:
outdoor semi-trailer storage shall occur on paved surfaces consistent with the
parking area requirements of Section 1019.11 of this Title, and shall adhere to
the parking area setback requirements in the applicable zoning district except
that no outdoor semi-trailer storage shall be allowed between a principle building
and the adjacent [primary] public street [as determined by Planning staff].
Areas of outdoor semi-trailer storage shall not obstruct required drive aisles
or parking stalls."
Etten opined that revised language to staff's recommendation made it clearer in
addition to identifying any additional conditions if and when needed.
Councilmember Etten further opined that it could serve to protect other
adjacent uses to a site with screening provisions as well; along with keeping
the primary street more easily identified when adjacent to other uses
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments, opining this created a
sufficient flag for Planning staff as well as future City Councils.
supported the language as recommended by staff, Councilmember Laliberte stated
she was not bothered by this minor change as proposed in the motion, and would
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Receive Update on Roseville A/D
LaBay, representing the Roseville Alzheimer's & Dementia Community
Action Team (RSVL A/D), provided an update on the team's most recent efforts
and initiatives. Ms. LaBay commended City Manager Trudgeon for his leadership,
noting to the team's knowledge Roseville was the first city with a page on its
website devoted to A/D, with that city leadership garnering nationwide attention.
Ms. LaBay thanked the city for allowing direct access by the team to city staff
and departments, along with space for information racks with city backing,
adding to their outreach and education efforts. In addition to the city and
other partnerships, Ms. LaBay also recognized the Roseville Area Senior Program
(RASP) and Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch for their major partnering efforts.
Ms. LaBay noted
receipt of an ACT grant to further these grass roots efforts, and also
acknowledged the support of the Community Health Awareness Team (CHAT), and
their overlapping goals and support of and for each other.
reported on and provided information materials as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, related to their outreach efforts,
with additional information available on the city website at www.cityofroseville.com/dementiainfo.
Ms. LaBay reported on some of the resent coping sessions, attendance and topics
covered, and reviewed future plans going forward, including development of a
guideline in conjunction with the City's Police and Fire Departments to serve
as a model for other cities. Ms. LaBay advised that the plan was to research
and develop, and then incorporate a basic resource information form for use by
the 9-1-1 system and subsequent staff training.
McGehee thanked Ms. LaBay for the team's use of C-TV and not just the city's
website for their outreach. Councilmember McGehee also referenced the
availability of various tracking devices that could be expanded in the future
for developmentally disabled and/or autistic residents.
Ms. LaBay noted
the variety of resources and types of bracelets currently available, but also
noted the cost of some of those options was prohibitive but continued to be
considered as options, depending on funding available or subsidized resources
reported that the Roseville Fire Department had been working on some of those
tracking options, with their research involving units that were easier to
wear. Given the number of bright, tech-savvy people in Roseville, Ms. Barsel
suggested the city sponsor a contest enticing them to develop something that
would function similarly but be smaller than those currently available on the
options being discussed, and while there was a wide range to choose from, Ms.
LaBay advised that there was an initial cost to purchase a bracelet (e.g. $200
- $300), along with a monthly maintenance fee (e.g. $30).
Laliberte opined that it was fantastic that Ms. LaBay was thanking the city and
making viewers aware of what was available; but also noted the city's need to
thank Ms. LaBay and the A/D team, who's passion and dedication in promoting
ideas received from residents and volunteers, this effort would not be
happening in Roseville.
Ms. LaBay also
referenced a recent caregiver's survey done in conjunction with the U of MN,
and available online, and being utilized nationwide and worldwide.
recognized the amount of work that went into that survey.
Trudgeon echoed the comments of Councilmember Laliberte in thanking the team
for their work day in and day out, and thanked Councilmember Laliberte for her
work in creating the materials. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his appreciation to be
a part of the huge group effort, including those reporting and also in
attendance in tonight's audience.
agreed it was a collaborative effort and had aligned people of passion and
thanked the team and encouraged them to forge ahead.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Business Items (Action Items)
Revisit Long-Term Facility Options for the Roseville License
recognized License Center supervisory staff in tonight's audience.
Director Chris Miller introduced this discussion and reviewed staff's in-house research
and discussion since the March 2016 discussion with the City Council based on
Finance Director Miller reviewed three options (lines 12-15) identified by
staff and financial considerations if the City Council wanted to pursue a
city-owned facility (lines 26 - 29 of the RCA). Mr. Miller reported on his
preliminary conversations with the owners of two properties identified last
spring and early summer. Mr. Miller stated his personal support for this
operation being located in a city-owned facility having now been in operation
for several decades and continuing to serve as a vibrant operation with other
city functions. Mr. Miller opined that given the added traffic from the License
Center averaging 500 vehicles/day and the synergy with other government
services, it made sense to have that function in proximity to the city campus.
Over the last
eight months or research, Mr. Miller reported that the most viable option found
for a city-owned facility, but obviously the most costly as well, is to
concentrate efforts on exploring existing city-owned land near the general
campus area, including potential space at Veteran's Park and the north skating
center parking lot. Mr. Miller reviewed the options discussed in-house to
repurpose an existing building on the city campus, but noted each brought their
own set of conflicts, most significantly that of adequate parking.
displayed a map of the area being proposed city-owned Veteran's Park. Mr.
Miller noted this parcel could facilitate a 6,500 square foot footprint with
the License Center currently using approximately 3,300 square feet, but to
expand and streamline operations in a more customer-friendly atmosphere, suggested
an additional 2,000 square feet. Mr. Miller noted that any additional square
footage could be considered for other city needs, including storage that was
deemed to be currently lacking.
Director Miller reviewed various opportunities and challenges with the proposed
repurposing of Veteran's Park; use of existing green space; additional
pressures on existing parking and sharing existing available parking; screening
of the athletic field among a few considerations. Mr. Miller noted that a
substitute park space elsewhere in the city had yet to be identified. Mr.
Miller reviewed some of the parking options and challenges with use of adjacent
ballfields and hours of operation for the License Center in the early evening
and on Saturdays, and possible overflow parking into the skating center lot.
Mr. Miller concluded by stating that as now understood, it appears physically
that a building of that size footprint on that site would be feasible without
repurposing current activities and buildings on the campus. Mr. Miller
expressed staff's confidence that the building could be positioned to preserve
options to the north and east for future grander ideas and pursuits in this
general area as time and development opportunities came forward.
Miller reported that staff had also considered new construction on the NEW
corner of the skating center lot that could provide space to tuck it in without
impacting geothermal wells on the south. However, Mr. Miller noted this option
created parking issues with hockey and ice time, spilling over in the opposite
direction and on neighborhood streets, already utilized during highly-attended
events. Mr. Miller also noted the current park & ride facility using part
of the south lot, and if considering this site, perhaps that would need to be
removed entirely. Mr. Miller estimated the need for a minimum of forty parking
spaces during the day for the License Center operation to facilitate employees
and customers during their busiest times, and sometimes perhaps more.
Director Miller reported that considerable time had been spent on this issue
over many years, and based on the most recent City Council direction, staff had
accelerated some of those conversations. While there are some other appealing
sites near the city campus, Mr. Miller advised there were no willing sellers
yet identified. However, if so directed, Mr. Miller expressed staff's
willingness to seek appraisals as applicable in preparation of a formal,
bona-fide offer to more strongly convey the city's commitment in acquiring new
At this point,
Finance Director Miller advised that staff was seeking a direction from the
City Council. Mr. Miller noted that the city's lease was up for renewal the
end of January of 2017, with the owner of that site willing to negotiate a new
lease, once the proposed term was identified, and anticipating a 3% to 4% increase
annually. Mr. Miller advised that staff's negotiations for this leased space
would be predicated on how aggressive the City Council wanted to be in defining
a new space for this function.
Willmus sought additional context on the other city needs (e.g. storage).
Trudgeon advised that, independent but also related to this discussion, was
storage needs for the maintenance facility, currently woefully inadequate with
nothing likely available on site. While that additional space could be
constructed elsewhere in the city and independent of the city campus, Mr.
Trudgeon also noted the significant cost of doing so. Regarding short-term storage
needs, Mr. Trudgeon reported that the city was currently renting storage space;
and since some of the storage was specific to heavy equipment that needed
access in the early morning and/or weekend hours, he questioned whether or not
it was compatible as part of the License Center, especially if for a new
facility at Veteran's Park adjacent to residential properties. While the
existing maintenance facility on the city campus could be repurposed for the
License Center and other city needs, Mr. Trudgeon noted that it would cost many
millions of dollars to move the maintenance facility off-site, with bonds for
the facility still being paid off. At this point, Mr. Trudgeon noted staff had
been able to cobble together storage space short-term, but admitted it didn't
serve to address the bigger and longer-term issues.
Willmus stated his desire for a more in-depth discussion on citywide needs
versus taking a piecemeal approach. While recognizing that the current lease
for the License Center needed to be renewed in the very near future,
Councilmember Willmus suggested reviewing facilities on the current city campus,
as well as taking a more proactive approach to the issue to see if there was
additional acreage around City Hall that could be more seriously looked at.
Laliberte agreed that, with the City Council was continuing its efforts to not
think or perform in a silo mentality, if this involved a bigger facility
conversation, now was the time to have that broader discussion. Councilmember
Laliberte stated that she was fine in ramping up that discussion to consider
all city needs, including possibly repurposing the maintenance building with
the License Center located on the main floor, depending on options. However,
Councilmember Laliberte suggested considering going "up" versus just limiting
the conversation to building "out."
Mayor Roe noted
the large equipment storage involved in the maintenance facility versus
personnel that could be more amenable for a second story.
Councilmember Etten supported looking at the big picture versus constructing a
6,500 square foot building only to find that more space was needed. If the
need was to accelerate the conversation now, Councilmember Etten supported that
process. Councilmember Etten asked staff to report on how many square feet
were involved in the License Center and Passport Office operations.
Director Miller reported that the current operations took up approximately 3,300
square feet, but based on current growth over the last decade, opined it wasn't
worth doing anything less than 5,000 square feet minimum. Mr. Miller clarified
that the footprint shown on the displayed map was provided only to show the
potential impact to the site and adjacent properties with a 6,500 square foot
building, and had not taken into consideration a second story or smaller or
larger building on that same parcel.
referenced staff's identification of the need for an additional 2,000 square
feet of leased space in the RCA (lines 28 - 29) . While seeing the need,
Councilmember Etten opined that one way or another, the city would be looking
to lease more space in the short-term.
Director Miller agreed that, if the viability of getting into a city-owned
facility was three or more years out, he would recommend a significant investment
to the leased space, in addition to additional square footage, to provide a
warmer and more inviting customer service look like the License Center used to
have. Mr. Miller noted the current space and operations were cramped with many
physical limitations as to how many customers could be processed; with many
having to wait outside in all kinds of weather, or try to time their visits
during less busy hours. Mr. Miller reported that it was a frequent observation
to see customers walking away from the License Center. However, Mr. Miller
noted there was no way to determine if those customers would return or simply
have the incentive to go to another license center in the immediate area. Mr.
Miller noted the importance as part of that concern with 80% of those customers
visiting the License Center being other than Roseville residents.
Etten referenced his discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke
regarding space needs of that Department, shared space opportunities, and
impacts to investing functions, as well as the Parks Master Plan concept for no
net loss to available park space and acquisition of replacement square footage
for any current park or open space that was eliminated.
McGehee stated that she echoed most of the comments of her colleagues, and the
need to look at the big picture as part of this space need. However,
Councilmember McGehee also noted the considerable amount of time discussing
this with no action taken, and building up reserves to address space needs, but
then frequent use of those reserves for other needs over the years. With the
License Center being a good revenue generator for the city, Councilmember
McGehee recognized the need to make it a good experience for customers using
it. While addressing several options for the License Center, including
repurposing the Public Works Maintenance Facility with a second story and
installation of an elevator, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to remain in
this area to retain the familiarity for repeat customers to the License Center
and other government services nearby. Councilmember McGehee offered her
support of working with property owners as suggested by staff to determine if a
purchase price could be negotiated for existing buildings as the most
cost-effective option for the city, and potential to rent out any additional
space to leverage city costs for their space.
stated his interest in understanding more about the Public Works Maintenance
Facility opportunities and challenges, and how that works with the remainder of
the city campus. While agreeing that adjacent properties are also favorable
options, and could address future possibilities to meet the desire of the
community for other facilities down the road (e.g. community center), Mayor Roe
noted that property adjacent to the city campus obviously made the most sense.
Mayor Roe expressed interest in a win-win-win for all three parties if such an
option could be pursued. Mayor Roe suggested staff negotiating a short-term
lease for the current License Center space, entering into a dialogue with that
property owner to see if more long-term solutions were available, even an
option that might involve them as partners in the process if they were
Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's comments that various City Councils
had been talking about this for a number of years, in addition to the
additional storage needs of the Public Works and Parks Departments.
Councilmember Willmus opined that it was time that we compiled more detailed
information on parcels adjacent to the city campus seriously begin that conversation.
objection, the City Council agreed that part of that process would be to
initiate appraisal information on adjacent properties as applicable for a
suggested another part of the conversation, not specifically related to the
License Center but also applicable, should be a solution to the city's current
use of the former Fairview Fire Station for storage, and the potential to
relocate that storage as a prelude to the potential sale of that site. Councilmember
Laliberte noted that the sale of the parcel could assist in the acquisition of
property closer to the city campus. Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff
provide an update as part of this consideration as to what was being proposed
for that site.
Trudgeon reported that staff had delayed further conversations on the former
Fire Station site understanding that its future was ultimately tied into making
other facility decisions. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the facility is fully used
for city storage and hat of the Roseville Historical Society, and needed a
Mayor Roe stated
his appreciation for the reminder about the Historical Society needs in case a
solution didn't work out with a future golf course clubhouse facility.
McGehee opined that displays by the Roseville Historical Society at City Hall
was most appropriate. However, Councilmember McGehee suggested storage for
Park & Recreation equipment belonged somewhere more relative to park spaces
to avoid hauling it around during off season, suggesting consideration may be
given to storage as part of some of the new park buildings constructed or as
additions to them as appropriate as should have been planned in the first
From a timing
standpoint, Mayor Roe suggested, without objection from his colleagues, looking
seriously at this facility issue in early 2017, especially given the need to
extend the current lease term.
Specific to the
leased facility, and involving the Public Works Maintenance Facility in the
discussion, as well as continuing efforts to avoid thinking in a "silo" format,
City Manager Trudgeon suggested starting initial discussion in December of this
year, then in January of 2017 get appraisals updated. However, Mr. Trudgeon
noted the need to sort out and direct staff on the current short-term lease
Discussion and Direction to Staff
For a lease
term extension, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city couldn't make much
progress on a new facility in less than two years; and that one year would
suffice to review the big picture, find property, and construct a building.
Therefore, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a minimum two-year lease.
Willmus spoke in support of a one-year lease with an annual option to renew.
Etten spoke in support of a minimum two-year lease, opining that not only
finding a site, planning a building design, and then funding it, all while
addressing different needs within the community could not be accomplished any
Director Miller, from his perspective and in all reality, if the City Council
directed staff tonight to pursue a new facility on an identified site, staff
could not accomplish that in two years for planning, design and construction.
Mr. Miller opined that just the process itself and actual construction was
staggering to consider in less than two years. While appreciating the City
Council's sensitivity to a shorter lease term providing more options, Mr.
Miller also noted that the shorter lease term the less favorable options staff
could negotiate with the current leaseholder. Therefore, Mr. Miller stated he
would strongly suggest that the City Council consider something slightly
different than a one-year lease.
Adding to that
timing scenario, Councilmember Laliberte noted that everyone was of mind in
expressing dissatisfaction with the current condition of the License Center.
Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte opined that to just renew the lease and stay
in the tight confines in the unwelcoming conditions at the Center was as
equally undesirable. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that whether or not the
city was amenable to staying in those same circumstances or what improvements
it would consider with a short-term lease renewal also needed to be part of
lease term, Councilmember Willmus stated he didn't have strong feelings, but if
the city was serious about property acquisition, the lease term would become
moot at some point. Councilmember Willmus stated that he hoped that wouldn't
be as long as three years from now.
McGehee stated her agreement, but noted the need to balance the additional
space needed at the current leased space and potential acquisition of a new
site. Councilmember McGehee suggested that staff advise the City Council about
what a two-year versus a three-year lease would lease and costs entailed.
Director Miller noted the good relationship between the city and building
owners at the current leased site, with that relationship continuing over the last
sixteen years. Mr. Miller clarified that while the relationship remained good
between the parties and they continued to be willing to work with the city on a
short-term solution, at the end of the day the property owner was also a
business person, and if the city pursues extending their space further south in
the facility, it would displace the current tenant, with the city potentially
liable for those relocation costs for that tenant. Mr. Miller also noted there
is room on the property to expand the facility north, with the city currently
occupying the end cap of the facility. However, Mr. Miller also noted that the
potential expansion on the north end had been marketed by the property owner
for over fifteen years, without serious interest shown. If the city was to
consider an expansion to the north, Mr. Miller opined that he doubted the
property owner would be interested in doing so for a two-year lease, since it
would not provide them much incentive to speculate as to whether it could
market the space to future tenants after the city's two-year lease terminated
and they moved to another facility. Therefore, Mr. Miller noted that the
longer lease term, the more options and leverage staff could negotiate.
Director Miller recommended a minimum three-year lease with an option to renew
for an additional two years. Mr. Miller opined that this provided the city
with a short-term solution, while providing significant motivation to get a
long-term solution done within three years, with the two-year option available
to buy more time if and as needed.
questioned if the timeline was being looked at properly; and if the focus is
property acquisition, the build date was irrelevant. Therefore, Councilmember
Willmus stated he wouldn't enter into a long-term lease if the City Council
consensus was to pursue acquisition that should remain the focus.
Councilmember Willmus suggested serious consideration should be given to relocation
expenses versus adding onto the existing infrastructure already in place at the
leased License Center facility.
agreed with the short-term nature of a lease, stated his interest in short-term
leasehold improvements to address how to use the expanded space and process
customers with better flow and as economically as possible.
Mayor Roe suggested
that the direction to staff was for a shorter term lease, and to consider
inexpensive leasehold improvements based on further discussion and decisions on
how the city wanted to move long-term and going forward.
McGehee agreed, but noted the additional cost to buy out the lessee to the
south and necessary agreement to do so by the property owner. Councilmember
McGehee stated she wasn't sure she agreed with Councilmember Willmus on his version
of a short-term lease, opining it didn't allow sufficient time for the city to
perform its due diligence to ensure all the cohesive pieces fit together,
noting there were a number of moving parts and various complexities involved.
Councilmember McGehee with Finance Director Miller's suggestion that the city
could get a better lease if it was for a longer term; and stated her preference
not to be rushed in making this decision based on an unrealistic short-term
Mayor Roe asked
that staff return to the City Council with more information on the options
noted in the RCA, along with numbers associated with them. Mayor Roe clarified
that this didn't mean an appraisal that need to be discussed in Closed
Executive Session, but to just provide options versus stipulating only one path
for staff direction at tonight's meeting. Mayor Roe questioned if further
discussion on this was feasible in December given other agenda items, but
suggested that staff provide at a minimum numbers and lease costs, and leasehold
costs involved, in order to make a more informed decision.
Willmus clarified that he wasn't suggesting a short-term lease, but could agree
to a two-year lease term, with his main concern being that the lease term
should not run longer than the acquisition date for acquiring property. If the
City Council had no intention of agreeing on property acquisition within five
years, Councilmember Willmus agreed that then by all means, staff should be
directed to negotiate a five-year lease term.
Mayor Roe noted
that his observation was that the remainder of the body was not considering a
4-5 year timeframe.
McGehee stated her preference for a three year with two-year option; and
Councilmember Etten stated his preference for a two- to three-year lease term.
Mayor Roe asked staff to bring this discussion forward, with options and
associated numbers at the December meeting; with Councilmember Laliberte
reminding staff to include other city needs already identified as part of that
Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services
Works Director Marc Culver and Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson provided
an update on negotiations since their last presentation and further direction
from the City Council in October. Mr. Culver noted this update was detailed in
the RCA of today's date.
Culver reported on further discussions internally at Eureka and with city staff
including floor prices related to revenue sharing and a termination clause.
The options presented through negotiations were compared to the original Eureka
proposal and additional costs to the base rate higher than the 2016 base rate.
Representatives of Eureka were present in the audience for questions or
comments at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Culver directed the City
Council to the chart on page 3, line 45 of the RCA for a quick comparison of
the proposed option compared to the existing Eureka agreement. Mr. Culver also
directed attention to revenue sharing results from the current three-year
contract from 2014 through 2016. Mr. Culver concluded his presentation by
reviewing the risks with either option, seeking direction from the City Council
for staff on either of two proposals as outlined.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver referenced a draft contract prepared for
either option, with the original proposal represented in Attachment C and
Option 2 provided in Attachment E.
ensued regarding current Recycling Fund reserves (estimated by staff at
$90,000); total possible annual loss in revenue sharing, with 2015 used as an
example showing an additional cost to the city would have been approximately
$22,000; and the length of the contract proposed under Option 2.
McGehee stated her preference for Option 1 or the original proposal, opining
there was obviously some risk but based on the last five years' experience, it
would balance out.
Willmus noted where the disclaimer came into play, whether relying on past
performance or not, stating his concern was with the length of the contract at
five years versus the current three-year contract. Councilmember Willmus noted
his discomfort in not knowing the city's costs going forward and being able to
fix those costs. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that the Eureka proposal
without revenue share was still under the proposals received from other firms
Culver concurred, noting Attachment B provided those other prices for the same
term, with the next lowest proposal at $3.62 per unit, still over $1.00 higher
and not including revenue sharing in their models. In his research of
metropolitan peer communities, Mr. Culver opined that $2.56 per unit as
proposed by Eureka was still a very good price.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver reviewed annual service costs
shown on Attachment B under Options 2 and 2 based on last minute negotiations
over the last few weeks, with some of those numbers continuing to fluctuate to
a small degree. Mr. Culver assured the City Council that those minor
differences would be refined with final negotiations and adjusted accordingly
in the final contract agreement.
understanding Councilmember Willmus' concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the
need to finalize this contract, and wasn't sure an additional $40,000 cost to
the city was called for to avoid the risk if the recycling market completely
declined. Councilmember McGehee referenced the good and fair relationship
to-date between Eureka and the city; and expressed hope that the final details
could be worked out accordingly.
the request of Councilmember McGehee as to what other communities did in terms
of revenue sharing, Mr. Culver reported that his research had found many still
working on the older model with the floor. Mr. Culver reported that the City
of St. Paul had just recently negotiated a contract with Eureka without a
floor. Mr. Culver noted that the Walter's proposal did not have a floor
either; and opined that this new model appeared to recognize the risk involved
in the recycling commodity market in today's world.
Councilmember Etten's question related to impacts to utility rates for
Roseville residential customers, Mr. Culver reported that his in-house
discussions tonight indicated the need for further refinement in curbside
recycling rates that will be presented later on tonight's agenda depending on
the City Council's chosen option tonight. If the City Council chose the no
revenue sharing model, Mr. Culver advised that staff would recommend a $7/quarter
fee versus the $6.50 quarterly fee proposed on the fee schedule at this time
for 2017; both up from the current $5.60 quarterly fee.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver agreed that not all providers offered a
revenue sharing option, and that given changes in the market, it appeared to be
more the exception than the rule.
Laliberte sought additional clarification on negotiations on a three- versus
five-year contract term related to whether or not revenue sharing was an
Culver reported that the original proposal was for a three-year term but prices
were higher with the shorter term. In response to Councilmember Willmus'
point, Mr. Culver noted that the city had generally operated on a three-year
cycle, but staff had recommended a five-year term based on previous City
Council discussions and seeking a lower pricing model by setting the price for
a longer term.
discussion ensued regarding pricing accuracy on the RCA and attachments; and
relevancy of and comparables with the colored sections at the table on Exhibit
D between three- and five-year terms.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of a revised, no revenue sharing model,
Agreement (Attachment D) for Comprehensive Recycling Services with Neighborhood
Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling as presented.
Willmus stated that it was important to note that a revenue sharing floor had
been included in past contracts. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus reiterated
his concern was with rates fifty cents per unit over the current contract, the
city needed to be frugal based on what could be a downside in the commodities
Laliberte admitted she saw benefits and drawbacks with either option; and while
not being a fan of taking risks on behalf of the city, based on what she was
seeing in the recovering commodities market, it could prove to work in the
city's favor, but there was no guarantee at this point.
Etten stated he could not support the motion, opining that a difference of $37,000
and $40,000 represented a significant amount of money over time. While
admitting there may be some losses in revenue sharing for the city in some
years, Councilmember Etten noted the potential for the city to make money in
other years as well, such as the unexpected revenue this year compared to 2015.
though not being much of a risk taker, Councilmember McGehee stated that she
was inclined to take the risk in this case. With a combined expense of $40,000
but potential of revenue of $20,000, Councilmember McGehee opined that, with
the sufficient cushion in the Recycling Fund to cover short-term setbacks, she
couldn't support this motion.
Roe stated that he understood risk avoidance, but based on a five-year contract
term and worst case scenario projections versus annual costs, he opined there
could be both negative and positive years. While having supported the notion
of getting rid of revenue sharing, Mayor Roe stated he was inclined, based on
the additional information presented tonight to support not eliminating it
completely at this time, and therefore would be voting in opposition to this
motion at this time.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the original Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling
Services (Attachment C) with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka
Recycling as presented.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:12 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:19
City Campus Solar Installation Project
Works Director Marc Culver provided an update on solar installation o the city
campus, as detailed in the RCA and attachments. Mr. Culver referenced a bench
handout providing a short- and long-term comparison of Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) rates, buyout and Xcel Energy rates for the City Hall and Public Works
Sundial Solar, Mr. Culver introduced Mr. Art Kroll and Mr. Paul Christianson,
both having worked with the city over the last eighteen months to develop this
assistance as needed by Mr. Kroll, Mr. Culver provided a quick review of the
proposal, and updates to consider these two buildings rather than the original
proposal for the Skating Center roof due to the age and condition of the roof,
and potential capital improvements intended before the solar project's
investment end at twenty-five years. Mr. Culver also noted that, during the
detailed engineering of the Skating Center roof, it was found that the arena
and roof supports and substructure would need shoring up to meet current
building codes and support a solar array. Mr. Culver noted this would also
involve gaining access to the beams and over the ice surface, taking it out of
commission for several months and during heavy usage months. According to the
current capital improvement program (CIP) schedule, Mr. Culver noted the roof
would be considered for major rehabilitation five years from now. Therefore,
Mr. Culver reported that Sundial and staff had looked to other available roofs
on the city campus, resulting in the new proposal for two smaller arrays on the
newer roof portions of the City Hall/Fire Department and Public Works
Maintenance facilities as shown on the display.
Culver reviewed and defined what would be involved in the installation as detailed
in the various draft attachments to the RCA. Mr. Culver advised that staff and
Sundial were seeking City Council action for a non-binding Letter of Intent as
identified in the RCA based on the draft agreements; and emphasized that once
final documents and engineering had been completed, the documents would return
for approval by the City Council.
ensued regarding charts provided and displayed (Attachment D) provisions of the
PPA and annual purchases and energy savings projected; initial investment and
actual city costs; vested interests of the city and investor in keeping the
system operational; and payoff term under a standard solar financing scenario.
McGehee noted previous presentations and arrangements for a different program
and shorter period of time.
Culver clarified that the city had applied for Made in Minnesota Grants for the
last three years involving agreements with different solar developers who had
submitted applications for the city, and if successful would have installed
panels on roofs with the city receiving up to 40 K2H based on the grant
provisions and an annual payment of $13,000 for ten years until the system had
been paid in full. However, Mr. Culver further clarified that the city would
have no money invested in those systems, financed by a developer and reimbursed
through grant awards. Mr. Culver noted that only a small percentage of those
applications are actually awarded; while this installation is financed
independently, and not relying on a lottery or grant system.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver reviewed language in the
second paragraph of the PPA with the Letter of Intent not binding, but was basically
a mutual agreement for the city and Sundial to work together in good faith
while Sundial puts more money into exploring the engineering of the system.
Councilmember Laliberte referenced earlier conversations tonight regarding a review
of existing buildings on the city campus that might be repurposed; and questioned
how that might impact this installation.
Roe noted the discussion involved the Public Works Maintenance facility, its
repurposing and/or relocation, in addition to other pending City Council discussions.
Mayor Roe noted that he had wondered if the new Fire Station roof may make more
sense as a better option for the city given those pending issues, and asked for
staff's feedback on that.
Culver advised that the Fire Station roof had been reviewed and what could be
installed, but noted that it would be a much smaller installation. Even with
an installation on the City Hall/Police Department and Public Works Maintenance
facilities, Mr. Culver advised that those sizes of installations were
considered "small potatoes" for Kenyon to work on; therefore, the attempt was
to make the installation as large as possible. Mr. Culver reported that the
only reason the city was able have Kenyon consider this smaller project was
that they were seeing it as an extension of a larger system in the area. While
it would not be impossible to bring the Fire Station into the equation, Mr.
Culver noted it would change the economics. While not having gotten into much
detail at this point, Mr. Culver further reported that in initial discussions
with City Manager Trudgeon, even if the existing Public Works Maintenance
facility was repurposed and the maintenance function moved elsewhere, the shell
of the building wouldn't change and simply involve walls and interior space
reconfiguration and repurposing. Without having talked to an architect
on-site, Mr. Culver opined that adding a second floor to the Public Works
Maintenance facility as it is designed would be difficult and expensive.
agreeing that the Maintenance facility is basically a large garage, and also
agreeing that it probably wasn't feasible to add a second floor, Mayor Roe
noted one outcome of the pending facilities study may be that the shell of the
building is no longer there; thus addressing the city's risk level.
Culver agreed that may be a possibility; but opined it would be more
cost-effective to repurpose the existing building, after formal discussions
with an architect about that feasibility. Mr. Culver noted part of that could
involve lowering the tall ceilings of installing a false ceiling lower and
repurposing the open space into a License Center or some other use. However,
Mr. Culver noted the intent was that repurposing the building wasn't
necessarily exclusive for installation of solar panels and keeping them
operational for the twenty-five-year term of the installation.
the notice of Councilmember McGehee and previous discussions earlier today, Mr.
Culver advised that the preliminary financial analysis predictions of the twenty-five
years of the long-term PPA program shown as $105,000 (RCA, page 2, line 39) was
inaccurate, and was actually $242,000.
McGehee further noted the exit clause detailed in line 98 of the RCA and the
projected $242,000 didn't appeal to her; opining she liked the previous lottery
program as a smaller experiment to begin with.
Culver apologized for not providing more detail for the city's risk in his
presentation tonight, advising that after distribution of the meeting packets,
city staff and Sundial representatives had a breakthrough in negotiations for
that item, with an energy performance guarantee agreement with Sundial that
would eliminate that risk factor with Xcel Energy rates that may fluctuate and
be lower than the initial contractual energy purchase rates. Mr. Culver noted
this had been a concern he shared as well until these most recent negotiations.
McGehee stated there were many things concerning her related to the city's
Culver noted that, the only significant risk he saw to the city was if there
was an unexpected but major maintenance on a roof with a solar array, if for
more than 72-hour in a 60-day period, the city would be liable to pay the power
provider for that lost power, since they were depending on that power
production to help pay for the system and their financing of it.
the prompting of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver addressed natural disasters
(e.g. fire, storm, or collapse) if the system could not be salvaged or returned
to that roof, noting the force Majeure clause (lines 100-104 of the RCA) that
covered a longer period of time to restore operations, allowing that the power
provider can abandon the system at which time the city would be stuck with it.
If it still works and can still generate power, Mr. Culver advised it would not
be an issue, but otherwise the city would need to deal with the salvage and
removal of the equipment from the site.
Willmus opined that this was similar to his concerns with the Recycling
contract and term. When he considered the Made in Minnesota proposals, with a
shorter horizon, Councilmember Willmus stated that he found those agreements
more attractive. Given the pending city campus discussions and related issues,
Councilmember Willmus stated that he wasn't sure he was ready to proceed at
this point with a Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar as presented.
McGehee seconded, WITHHOLDING entering into a Letter of Intent with Sundial
Solar for installation of a 450 kW Photovoltaic System proposed for the roofs
of City Hall and the Maintenance Facility, until completion of the analysis of
buildings on the city hall campus was completed.
McGehee agreed that a variety of concerns for her included the duration of the
agreement, ultimate payback for the city, disposal of panels should the city
end up purchasing them and how to manage them, and other contract details as
she had addressed to Mr. Culver earlier today and some tonight. With so many
questions still unanswered for her, Councilmember McGehee agreed with the delay
until city campus discussions and facilities had been reviewed.
Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak.
Etten asked if this motion pauses the process for possibly up to six months and
no Letter of Intent was in place, would something similar be considered in the
future or would the process need to start all over again.
Kroll responded that he thought the discussions could generally pick-up where
it was currently, and even if Kenyon didn't share those sentiments, there were
other investors willing to look at projects of this nature. Mr. Kroll noted
that economics continued to change with solar rates, resulting in the savings
spread for the city being better or worse. While those factors could change,
Mr. Kroll advised that as far as Sundial's willingness to work with the City of
Roseville, their interest would remain intact.
Etten spoke in opposition to the motion, opining he wasn't sure the existing
buildings identified for these solar installations would be taken off line to
the extent it would involve the solar panels. Councilmember Etten further
opined that if the city built additional facility space, he didn't see the city
taking down existing buildings to construct new ones. Therefore, Councilmember
Etten stated his preference to move forward with this project that would
provide some benefit to the city.
Laliberte spoke in support of the motion to take a pause; along with fast
tracking discussions on additional city needs first before making a decision on
stated, Mayor Roe recognized that the market place for solar continued to
evolve; and whether six months or longer from now, there may be other factors
in the marketplace that may or may not work to the city's benefit. Therefore,
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion.
Etten noted there may be fewer solar credits available at that time as well.
Willmus, Laliberte, McGehee and Roe.
Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments
Director Chris Miller provided a presentation that was complimentary to the
detail provided in the RCA of today's date; along with the bench handout incorporated
into the RCA, providing a projected analysis of the water, sanitary sewer and
recycling utility funds and their current and proposed rate structures.
Director Miller provided a rate overview, incorporating updated figures for the
twenty-year CIP, and rate increases and/or decreases in each utility fund,
along with including the net change as projected in Recycling Revenue Sharing
under the recycling contract as approved earlier tonight.
Director Miler advised that staff had prepared a draft resolution establishing
the 2017 utility rates for City Council consideration tonight. However, Mr.
Miller suggested the resolution could await adoption at a future meeting.
page 4 of the RCA, Councilmember Etten noted expenses for stormwater-related
capital and "other services and charges," asking if that could be brought down
on Mr. Culver's comments earlier tonight, Finance Director Miller advised that
was a possibility to shave off further money for the Stormwater Fund that
hadn't been factored into the rates yet, but extracted during staff's rate
analysis. However, Mr. Miller noted this plan only occurs every ten years, and
therefore was not considered part of the revenue stream. Based on City Council
direction for using reserves for one-time costs versus applying them to base
rates, Mr. Miller advised this was the recommendation in this case.
Etten noted comments he'd heard from residents and their frustrations in losing
the senior discount, not based on federal income guidelines through Ramsey
County records. Councilmember Etten asked staff is there was any way to
include more households or another barometer that could be used to tie a higher
income threshold into that used by Ramsey County.
Director Miller advised that, as of now, there were 3-4 programs tied to income
at the 160% of federal income guidelines; with other energy companies offering
financial assistance programs for residents as well. Mr. Miller noted the city
might have more local control with its rate structure, but if identifying the
demographic group and requested financial relief, it would simply make the rate
structure more favorable for another segment and less favorable for the
remaining segments. Mr. Miller stated the question for the City Council was
where it wanted to provide the relief; and since the city doesn't verify
incomes and relied on applications for other programs through Ramsey County, in
order to revise the program or demographic, it would involve additional city
administrative costs to implement. Mr. Miller noted this was part of the
discussion several years ago when the City Council changed the discount program
from age to income verified. Mr. Miller advised that one year ago, the city
had nineteen households involved in the discount program, and now it had
twenty-nine households. Mr. Miller opined that he was confident there were
more that qualified in Roseville, but for one reason or another, chose not to
apply for reduced rates via an income verification process.
the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller clarified that the increase
of 5.4% in the CIP was a result of updated assumptions and projections,
including some not identified before. Mr. Miller reported that each department
had been challenged to seriously review those assumptions, which they had done,
providing for a recalibration and more accuracy in the numbers, part of what
was driving an increase in base fees for 2017.
Roe thanked staff for the bench handout providing the analysis of how rates
were achieved, allowing him to see cost inputs and rate needs in various categories,
along with the capital areas. Mayor Roe encouraged staff to incorporate this
information with the RCA on the website for public information, duly noted by
City Manager Trudgeon.
McGehee referenced, and displayed, her previous calculations and considerations
entitled, "Utility Rate Facts and Questions," attached hereto and made
a part hereof. Councilmember McGehee noted this involved her preference
of a different funding structure for utility rates, opining the current system
was unfair and impacts of the fee were burdensome for homeowners, especially
those living in lower prices homes with the link to their home's value. Councilmember
McGehee suggested increasing the city's tax levy by 15% that would actually
result in saving money for all single-family homeowners and in the long run
make the system more equitable citywide. Councilmember McGehee noted that the
city could then pay for its fire station, parks public safety services, and
infrastructure through that levy increase while providing utility rate relief
to almost every homeowner in Roseville without reducing upkeep and maintenance
on the city's infrastructure system. Councilmember McGehee asked her
colleagues to reconsider her proposal rather than continuing to penalize
residents through its current utility fee and rate structure.
Roe opined this involved a philosophical decision as to how the city chose to
pay for its infrastructure. Mayor Roe stated a question he'd want to
understand better was a correlation between a home's value and the ability to
pay. Under Councilmember McGehee's suggested revenue source, Mayor Roe noted
that by basically using the property tax system, a resident was paying for
water provision based on the value of their home through the tax system. Mayor
Roe stated his question was whether that made sense or not that may result in a
higher rate based on that value than the current flat fee used. Mayor Roe also
noted the tax exempt properties that would no longer pay utility rates under Councilmember
McGehee's proposal, and impacts for businesses that already pay significantly
more in property taxes.
suggested by Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus suggested this 2017
utility rate proposal not be adopted tonight, but at the December 5, 2016
meeting to allow the community to review, digest and provide feedback on it.
Hess, Jr. 1906 Wagner Place
Hess noted comparisons with other communities; but suggested a comparison if
the City of St. Paul was to take over the Roseville water system, as it did for
other suburbs. Mr. Hess opined that there must be a reason they use that system,
and asked staff to compare the current system versus St. Paul taking over the
system. Mr. Hess thanked Councilmember McGehee for out-of-the-box ideas
brought forward for consideration. Mr. Hess opined that it would be nice if
other Councilmembers brought forward similar ideas for consideration.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Consider Changes to City Code, Chapter 314.05: the 2017 Fee
Director Miller referenced an updated copy of the proposed 2017 Fee Schedule,
provided as a bench handout and replacing the schedule included as an
attachment to the RCA of today's date. Mr. Miller noted the revised schedule included
some fees inadvertently omitted in the previous draft, along with additional
corrections upon further staff review. Mr. Miller noted that most fees are
grouped by department, and included more recommended changes this year given
staff's detailed review line by line. Mr. Miller advised that the fees were
intended to be representative of actual city costs in providing a particular
Mayor Roe asked
that staff go through the document with the items highlighted as new and/or
revised fees. Finance Director Miller deferred to Departments Head available
and related rationale for the proposed fee changes. Individual Councilmembers
asked questions of Department Heads as applicable during the presentation.
Department (page 2)
noted a new fee for curb stop turn-on/off fees, shown as a trip fee;
estimating approximately 30-40 annually at this time, but unsure of how that
may increase without an identified way to recoup city staff and equipment
noted this erosion control escrow fee had been brought to the City
Council's attention earlier this fall for clarification, with staff putting
numbers to ideas and establishing new thresholds involving the need for erosion
control permits at an amount less than the current fee and involving smaller
things in the city's shoreline district. Mr. Culver advised the intent was to
ensure that staff was able to monitor these areas without charging the full fee
for residents and smaller projects and of less than one-quarter acre (e.g.
minor grading, etc.).
Department (page 3 & 4)
O'Neill addressed the increase in commercial vent hood inspections,
stand-alone temporary fireworks sales, and inspections of underground
fuel storage tank removals. Chief O'Neill also noted a proposed increase
in open burning permit fees and for the cost of required notices to area
Department (page 4)
addressed another earlier City Council discussion and new for private hydrant
inspection costs depending on the number.
Development Department (page 5)
Development Director Collins advised that some of these fees were a result of
many changes within the department as work flow was tracked more accurately with
the integration of the new Accela software program.
addressed an additional fee for rentals failing to submit renewals within
60-days of expiration of the current registrations. Ms. Collins advised
that this was inadvertently omitted in previous fee scheduled. Ms. Collins
also noted the addition of a late renewal fee for rental registrations.
Building Codes Coordinator Dave Englund confirmed that this was a follow-up
defined on new rental license application forms.
Department (page 5)
Mr. Culver addressed
a new fee for stormwater impact fees, also discussed by the City Council
earlier this year; and adjustments for street patching based on actual
further addressed new sump pump waiver fees and monthly surcharge
advised that the sump pump waiver and surcharge fees were intended to
allow the city enforcement capabilities under current city code to encourage
property owners to separate their direct discharges of sump pumps into the
sanitary sewer system to avoid the city being charged by the Metropolitan
Council for treating that water. Mr. Culver noted the waiver would apply if disconnecting
the sump pump would result in safety or property issues, and allow a property
owner temporary reprieve to discharge into the sanitary sewer system until the
problem had been resolved. Mr. Culver clarified that this would involve a one-year
new stormwater impact fee, Councilmember Laliberte asked if that one-time fee
of $22.50 would be sufficient. Mr. Culver stated that remained an unknown
until put into play and after a year's experience.
reviewed the current 2% technology fee applied, and the new fee for the building
permit technology fee on the Planning Division side. Ms. Collins noted
that this fee is essentially embedded into current fees, but the Accela software
calculated it as a separate fee based on valuations and were incorporated into
building permit feet.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that it was difficult to project
the revenue at this point other than based on past numbers of building permits
issued and their valuation. Ms. Collins noted that, when staff had initially
proposed the Accela program, the cost of the software had been programmed into
fees to offset the cost of the program, along with implementation and
maintenance of the software built into 2017 fees. Ms. Collins advised that
staff would review the numbers after the first year using the new software program
and make adjustments accordingly. At the further request of Councilmember
Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that the 2% technology fee had been used in the
past with previous permit software, and was typical of most other communities.
On page 7,
Councilmember Willmus noted a reduction in administrative fines for city
code and property use violations, with Ms. Collins advising that this was
an effort by staff to clarify the two and distinguish them from another for easier
tracking. City Manager Trudgeon noted that the Nuisance Fee was listed
elsewhere at $100.00.
O'Neill reviewed building permit and plan review fees (page 10) for new
construction and existing building remodels. While these inspections had been
performed in the past, Chief O'Neill noted they had not been identified as a
cost of doing business, and now were mirrored after the building department's
valuation, typically involving smaller jobs however. Chief O'Neill noted that
most renovations were under $20,000 in value, and therefore while attempting to
keep the fees small, the department was seeking to break even at a $93/hour
fee. If the inspections involved re-inspections, Chief O'Neill admitted these
fees would come nowhere near covering expenses or breaking even. However,
Chief O'Neill opined that this will take the steps necessary to get closer to
the staff resources required.
Willmus asked if both commercial and residential inspections were lumped
clarified that the department typically didn't perform residential inspections
unless installing a sprinkler system; and would typically review building
permit data and conduct a plan review, with those costs currently included in
residential building permit fees.
If the plan
review fee is 65% of the commercial permit fee, Councilmember McGehee asked if
there was a cap, noting $93/hour didn't allow very long for review versus the
time for a more complex plan and related review.
Chief O'Neill responded
that staff didn't foresee extensive fees, since most plans are pretty straight
forward, and the average existing permit pulled took about one hour.
Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued - page 12)
addressed new fees for residential driveway permits and expansions, and shed
permits. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins and Mr. Englund
clarified that a residential driveway permit was $55, but expansion was set at
$75 as more staff time was required to review impervious calculations.
Willmus suggested looking at the area being expanded and how to base the fee
depending on the actual square footage of the expansion to justify the cost of
the fee for that expansion.
After a brief
discussion, staff was directed by the City Council to review and clarify
language for better public understanding of whether or not driveways were included
as part of an overall building permit for a new home. Ms. Collins duly noted
McGehee thanked staff for reducing the fee for backflow preventers to
encourage people to have them installed.
noted the new fee for Certificates of Occupancy, noting it took staff
time to process and prepare them.
After a brief
discussion, staff clarified that they include the fee as part of a building
permit application, but list it as part of that itemization of administrative
noted the new parking lot repair fee was to address staff time involved
in reviewing the plan and reviewing impervious area.
Development Department Misc. Fees (Page 15)
reviewed the new landscape improvement permit fee for staff's review of
impervious coverage on a site seeking improvement on residential lots (e.g.
patios, accessory structures, etc.). Ms. Collins noted that many of these
things appear on lots without a building permit being pulled or staff's
knowledge, but sometimes significantly increasing impervious coverage on a site
and impacting those parcels and adjacent policies, as was recently realized
with a land use application on Gluek Lane.
Willmus asked staff to clarify a minimum type of project, with Ms. Collins
advising the intent could be addressing the addition of patios on smaller lots,
forcing staff to look at the percentage of existing impervious surface
Mayor Roe noted
it would be essentially a hardscape or impervious surface improvement permit.
McGehee spoke in favor of that, opining that erosion problems are one of the
biggest problems in the community due to increasing impervious surfaces, even
though there are regulations in place, no one seems to adhere to them.
The other new
fees, including Planned Unit Developments, and Public Assistance fees
for applications and escrow, Ms. Collins noted were previously reviewed and
approved by the City Council based on the newly adopted Public Assistance Policy.
Mayor Roe asked
that staff clarify and consider a name other than "public assistance" to avoid
misunderstandings by the public based on other connotations of the term.
Specific to the
Public Assistance application fee set at $1,500, City Attorney Gaughan
suggested staff denote that as the initial or minimum amount for escrow versus
giving the impression it was capped at that amount. Mr. Gaughan noted this
would allow for additional funds should a project prove highly complex and
allow the escrow account to city to replenished.
agreed that should apply to any escrow account, and if addressed here it should
be done consistently throughout.
noted that the existing footnote D in the Subdivision area indicated that and
could be extended to include public assistance applications accordingly; with
Ms. Collins duly noting that suggestion.
Escrow (page 16)
clarified that staff estimated the escrow amount needed for "landscape plans"
based on the scale of a project and to incorporated the time for the arborist
to review tree preservation and restoration plans as applicable.
Dedication Fees (Page 4)
Recreation Director Brokke advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission
had closely tracked this over the last fifteen years, and based on that data
was recommending the increase in residential fees, and increase for
non-residential fees as noted. Mr. Brokke advised that this was done largely
because of its correlation of the quality of the park system, past and future
substantial investments made to the system, and future investments identified
in the CIP yet to be done. Mr. Brokke opined that this provided another
funding resource for the system, with residents consistently indicating their
interest in maintaining a high quality park system. Mr. Brokke advised these
fees were being recommended using comparative data in terms of other
communities and was consistent, as noted in the matrix displayed of those
comparisons by city for residential and commercial park dedication fees in 2015
and in 2016 to-date, averaging $3,900 per unit for residential properties.
McGehee noted some of the commercial properties having a considerable portion
of their site as a parking lot, very low in terms of cost and assessed value,
but at the same price per acre based on the proposed percentages.
Councilmember McGehee asked how staff figured in that trade-off.
advised that it proved more financially positive for Roseville to use the
Mayor Roe noted
it was interesting to see the various and different approaches used among other
As with the
proposed 2017 utility fees, Mayor Roe asked that residents and individual
Councilmembers provide any questions and their feedback to staff between now
and the December 5, 2016 meeting at which time those schedules will be considered
Extend Meeting Curfew
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, to extend the meeting curfew to complete item 15b.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Water Supply Plan
introduced Roseville Civil Engineer Luke Sandstrom who presented a brief review
summarizing the Local Water Supply Plan Template - Third Generation for 2016 -
2018 (Attachment A). Mr. Sandstrom advised that the Public Works, Environment
and Transportation Commission (PWETC) had seen the same presentation at their
meeting for their feedback.
provided a background of the plan done every ten years, and outlined the three
parts of the plan: inventory, emergency planning, and water conservation. Mr.
Sandstrom advised that tonight's presentation and discussion would focus on
water conservation, as per recent adoption of a state statute mandating it.
presentation included those items being mandated, and those items already being
done by the City of Roseville, including a tiered and seasonal rate structure,
CIP, system improvements and stormwater re-use projects, and remote read
After this same
presentation, Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the recommendations made by the PWETC,
including: continue the annual CIP; identify all unmetered city- owned
facilities and install meters; install smart irrigation meters at city-owned
facilities as a pilot program and subsequent results; educate the public on
water conservation options; and pursue grant funding for rebate programs.
asked the City Council for their additional input on what to include in the
Water Plan for conservation-related efforts; and what the city was willing to
commit to as the Plan goes out for agency review by year-end.
irrigation, Mayor Roe asked if the Park Renewal Program irrigation systems were
installed as smart systems as part of that effort.
responded that he wasn't sure, other than for the Upper Villa Park improvements
with that stormwater management system based on weather forecasts and would
pump out storage capacity to make itself ready for an upcoming storm. Mr.
Culver further noted that there were some sensors and a wireless system controlled
from City Hall based on weather and other steps with the purpose to reduce
total water usages.
Mayor Roe noted
it was nice to see some credits already applied for Roseville efforts to-date.
McGehee opined that the city could improve its tiered rates system; and
suggested offering the public some rebates for low flow toilets or energy
efficient appliances given the broad selection available and as utilized by
other communities. Councilmember McGehee suggested advertising such rebates
should be part of the broader education program to show how much a household
Mayor Roe noted
some communities were funding these rebates through grant programs.
noted the Metropolitan Council had awarded grants, using Clean Water Funds, to
nineteen communities, which they had used to fund those rebate programs. Mr.
Sandstrom opined that the city may be able to apply for funds in the fall of
2017 during the next grant cycle.
Etten spoke in favor of pursuing grant applications as appropriate; opining
that many efforts are outdoor-related and reimbursed by other agencies. Using
lawn watering as an example, Councilmember Etten suggested encouraging
residents to install smart irrigation systems or turf reduction programs,
perhaps by offering an incentive program through education and resulting in a
huge impact. Councilmember Etten suggested concentrating on outdoor water
usage where the greatest amount seemed to be used in the community. Councilmember
Etten expressed his interest in pursuing a water use restriction ordinance,
noting the need to educate the public on the best time of day for irrigating to
avoid excessive water loss in the afternoon; and to address those times of
great drought in the community.
noted a lot of communities have ongoing odd/even regulations and others that
kick in when water demand is high or during extended drought periods. While
odd/even regulations don't necessarily conserve water, Mr. Culver advised that
it did allow a city to have a ready supply of water by reducing peaks and
spreading it out for maximum demands.
Mayor Roe suggested
looking at an irrigation-based surcharge based on usage comparisons if
exceeding a certain amount depending on how it was calculated. If a
significant increase in usage was seen over the average for irrigation purposes,
Mayor Roe suggested a financial penalty be applied. Also, Mayor Roe suggested
addressing usage on the commercial side beyond meter sizes; and perhaps not encouraging
high commercial water uses to develop in the community, or at least not
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to take this additional City Council
feedback to the PWETC for their further vetting and discussion.
McGehee reported anecdotally on her experience with rain barrels and heavy rainfalls
this year; and her favorable impression with how easy they were to use and
Mayor Roe noted
there were products available to meter rain barrels to control when to release
stored water or for a drip irrigation system at lower pressures.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver reported that the city did not currently
have a separate irrigation meter in most city facilities. If residential and
commercial irrigation systems were on a separate meter, Mr. Culver advised that
the city could charge a higher rate for those irrigation purposes only. At the
further request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver advised that there was a
code application for new systems accordingly, with residential applications
needing city code revisions beyond the current base fee per meter.
Laliberte opined that education, education, education should be the focus as it
was the easiest and least expensive thing to do. While recognizing the things
Roseville was already doing as noted in staff's presentation, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that more could be done.
McGehee suggested encouraging the public to use less grass, and more shrubs or
mulch versus the typical lawn.
the report provided a list of top commercial water users in Roseville or on the
noted there were several Maplewood commercial users on the Roseville water system,
as the City of Maplewood had no water main along Rice Street, with all east
side properties on Rice Street getting their water form Roseville.
noted that Walmart was shown as #7 in the list of high users at 8 million
gallons, while the much larger Rosedale Center complex using 13.6 million
gallons. Given the considerable difference in size of the two properties,
Councilmember Etten asked why there wasn't more of a differential in their
ensued as to how much was associated with the outside sprinkler system;
suggestions for the Department of Natural Resources or Department of Health to
audit Roseville businesses and their water usage to help them not only save
water but also money for the benefit of the city and the business.
Willmus noted the Walmart parking lot was the first commercial property
required to include green areas in their parking lot; opining that the sea of
asphalt surrounding those areas and the intense heat radiating from them may
impact the amount of water required to keep them green.
outside irrigation system was already on a separate meter, Mayor Roe suggested a
smart irrigation system might be a good fit for them.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:18 p.m.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.