View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2015
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 Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Thomas F. Schraad, 1142 Rose Place
attendance at the July 20, 2015 meeting and reiterating his complaint about
debris and junk on city-owned property adjacent to his property, Mr. Schraad
asked for an update, as he had not heard anything from staff, and only one
mowing and movement of some junk from one side of the lot to the other had been
Trudgeon apologized to Mr. Schraad and the City Council for Mr. Schraad not
having been personally contacted by staff. Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was
typically a 3-4 week cycle for mowing city-owned properties; and he would
follow-up with staff on the remaining debris on the property before the next
scheduled mowing. In addition, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would follow-up on
the long-term plans and situation with that particular right-of-way. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that the Public Works Maintenance Department was responsible for
maintenance of city-owned rights-of-way, and he would consult with Public Works
Director Marc Culver on the situation and scheduling. Mr. Trudgeon personally
thanked Mr. Schraad for alerting him to this situation.
asked that, when staff came out to the property, they let him know so he can
provide his input to them on the debris and junk on the property that may not
be obvious during a general review.
Trudgeon stated he would make sure that contact occurred.
other code enforcement issue with commercial truck parking on the street, Mr.
Schraad reported that, immediately following the last discussion the trucks had
been removed for a short time, but were now appearing again on a regular basis,
including on weekends. Mr. Schraad asked that the street be signed to
discourage that parking of vehicles over a certain gross weight or in
accordance with City Code to make sure the Police Department was aware of and
could make sure those vehicles were tagged accordingly. Mr. Schraad expressed
his frustration and asked how long he had to wait for resolution of this
illegal parking issue.
Mayor Roe noted
the difficulty in providing signage on a specific street for a code that
applies city-wide; but clarified that trucks over a certain gross weight could
not be parked on Roseville streets anywhere in the City at any time, and looked
to City Manager Trudgeon for immediate follow-up on that point.
Trudgeon again apologized that staff had not been diligent in following up with
this matter, and assured the City Council and Mr. Schraad that he would
personally see that it was enforced. However, Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that,
while the Police Department could ticket offending vehicles, they could not
police a particular area 24/7, and therefore didn't want to set expectations
higher than could be realistically met. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his hope that
by ticketing those vehicles, it would serve to clearly get the message across.
In addressing Mr. Schraad's concerns that the Police Department was not
enforcing parking violations, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would follow-through
with the Police Department, and report back to Mr. Schraad and the City Council
on those actions taken in resolving this situation, even though reiterating the
challenges in 24/7 enforcement city-wide.
stated that, whether signed or not, it should be made clear to owners of those
vehicles that they could not park there and that enforcement was a requirement,
no matter which department observed the violation or which department was made
aware of such violations.
McGehee agreed with Mr. Schraad about the parking violation, citing a similar
situation along County Road C-2 in the past and subsequent resolution.
Councilmember McGehee suggested there appeared to be a communications breakdown
among staff somewhere, and police officers should be made aware of what they
can and cannot enforce.
concurred with Councilmember McGehee.
Laliberte noted the need to remove the debris and junk from the right-of-way,
questioning how and why it ended up there in the first place.
Mayor Roe noted
it was obviously not the City using the right-of-way as a dump site, and
illegal dumping needed to be addressed accordingly.
b. Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA) Executive Director Julie Wearn
announced the recent award to the RVA of the Destination Marketing
Accreditation Program seal or recognition from the Destination Marketing Association
International's annual convention, one of 208 associations worldwide to achieve
this honor. Ms. Wearn noted this accreditation program required meeting
fifty-three performance standards across sixteen disciplines, with standards
covering nearly all aspects of management and marketing.
Ms. Wearn also
announced the inaugural Roseville Police Foundation Golf Tournament at Midland
Hills Country Club in Roseville on September 28, 2015, with additional information
available at www.rosevillepolicefoundation.org
Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue W
brought to the City Council's attention his concerns with new playground
equipment installed at Bruce Russell Park and supposed safety of that equipment
for 2 - 12 year olds. While the equipment may indeed be safe for older
children, Mr. Houck disputed that claim that it was safe for preschool-aged
children, and provided pictures he'd taken to prove his allegation of those
safety issues. Mr. Houck opined that the equipment previously at the park was
much safer than this replacement equipment; and expressed particular concern
with a climbing rock 6' high and a cable rope bridge. Even with adult supervision
nearby, Mr. Houck opined that a potential fall or injury could occur.
referenced his recent e-mail exchanges with Park & Recreation Department
staff, and his impression of their lack of concern with any potential fall or
injury creating potential liability issues for the City, ergo local taxpayers.
Mr. Houck opined it was the responsibility of government to protect citizens
from harm, but questioned who protected citizens from their government in
situations such as this.
encouraged the City Council to address this dangerous situation, and asked for
input from the City Attorney regarding liability issues.
suggested additional information and follow-up from staff, including how
standard this type of playground equipment is, age ranges and risk information
on this particular equipment, and allowing receipt of additional feedback from
the public and individual Councilmembers regarding this situation to gain a better
understanding. Mayor Roe noted similar equipment had been installed in other
city parks, and sought a better understanding of equipment types and liability
concerns before publically responding to Mr. Houck's concerns.
McGehee sought input from City Attorney Gaughan at this time, and since the
issue had now been brought to the City's attention, whether it heightened the
City's liability should it not take immediate action.
by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that, by law, the City of
Roseville and its employees were immune from liability claims arising from
equipment at recreational areas with good judgment used in the installation and
maintenance of that equipment.
personal visit to the park and her observations, Councilmember McGehee opined
that, given the number of children being cared for by their elderly relatives,
the City may want to establish a different standard for park equipment, since
it would obviously be difficult for older caregivers to access this particular
type of equipment.
Based on his
personal visit to the park and familiarity with the equipment under discussion,
Councilmember Willmus opined that he did not share the same concerns with this
particular apparatus and referenced the playground equipment he had used as a
child and more pronounced safety issues of that older equipment (e.g. monkey
bar sets and their height, swing sets, etc.).
reiterated his request for staff follow-up on industry standards as a
supplement to City Attorney Gaughan's response regarding City liability.
Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road West
referenced an e-mail she had shared with the Roseville Ethics Commission last
week, and read it at tonight's meeting, specifically addressing two topics and
seeking comment from the City Council and public. Ms. Ramundt expressed her
support for Roseville and her optimism for its future. However, given
differences of opinion that may occur in the future and the need for all parties
to feel heard and that they were being treated with respect, Ms. Ramundt requested
that the Ethics Commission be charged with drafting a Code of Conduct for city
staff, council members, and advisory commissioners, or any volunteers or others
representing the City of Roseville. Ms. Ramundt noted that Civility Training
sponsored by the City's Human Rights Commission was scheduled in September and
suggested this would provide an additional opportunity for this topic as well.
at the July 20th City Council meeting by Lisa McCormick, Ms. Ramundt
noted that examples or models were available to share related to Code of
Conduct language, with the vision to incorporate it into annual ethics training
and in administering individual Oaths of Office. Ms. Ramundt opined that a formal
complaint process was needed to provide residents with information on who to
contact and a consistent and fair process to ensure complaints were handled in
a respectful manner and the Code of Conduct is followed. Ms. Ramundt asked
that the City Council continue to build on their positive steps to-date and
move Roseville from good to great.
noted a response she'd received earlier today from City Manager Trudgeon
advising that staff was currently working on a policy for expectations for
advisory commissioners, and ask that the effort be expanded beyond commissioner,
to anyone representing the City or City Council and that the policy include
definitions of conduct and the process for formal complaints.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced several upcoming events, including the upcoming and final Friday with
Firefighters; fundraising opportunity at Granite City in Rosedale Mall for donations
to the Roseville Fire Department from eat-in or takeout orders; and another
monthly opportunity for volunteer assistance in removal of invasive plants in Roseville
On behalf of the
City of Roseville, City Council and staff, Mayor Roe congratulated Senator Bev
Scalze, representing the northeast portion of Roseville, in her recent selection
as a League of Minnesota Cities Legislator of Distinction, one of twenty-eight
legislators and one of eleven State of Minnesota senators receiving this
honor. Mayor Roe offered congratulations and thanked her for her continued
service to the community.
provided a brief update from the North Suburban Communications Commission,
anticipating a September 2015 timeframe for action by the Commission on pending
CenturyLink franchise agreement approval, and subsequent submission to member
cities for their review and action.
Donations and Communications
7. 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.
Approve July 20, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes
In addition to
the corrections noted on the draft meeting minutes, Mayor Roe asked for Council
comment addressing individual councilmember written submissions seeking their
inclusion to meeting minutes as part of the record. Mayor Roe noted the City
Council had a well-defined policy in place regarding handouts from staff and/or
the public, but not specifically addressing individual councilmember attachment.
instance, Mayor Roe noted the request of Councilmember McGehee for submission
of two documents at the July 20, 2015 meeting: one related to Bonding in Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) District 17, and the other her personal analysis of
annual park building costs.
dated July 20, 2015 entitled, "Bonding in TIF District 17"provided as a single-copy
noted she had read her memorandum into the record of the meeting, but her "findings" were not inserted in the draft meeting minutes or included as an
attachment to the minutes. Since she had provided a copy of her memorandum to
the recording secretary, but in the absence of anything being included as part
of the record, Councilmember McGehee requested - at a minimum - that her
memorandum be included as an attachment.
Mayor Roe noted
this was what he was seeking opinion on from the body, since there was
currently no policy in place for this type of situation, and when a similar situation
had arisen in the recent past with Councilmember Laliberte's extensive comments
related to the 2015-2017 Policy Priority Planning document, she had provided a
summary paragraph that was approved by the body for inclusion in the text of
meeting minutes, replacing the draft paragraph summarizing her comments as
provided by the recording secretary.
McGehee noted things had been attached in the past.
In his review
of the July 20th meeting minutes earlier today, Councilmember
Willmus noted that, while Councilmember McGehee had touched on many of the
points listed in her memorandum, there was some difference in verbiage between
the memorandum and Councilmember McGehee's actual comments at the meeting.
Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that the intent of the meeting minutes
was to reflect what was said or offered at the time of the meeting, and not
intended to correct those statements at a later date or upon further reflection.
concurred with Councilmember Willmus, opining that whatever was said by
Councilmember McGehee at the meeting, he recalled her making a copy of her
comments available for the recording secretary and therefore, not as many notes
had been written in the minutes as would typically have been done. If
Councilmember McGehee had read her memorandum verbatim, Councilmember Etten
agreed that it should be attached; otherwise notes from the recording secretary
summarizing those comments should serve as the record. However, absent those
detailed notes in this instance, Councilmember Etten noted this may create an
exception and create the limbo now being discussed.
Laliberte agreed with the comments of Councilmembers Willmus and Etten, and
recognized the suggestion of Mayor Roe that a similar summary paragraph such as
she'd submitted would serve to encapsulate Councilmember McGehee's comments. Councilmember
Laliberte noted that meeting minutes were not intended as a verbatim transcript
of the meeting, but were intended to serve in perpetuity as a reasonable
summary of the meeting.
McGehee opined that it was important when any individual Councilmember had
"findings" about a particular issue supporting their particular position, it
should be shown correctly in the meeting minutes. Councilmember McGehee noted
that this memorandum had not been provided to the recording secretary prior to
her reading from it; but since it represented additional information after the
meeting, it should be included in the meeting minutes. If the City Council set
a policy going forward, she was fine with that, but Councilmember McGehee
opined that everything she submitted needed to be transcribed and her "findings" in opposition of bonding in TIF District 17 needed to be documented.
understanding the points made by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified
that the challenge was that "findings" listed in the record are typically based
on the City Council action and typically specific to land use case denials and
why the case didn't meet requirements for approval. Mayor Roe noted that the
general situation would be for "findings" recording the City Council's viewpoint
about an action. However, as in this case, Mayor Roe questioned if it was
appropriate and could even be considered confusion when archived if personal
"findings" about a majority vote an individual councilmember may not agree with
were memorialized as a "finding."
McGehee questioned if Mayor Roe was suggesting that the meeting minutes only
reflect the majority vote.
responded that this was certainly not his intent; and reiterated that public "findings" should be part of the public record, as well as individual councilmember
arguments in support of or in opposition to that particular vote. Mayor Roe
opined that the meeting minutes should reflect the essence of individual
councilmember points, but in this case since every point was not read as
written in the memorandum, it resulted in this discussion.
suggested there may be a way to move forward by having the recording secretary
review the meeting tape and submit a summary paragraph providing more detail
than these draft meeting minutes provide on this particular point, but without
creating a verbatim transcript. Mayor Roe agreed that the meeting minutes were
brief at that point; and since meeting minutes were already extensive and long,
he didn't want to move toward transcripts of this or future meetings, but did
want them to accurately reflect what was said or the essence of what was said.
Mayor Roe noted that of theoretical concern for him personally was that
individual attachments not become a way to get points of view in the official
record to reference at a later date and give them more credence.
added that his rationale in previous comments about the recording secretary not
taking as many notes during Councilmember McGehee's comments and the apparent
confusion was probably based on her receiving Councilmember McGehee's written
comments via that memorandum, at which point she would have summarized the
document without additional notes. However, Councilmember Etten clarified that
he had a problem with anyone coming back and providing a rewrite of what they
said at that time, opining that was a dangerous slope, and had just been
brought up at another commission meeting he'd attended with someone attempting
to rewrite words of other people who may or may not be privy to seeing those
notes; or rewriting them from a perspective after having time to think about
those comments rather than minutes reflecting comments at the time they were
Mayor Roe noted
that each Councilmember had an opportunity to provide or suggest corrections to
meeting minutes, and no one was arguing that those corrections were improper if
the draft minutes did not reflect the meeting accurately. In the previous reference
to the summary received by Councilmember Laliberte of her comments, Mayor Roe
noted that she had read her summary to the full body to replace the language
provided in the recording secretary's draft, suggesting it better captured her
comments, which had been reviewed and agreed to by the body at that
submission. Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten's concerns about not
going down a slippery slope as it related to individuals attempting to restate
what they actually said after the fact.
McGehee stated she did not write this memo after the fact; and had submitted it
to ensure it became part of the record; and offered her willingness to submit
those ten points to the recording secretary at this time to be included in the
meeting minutes as referenced.
sought the will of the Council on this issue.
reiterated his concern in this instance that Councilmember McGehee had orally
put forward many of the points listed in her memorandum that she'd prepared
prior to the meeting; however, he opined that some of the points had been
paraphrased differently at the meeting by Councilmember McGehee.
suggested tabling consideration of these meeting minutes until the recording
secretary provided a rewrite of that paragraph for consideration by the body.
"findings," City Attorney Gaughan advised that factual findings are typically
required of the City Council in their quasi-judicial capacity for administrative
appeals or land use findings for denial, and were appropriate to be included in
writing as part of the record. However, Mr. Gaughan clarified that they represented
a collective action rather than on the basis of an individual councilmember.
In general, Mr. Gaughan suggested the City Council keep in mind transparency
and Open Meeting law parameters, and suggested they adopt a best practice policy
for memorandums or other written summaries that they be prepared ahead of time
and available for public view before the meeting. If not made available in
that way, Mr. Gaughan suggested they not be included as part of that meeting's
minutes, but could be offered as part of subsequent meeting minutes as further
articulation of a particular point of view on a particular item.
McGehee opined that she made all ten points at the meeting as listed in her
memorandum, but could not confirm that she read them verbatim.
Gaughan reiterated that the point was that, if it was the desire to have her
document included in the official record of an official meeting, it would be
most appropriate to attach them to the minutes of the meeting at which they
were offered. However, Mr. Gaughan noted that this memorandum was being offered
at tonight's meeting for incorporation in the recorded minutes of this meeting.
confirmed with Councilmember McGehee that she had paraphrased her points shown
in the memorandum at the last meeting, with Councilmember McGehee agreeing that
she had not read them verbatim. Mayor Roe opined that it was a problem for him
to attach something from a previous meeting to minutes of the next meeting to
get those individual points into future meeting minutes.
Laliberte noted that she was hearing that Councilmember McGehee was agreeable
to the recording secretary watching the meeting tape and inserting a summary of
her comments into the meeting minutes to the same effect as her memorandum
McGehee agreed, stated she would be fine with that as long as it didn't become
a run-on sentence.
Laliberte noted the submittal was intended as a summary, and as always the City
Council could edit that draft as applicable.
clarified with City Attorney Gaughan that the most appropriate process would be
for an individual councilmember to bring in and copy individual council members
and provide a public copy of written material, requesting both the City Council
and public to have time to review and comment on the document; and allowing the
submission to be made a part of the meeting minutes at the time they would be
acting on the issue.
Gaughan agreed with Mayor Roe's statement and with that process going forward.
Mr. Gaughan noted this would be appropriate in situations where members of a
public body didn't want to take up valuable meeting time during the meeting to
state their positions, thereby providing their position in written format
versus spoken format, with that position then incorporated into the record and
made available ahead of time for the City Council and public. Mr. Gaughan reiterated
that the key was that it be made available to the public in as much advance as
possible rather than holding it until the last minute.
stated that ultimately the City Council had the discretion to make the
situation, Councilmember Laliberte asked that individual Councilmembers clearly
label any submission in those situations identifying the author of the document
to differentiate it from the official materials presented in the staff report.
McGehee questioned the timing of getting submissions to staff before
preparation and dissemination of meeting packet materials, since comments were
often in response to packet materials. Councilmember McGehee recognized the process
for staff to distribute such submittals on the dais and at the back of the
Chambers for public availability. Councilmember McGehee clarified that her
intent was not to read all her "findings," but to get them into the record.
(Undated) entitled, "Park Buildings Accounting" provided as a single-copy bench
Since this was
displayed on the overhead and discussed at the July 20th meeting,
Mayor Roe opined it could and should be part of the official meeting record.
Mayor Roe suggested that it be included in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
packet, but clearly identified as submitted by Councilmember McGehee and not
made a part of the meeting minutes.
recognizing that Councilmember McGehee had worked had in researching her
numbers, Councilmember Etten noted that updated and more accurate information
from Finance Director Miller had been provided, opining that it be included as
well and by whatever method was chosen as most appropriate, with the goal to
providing the most accurate information for public edification.
McGehee agreed and opined that her memorandum and figures, together with the "verification" by Finance Director Miller should be included as an attachment
to the meeting minutes as well.
Mayor Roe clarified
that Finance Director Miller's response was requested at the meeting, and not
addressed at that time, and therefore based on previous discussion tonight,
should not be made part of that meeting. Mayor Roe agreed, as he stated previously,
that Councilmember McGehee's memorandum should be incorporated into the RCA.
However, Mayor Roe suggested that Mr. Miller's response may prompt further City
Council discussion before becoming part of an official city record, whether
that discussion occurred later tonight or at a future meeting. Mayor Roe
opined that it may involve a different discussion subsequent to this meeting.
As noted, Mayor
Roe sought council direction on whether staff should add Councilmember
McGehee's memorandum to the RCA as an additional attachment to the meeting
minutes, but clearly marked as such so as not to be ultimately misconstrued as
an official city position.
McGehee argued that her memorandum didn't belong in the RCA packet, as it was
not part of the packet, but had been brought up by her to Councilmembers at the
July 20th meeting in her personal effort to provide information and
transparency for the public. Councilmember McGehee stated she was happy to and
preferred to reference Finance Director Miller's memorandum in place of hers,
since she had admitted her numbers needed to be verified, which had been done
subsequently. Councilmember McGehee opined that she thought Mr. Miller's
memorandum should be included as part of tonight's meeting minutes as
verification of that discussion and later could be used for further discussion
or for other purposes.
disagreed with Councilmember McGehee on that point, noting that it was not
information provided at that meeting, and even though Finance Director Miller's
memorandum was being discussed, it was not currently before the body, in an effort
to continue the transparency effort for the public, it needed a separate and
broader discussion, but should not be part of the meeting minutes. Therefore,
Mayor Roe opined that Mr. Miller's document was not part of the minutes discussion,
but rather than attaching it as such, it be included in an appropriate RCA included
in the packet of record. Mayor Roe further opined that, in this instance, it
was acceptable to include Councilmember McGehee's memorandum as part of the
record as previously clarified.
Laliberte noted that the City Council as a whole had asked Finance Director
Miller to verify the numbers put forth by Councilmember McGehee on July 20th.
clarified that the meeting minutes clearly reflected that request.
Etten admitted that this discussion and Mayor Roe's rationale had changed his
thoughts on how and where to include Finance Director Miller's memorandum,
agreeing that whatever happened was duly reflected in the meeting minutes.
However, Councilmember Etten opined that the McGehee memorandum in this case
belonged as an attachment to the meeting minutes, but not as part of the RCA.
Willmus concurred with Councilmember Etten to include Councilmember McGehee's
memorandum in this instance as part of the meeting minutes of record.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, TABLING the July 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes pending amended language
for page 20, lines 31 - 34 upon submission by the Recording Secretary.
Corrections to Current Draft To-Date:
Page 19, Lines 7-9 (Roe)
reference to Councilmember McGehee's written comments and memorandum
Page 20, Lines 31-34 (Roe)
31 - 34 and replace with the to be developed position statement by
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated August 10, 2015.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
78261 - 78519
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
Approve Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement
Etten seconded, approval of an Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement
application for Roseville Anderson-Nelson VFW Post 7555, located at 1145
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Laliberte questioned if the cost for this televising coming in over budget was
due to the actual cost being higher than anticipated or if additional footage
had been added.
the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director advised that additional linear
footage had been added to services for this year to provide additional lines
televised in anticipation of 2016 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) work.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in
the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July 31, 2015.
Adopt a Resolution Awarding Contract for the 2015 Drainage Improvements
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11241 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Awarding Bids for Project ST-15-09, 2015 Drainage Improvements Project;" to F.
F. Jedlicki in an amount not to exceed $168,516.00.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:04 p.m.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Joint Meeting
included Chair Dean Maschka; Vice Chair Vicki Lee; Councilmember and HRA Member
Jason Etten; and Members Dan Wall, and Susan Elkins. Also present in the
audience were HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey and Community Development
Director Paul Bilotta.
September 2015 - August 2019 HRA Strategic Plan
Maschka presented updated goals as detailed in the RCA dated August 10, 2015
and five priority items identified by the HRA Board, seeking feedback on those
major priorities from Councilmembers. Chair Maschka noted that some of the
priorities had been in existence and some were new (Attachment A).
advised the HRA Board wanted to discuss the future of the "Living Smarter" Home
& Garden Fair with the City Council as well.
At the request
of Chair Maschka, HRA Consultant Barbara Raye reviewed the process used by the
HRA Board, their review of background materials and the current strategic plan
and identifying what had been completed to-date, what should be carried
forward, and what could or should be eliminated or was found no longer
relevant. Ms. Raye noted that the HRA Board wanted to make sure their
strategic plan was in alignment with the strategic priorities identified by the
City Council at their retreat held earlier in 2015. Ms. Raye noted another
HRA goal and of this joint meeting was to restate or refine the role of the HRA
and their relationship or contribution from the perspective of the City Council
since the HRA was unique from other citizen advisory commissions intended to
provide a more in-depth review of various identified issues beyond what time
was available to the City Council to do so.
advised that as part of their strategic planning, the HRA had performed a SWOT
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) for future efforts and the
kinds of initiatives to pursue and competencies needed to accomplish their
goals and those of the community. Ms. Raye noted that those planning assumptions
as identified resulted in the updated strategic plan for the next 4-5 years;
and flowed into brainstorming objectives. From the original forty-plus items
identified in that brainstorming session, Ms. Raye noted they had been narrowed
down as identified in Attachment A and priorities in bold print, in additional
to staff's addition of their ongoing or day-to-day work under each goal. While
those ongoing efforts were not new or strategic, Ms. Raye opined that it was
helpful to identify them as requiring continuing staff and/or financial
resources, and therefore included in the plan as a realistic base to address
any potential tradeoffs in the future.
As the HRA
performed its final round of editing and determination of any omissions, Ms.
Raye noted the addition of an additional initiative to look at manufactured
housing in the community identified as workforce housing.
concluded that the HRA was now presenting this document to and seeking City
Council comment and feedback on this aggressive strategic plan for the next 4-5
years. While aggressive, Ms. Raye stated that as the process and communication
efforts continued to be improved, the HRA felt the goals were feasible, and
they intended to hold themselves accountable and set their budget goals
McGehee questioned the HRA's definition of "social blight"under Goal 1, Item
responded that when physical blight occurred, whether because there was not
enough land available to provide green space or a multi-family apartment was
not well-run, it created risks for society in those situations, impacting
quality of life issues.
employment, Councilmember McGehee clarified her strong interest in "head of
household" jobs, not just any employment.
McGehee sought a more in-depth explanation of the HRA's view on land trust and
land banking (Page 3, Goal 4, Item C).
Elkins provided the definition of "land trust," noting that unlike typical
mortgages on property, this participant would not actually own the land, but
the land trust itself or the city can own the land; allowing for affordable housing
to be available in perpetuity for those looking to purchase a home but unable
to purchase the land as well. At the prompting of Councilmember Willmus, Ms.
Elkins noted this could sometimes be a remodeled structure or new construction.
HRA Member Lee
noted those land leases were typically for a term of 99 years; and land banking
involved acquisition of property and maintaining and holding for a strategic
purpose, whether waiting for other or adjacent properties to become available,
for financing or marketplace development; but holding it for the right
McGehee questioned how long was considered reasonable to hold land after
case, Member Lee responded that the reasonable amount of time was an unknown;
while other cities and areas of the country had variable timeframes, depending
on market conditions, their specific strategies, and physical location.
HRA's planning assumption (page 2) commitment to use resources strategically
and generally divide focus with 40% for "bricks and mortar," Councilmember Willmus
questioned what the plan was and where the funding for those new endeavors will
come from. As a general comment to this four year plan, Councilmember Willmus
noted that some were continued from the previous plan, several were new and
significant that would require significant resources as well (e.g. infill and
noted several options, including the HRA providing gap financing for
development if and when applicable, or providing financial assistance for
non-profit developers. Chair Maschka noted other options could be HRA
partnerships with for-profit developers that could provide unique infill
projects (e.g. homes for veterans or assembling sites). Chair Maschka noted
this was for considering 4-5 acre sites; and the hope was to build on the
successful community-driven Dale Street Project process, with the HRA seeing
their role as facilitating those efforts.
noted this could also include the HRA's ability and authority of leveraging
Willmus noted this brought up another concern with the goals in its focus on
the housing side, when his real interest was in seeing the HRA work on the
commercial side of redevelopment, especially in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
responded that there was a need for a considerable amount of exterior
enhancement in and around Twin Lakes, and a program such as a revolving loan
fund using tax increment funds could accomplish a considerable amount in Twin
Lakes, including new facades for existing buildings and other things that could
partner with state and county programs, as well as city programs. While each
of those options present a different set of criteria, opportunities and challenged,
Chair Maschka opined that they could be brought to bear in that area.
workforce housing, as a city, Councilmember Willmus stated his desire to
develop a clear definition of "workforce housing" since there were so many
different perceptions. As an example with the recent Sherman Apartment
project, Councilmember Willmus noted that definition was initially presented as
housing that would serve residents with income potentials similar to a
firefighter or police officer. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that in
the narrative for the Metropolitan Council's grant application, its definition
was repeatedly references as entry-level retail positions. Councilmember
Willmus opined that it was necessary to put together a definition for the city
to reference and use consistently, so when a potential developer came to Roseville,
everyone was on the same page.
From her first
look, Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was a fairly ambitious plan; and
as noted at the previous joint meeting with the HRA, the City Council
collectively stated that it looked to the HRA to do the more in-depth work that
others or the City Council could not do. From her perspective, Councilmember
Laliberte stated this was what she was looking for in this document; and while
it was a great document and a good guide for the next four years, it also
caused her to question the specifics. If for example, only one additional
thing is planned to be undertaken by the HRA this year, Councilmember Laliberte
expressed her interest in hearing more about that one thing. Councilmember
Laliberte agreed that the strategic plan seemed to be heavy on residential and
missing the commercial development component to improve certain areas.
addressing "workforce housing," Chair Maschka noted that was a red herring
issue; and reviewed some of his clients' differing life situations whether
wanting to sell their home and not currently having a house payment but not
being able to find an applicable rental in Roseville that they can afford (e.g.
$600 - $700); or just starting out in the workforce as a teacher and only
making $22,000 annually - not much more than retail - and not able to pay the
prevailing rental of $1,400 or purchase a home, but still needing a place to
Member Lee clarified
that the definition of "workforce housing" was based on federal and state
guidelines, not who is working in a particular community. Member Lee cautioned
that the City of Roseville should not come up with its own definition since a developer
would likely be applying for state or federal funding under their guidelines,
not the city's specific interpretation of the term.
suggested a better understanding of the state and federal definitions would be
helpful for both the HRA and City Council.
Willmus reiterated his previous comments when workforce housing was identified
for the HRA and City Council as firefighters, school teachers or police
officers; yet the Metropolitan Council application was different than that,
causing him to raise this issue. Councilmember Willmus questioned, when a developer
came forward, did the HRA, City Council and community all have the same
understanding of workforce housing, opining that this was not currently the
case. Councilmember Willmus further opined that those guidelines and that definition
should be spelled out clearly and qualifiers identified to avoid inconsistencies
Mayor Roe noted
that there may actually be different qualifications depending on the type of
project (e.g. whether vouchers or credits) and how affordable rent was
defined. However, Mayor Roe agreed that a better understanding was needed, and
asked the HRA to facilitate that understanding.
Laliberte provided additional observations and concerns, specifically seeking
to know how the HRA intended to continue what it had been doing and if adding
something additional how it would fund that new initiative; as well as how the
City Council could look to the HRA to perform in-depth work for it with such an
recognized that this was an ambitious plan, but also noted it would not all be
accomplished at the end of the four years, as with the portions of the existing
that carried over into this update.
noted that some of the goals were based on whatever opportunities came forward,
thus the strategic part, if and when properties became available or certain
areas in Twin Lakes that required attention. However, Member Lee noted that
the HRA could also accomplish more if it didn't need to focus on the annual
Home & Garden Fair.
concurred, noting that some projects may require more help from the HRA in
putting them together, while other projects would come directly to the HRA. As
an example, Chair Maschka noted the Target project that had remained fallow for
year, and the continuing need for senior housing as part of that discussion,
creating an opportunity for the HRA, not in full funding, but in filling in the
gaps, both which may become part of those ongoing efforts. Chair Maschka advised
that the HRA had identified some sites that provided great opportunities for private,
non-profits and the city to make a project viable. Again, Chair Maschka noted
the value leaned in bringing neighbors into the process as some of those sites
got more active.
To add to the
comments of Chair Maschka and Member Lee, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that
the work plan provided for proactive initiatives to get started on and
opportunistic initiatives to be prepared for if and when they came along.
opined that the opportunistic initiatives were a large component going forward.
In such a
situation, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was an even more refined
priority for those items listed, or how and which the HRA would and could react
of a crystal ball, Member Lee stated the HRA would not know what they could
achieve or their ability to respond until the actual opportunity came forward.
noted that was the ever-variable nature of real estate.
Mayor Roe noted
that some items not rising to the same threshold of priority may actually come
forward before others identified as priorities.
In his role
serving on the HRA Board, Councilmember Etten clarified several items.
Regarding Strategic Goal 1.A for infill projects, Councilmember Etten noted
that this particular goal could actually involve an additional 3-4 goals depending
on the project, which could serve to respond to how the HRA intended to
accomplish it all in this aggressive strategic plan. Also, after the last HRA
meeting, Councilmember Etten noted the Board had toured the community, let by
HRA Executive Director Kelsey and Community Development Director Bilotta, and
looked at a total of forty-six sites city-wide: some empty, some suitable or
available for redevelopment, some currently single-family uses, some high density
residential, as well as driving through the Twin Lakes area and previous comments
expressed by the City Council in how the HRA could improve facades of some of
the existing buildings in that redevelopment area, as well as the rear-yard
aesthetics. Councilmember Etten noted that those items were part of the HRA's
current thinking process for commercial redevelopment and desired initiatives
of the HRA at this point.
the workforce housing issue, Councilmember McGehee noted her preference for a
percentage of each new rental housing development project to include the
affordable component rather than a project specifically defined as affordable.
As an example, Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the Sherman
Apartment project presentation to include one buildings for the "haves" and the
other building for the "have nots," opining that she found that to indicate
social blight by definition, and expressed her strong disregard of such an
Specific to the
SE Roseville initiative, Councilmember McGehee noted that this was and should
remain a group activity already in progress for some time, and alerted the HRA
to that community process.
clarified for the benefit of Councilmember McGehee that he and HRA Executive
Director, Community Development Director Bilotta and other staff members were
involved as part of that process; and assured her that the HRA recognized the
SE corridor project as a major collaborative effort and ultimate solution.
McGehee expressed her resolve to make sure those already working on that effort
remained as part of it.
clarified that he had \understood that was the intent.
clarified that the HRA felt it had a role, as yet unidentified, but were in no
way interested in becoming the leader of those efforts.
referenced the Star Tribune newspaper article he'd shared regarding
Winona, MN (August 5, 2015 - "Supreme Court passes on Winona rental
restriction case") as it highlighted some of the same issues found in
Roseville. Councilmember Willmus opined that it would fit under Goal 2, Item D
(page 2) in dealing with rental properties given the proximity to colleges; and
could be one tool used to mitigate those neighborhoods in close proximity to single-family
and Councilmember Etten both noted their interest in the potential for capping
rental housing as being an interesting concept depending on how it would be
Willmus opined that it could be done as part of Roseville's rental housing
registration and licensing program.
hotel/motel study and implementation, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's role
in any potential code updates with implementation and the need to partner with
the HRA in that role. Mayor Roe noted his interest in knowing more about that
and the next steps.
agreed there may be some subsequent legislative issues. As far as next steps,
Chair Maschka opined that the HRA's Finance Subcommittee would be meeting
tomorrow morning to refine the 2016 budget based on this strategic plan and its
goals and initiatives, for presentation to and formal action by the HRA at its
regular August 18, 2015 meeting; and subsequent presentation to the City
Council for the September deadline for the preliminary levy adoption.
Smarter Home & Garden Fair
with the concept, Chair Maschka stated that the HRA felt they should no longer
take the lead; and presented several options as identified in the staff report
dated August 3, 2015, and related attachments A - E providing costs of the annual
fair, feedback from attendees and exhibitors, a proposal for third-party
services, and related associated fair expenses
outlined in their analysis, Chair Maschka suggested a fourth option under
discussion by the Community Engagement Commission in reinstating the City Open
House concept, where all departments participated, providing an opportunity for
volunteers and for a citywide open house, with some aspects incorporated from
the annual home and garden fair. Unless directed otherwise by the City
Council, Chair Maschka asked that at a minimum the HRA take a year off and then
perhaps look at the annual fair after that hiatus if necessary. Chair Maschka
noted the considerable staff time involved, and opined that the HRA's Executive
Director's time could be better spend than in putting up and taking down tables
for this event. Chair Maschka suggested pursuing another direction, and consider
other options whether one of those identified in the staff report or beyond.
McGehee noted the similarity of the Roseville fair with that of Minneapolis,
and difference in the St. Paul fair; noting the inconvenience with lack of bus
service to those larger fairs, making the Roseville home and garden fair more
accessible. Councilmember McGehee was in agreement with Chair Maschka in that
their staff should not be running it, but given Roseville's demographics, it
was still important to get this type of information out there to residents
about home improvement options, and therefore it was most convenient to hold in
locally, whether through a third party or other option, or offer an alternative
to shuttle Roseville residents from Rosedale or another alternate location to
either the St. Paul or Minneapolis Home & Garden Fair.
noted another option was to expand workshop offerings cooperatively with the
Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch - specially those more popular
workshops (e.g. home financing and home improvements), which remained an exclusive
offering by the City of Roseville not offered by other area home and garden
supported tying those workshops to vendors performing that work, as long as the
workshops were offered in an appropriate way and didn't become a sales pitch
for a particular vendor.
McGehee noted the value she found in attending the boiler systems and converting
those systems to provide central air; with that vendor providing knowledge as
well as a resource going forward. Councilmember McGehee opined that specific
topics offered at the library provided great benefit to the community.
noted the resource of the Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation (GMHC) as well
in providing neutral ground since they didn't sell a product.
noted the number of good businesses in the area that could provide information
and create good synergy with reputable people working in a number of the areas
offered his full support for the HRA moving toward a more seminar-based format
at the library, since those workshops are always well-attended at the home and
garden fair, and it was prudent to retain that interest. Councilmember Willmus
also expressed his interest in reinstating the idea of an open house format at
City Hall providing an opportunity for residents to visit with representatives
from all departments.
concurred with the value of the open house format.
opined that the open house would work even better than in the past with the
layout of the City Hall campus today.
While the open
house format was used in the past, Mayor Roe opined that the Roseville
University program may have supplanted the open house; but suggested trying
both but not tying the open house to the home and garden fair.
to look at other options going forward.
363 S McCarron's Blvd
expressed her excitement to hear that work would continue on SE Roseville
issues; and offered the services of the Lake McCarron's Neighborhood Association
to the HRA asking that it be kept informed.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:45 p.m.
Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the 2016 Budget & Tax
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:45 p.m., noting that additional
e-mails and post card comments had been received, without objection asking that
staff include them as part of the written record of this public hearing, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief summary of the
2016 budget process to-date, and basics of the proposed budget. Mr. Trudgeon
advised that more detailed information, as well as those presentation
materials, were available online.
Roe noted that the preliminary budget scheduled for adoption on September 14,
2015 would be used by Ramsey County for the annual property tax notices and
scheduled public hearing dates for taxing jurisdictions, including the City.
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:53 p.m., briefly reviewing
Toogood, 601 Terrace Court
a resident since 1959, and after careful study of the proposed 2016 budget, Mr.
Toogood complimented the City Council and staff, opining that he saw positive
things happening and good programs being developed from the Fire and Police
Departments, as well as the Parks & Recreation Department. As he had previously
addressed via e-mail to the City Council, Mr. Toogood noted his two areas of
concern were about the amount of the annual budget going toward debt repayments,
and the need for greater emphasis on the City's strategic plan to stay ahead of
senior needs as baby boomers impact housing, parks and other service needs of
Mr. Toogood thanked the City for putting forth a solid budget; and as a
taxpayer offered his support for the proposed 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA)
for city employees. In conclusion, Mr. Toogood stated he was "happy to pay my
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
Callaghan noted the City had just spent $19 million on the Parks and Recreation
bond; and now was seeking additional funding in capital requests, which he
found to be unreasonable. Based on his review of online comments, Mr. Callaghan
opined that residents didn't consider parks and recreation services and/or
programs to be the number one cost for Roseville, even though it was. Mr. Callaghan
asked why the City Council was spending more for that than the community was
willing to support; opining that it was way too high.
no one else appearing for comment, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at
approximately 7:58 p.m. Mayor Roe thanked residents for their verbal and/or
written comments; and reviewed some upcoming opportunities for further comment,
in addition to continuing options to comment via e-mail, the website, by phone,
or directly to staff or individual Councilmembers. Mayor Roe noted that a
hearing was also scheduled at tomorrow night's Finance Commission meeting,
providing yet another opportunity for community feedback.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was scheduled for discussion at the August
17, 2015 City Council Work session, which would also be the joint meeting with
the Finance Commission for a secondary discussion that same evening.
her personal review from 2000 to-date, Councilmember McGehee stated that the
tax levy portion of the annual budget had tripled from $6,400,000 to
$18,806,000, making an annual budget increase of 7.65%, significantly above the
average annual inflation rate. During that same time period, Councilmember
McGehee noted the addition of only 5-6 city employees, but some of the city's
salaries have not tripled. Given the annual city personnel costs, Councilmember
McGehee noted the other things coming up in the budget that were often done
piece-meal without any long-term cost benefit analysis. Councilmember McGehee opined
that the long history of that practice had resulted in this extraordinary
increase over past years, and while she supported infrastructure maintenance
and replacement, she did not necessarily support how to get there, and asked
for further analysis of how that was accomplished.
Roe stated he had also personally analyzed budgets and levies since 2002 and
similar time period, noting that while that tax levy itself had risen by three
times, the budget itself had remained closer to the rate of inflation. Mayor
Roe clarified that other sources of revenue had not been keeping up, putting
more burden on the tax levy, helping create that differential. Mayor Roe
further clarified that the total expenditures of the city were not going up by
three times the rate, but noted how it was shown on the annual property tax
statement was confusing and notable.
McGehee opined the situation needed to be up-played versus continuing to
Willmus clarified that there had been some fluctuation over the years in
full-time equivalent employees (FTE's), with some reduction in the past form
2000 to current, opining that the number may not be as great if looking at 2005
- 2006, with some positions held vacant for a time, also making a difference in
the overall picture.
recognizing the City of Roseville's current employment level of 176 - 180 employees,
Councilmember McGehee noted that the City of Roseville still remained 100 FTE's
behind both the Cities of St. Louis Park and Edina in terms of total FTE's
employed, clarifying that this was the figure she had used, and even if some
positions were held vacant, it would make her figures even worse.
Roe noted that some of the levy increase had been created through additional
debt service over the last few years.
McGehee opined that both residents had brought up good points, agreeing that
parks and recreation was receiving more support than it should, and sharing
concerns raised regarding debt service.
Willmus noted that information not conveyed on post cards and perhaps changing
the overall picture was the amount of revenue and expenditures with the Parks
and Recreation Department as it was not consistent across the board with
various departments, since it brought in revenue that offset increases, and not
stated her point of information request to make that information available to
the City Council and residents.
Roe noted that the Parks and Recreation Department showed up as a high
percentage of the average property's tax due to not identifying other funding
Laliberte asked that City Manager Trudgeon and his staff post this timeline
online or in documents, and provide more detail, including listing items by
name and not by their acronyms for better public transparency.
Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.
explanation of the debt service concern, Mayor Roe noted that, unlike other
government entities, the City can't borrow money to pay annual operating expenses
or to address a deficit such as done by the federal government borrowing to
balance its budget creating an out-of-control spiral. Mayor Roe noted that
this distinction allowed local government to have more control over their
situation and issuing debt for specific projects, much like a homeowner's mortgage.
McGehee noted that the only resource for the city was from its taxpayers, and
asked that the City be respectful of that and not ask in advance for funding.
Roe noted that the City budgeted $52 million annually and didn't ask ahead of
time; but noted his intent to address concerns raised about debt service by
clarifying that the City used that option to pay for things, not for general expenditures.
Roe noted that the preliminary CIP's capital funding request of $800,000 per
year was a preliminary number and would not necessarily be the final number.
Mayor Roe also noted that the City Manager recommended budget for $398,000
characterized as capital spending which served to put money into a capital
savings account for future needs over the next twenty years and didn't
necessarily mean that all $400,000 would be spent in the next year, but saved
for the future. As part of that, Mayor Roe reiterated that additional
discussion on the CIP was scheduled for August 18, 2015.
Business Items (Action Items)
Skating Center Solar Installation Project
Works Director Marc Culver provided a summary of this project, as detailed in
the RCA dated August 10, 2015, and as recommended by the Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) in lines 66 - 72 of the RCA.
Mr. Culver presented an overview of the project as background and evolving from
past discussions and reviewed both proposals and options within those proposals
as part of his presentation,
on the Sundial Solar proposal, Councilmember Etten questioned the fair market
value of the system at year six that would eat up some estimated savings based
on the life of the system, with $500,000 assuming offset of the fair market
value purchase price beyond that.
Etten asked if Sundial Solar's estimated annual maintenance cost of $7,500 also
ate into the projected profit margin.
Culver responded that the annual maintenance cost was not figured into the
$500,000 cost savings, but would be part of the agreement; with subsequent negotiations
with Sundial narrowing down and further refining those numbers and what they
entailed, what was included, maintenance costs, and costs of any replacement
Etten noted that this could eat away about 1/3 of the total savings - $225,000
- and a large chunk of that profit during the life of the system.
Culver confirmed that operating and maintenance costs should be deducted from
any energy savings.
Etten questioned if replacement of this system needed to be banked in the CIP
going forward or if in thirty years there may be more technologically advanced
options for power, negating inclusion in the CIP.
Culver agreed this was a valid point for further discussion.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that the additional $500,000
savings after year six, once the system was gifted to the City, was inclusive
of the same twenty-five year overall timeframe; while the life of the equipment
may prove longer than that.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver advised that there was no cost
for the City to enter into this nonbinding Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar;
and reviewed language addressing the next steps allowing them to perform a
structural analysis of the roof and other things to vet this and negotiate an
actual agreement with hard numbers for subsequent formal action by the City
the skating center roof was an asset, Councilmember McGehee questioned if and
when it needed repair, what impacts there would be when this system was to be
installed for 30-35 years, but creating a situation where it couldn't be inspected,
even though it should be in excellent condition. Councilmember McGehee further
questioned the rate history of Xcel with this type of installation, expressing
her limited confidence in Xcel if their profit margin wasn't what they
expected, and whether they could change payback rates.
the skating center roof, Mr. Culver responded that the reason for looking at
that location was based on the prerequisite that it was less than ten years old
and should require minimal maintenance. Mr. Culver advised that the other option
had been the Public Works Maintenance Building roof, but given the significant
number of components on that roof, it made installation more difficult and
would not allow for as large of a system.
roof condition is a factor, Mr. Culver noted that the developer may be able to
receive additional credits from excess capacity over 200,000 kW through Xcel
programs, and clarified that while that is a valid point, the numbers he'd put
together for cost savings did not include that possibility. During the first
five years, Mr. Culver advised that developer credits as well as risk are
theirs, and beyond year six the City may be able to acquire those credits for
additional revenue, even though he was not factoring that in.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver addressed the expected annual
degradation of the output provided by the vendor over the first ten years,
allowing further analysis to determine estimated production.
Laliberte expressed her surprise this was coming forward, since she was unaware
staff was working on this, and her concern that preliminary conversations had
not been held between the PWETC and City Council. While recognizing that a lot
of information and presentations were heard at the PWETC, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned if the City had yet to determine if community solar was the
preference versus the City owning its own solar system. Since infrastructure
and capital improvements are huge issues for Roseville as an aging community,
Councilmember Laliberte noted she was not yet sure where she was at or if she
was ready to do this. Also, based on potential technology changes,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if she was ready to enter into a Letter of Intent
without hearing more public input.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
Callaghan opined this was a good proposal, noting he was currently in the
process of buying into a solar garden. As far as seeking historical information,
Mr. Callaghan noted there was almost none available, with new laws in the State
of Minnesota that Xcel is beginning to implement. Mr. Callaghan noted that
Xcel had only approved 1 out of 150 requests for community solar gardens
to-date; and agreed that he didn't have a lot of trust in Xcel Energy either.
However, if the city usage can be cut by 1/6 as projected by Mr. Culver, it
would prove positive no matter what Xcel Energy did, since the City still used
power. Based on his personal reading of the proposal, Mr. Callaghan opined
that Mr. Culver seemed to be proposing something that looked interesting, and
once real numbers were available through further due diligence provided with
the Letter of Intent, that additional information desired by all parties should
prove helpful. Mr. Callaghan opined that so far, it looked like a savings for
the City, and he would personally like to see how it turned out.
McCormick agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that she would have appreciated a
larger discussion before this proposal comes forward, even though in principle
she agreed with the concept. Ms. McCormick expressed interest in a larger
discussion at the City Council level and how else this system may be utilized.
Referencing a recent HRA presentation on solar energy from a smaller firm, Ms.
McCormick stated her favorable impressions with that and grant programs that
may provide potential for an expended solar garden concept.
no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe thanked residents for their comments;
and reiterated that this would come back to the City Council for a final decision,
allowing additional opportunity for PWETC involvement as well as public
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver advised there was nothing
critical related to timing constraints; with this proposal anticipating
installation in the spring of 2016, allowing the company and city to work cooperatively.
Mr. Culver advised that it was staff's intent to bring final numbers, once
received, to the PWETC in September and their recommendation before the City
Council in October. If it was determined to delay the project, Mr. Culver
noted tax credits would reduce form 30% to 10% and significantly change
financing options in 2017, and impacting how good of a deal the City would be
able to negotiate.
moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing staff to execute a Letter of Intent with
Sundial Solar for installation of a 375kW Photovoltaic system on the roof of
the Roseville Skating Center; subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
McGehee stated she was willing to proceed with the Letter of Intent to obtain
refined figures. Councilmember McGehee clarified that before Councilmember
Laliberte was elected to the City Council, many solar presentations had been
held for this and other buildings, including applying for grant funds, with
this opportunity having been available for some time. Councilmember McGehee
stated that she had confidence in Mr. Callaghan's take on the lack of
historical data, but would like to see a fuller fleshing out of this proposal.
Willmus spoke in support of the Letter of Intent to obtain real numbers
allowing for a more informed decision as the proposal worked its way back to
the City Council.
Laliberte noted the importance of having good, solid numbers for further
discussion, and therefore, spoke in support of the motion based on that reality.
Councilmember Laliberte stated her only caveat was recognizing the other investment
needed and how much could be added to taxpayers. Councilmember Laliberte
further noted the number of residents within the community interested and
installing solar on their homes, while other residents waited to hear from the
City Council on community solar, wishing to retain that option when this conversation
Etten spoke in support of his motion; opining that the city would learn more
before further commitments and final financial decisions were made, which
provided a good process for all parties. Councilmember Etten noted the City
Council's continued requests of staff to pursue grants, and this provided one
way to move forward as a community and in a good direction. Councilmember
Etten noted that the PWETC was pursuing multiple solar options, and with available
tax credits, this was a prudent move at this time.
Roe expressed appreciation for discussion regarding annual maintenance costs
and the need to understand that better as a key point for him going forward, as
well as Councilmember Laliberte's concerns about realistic costs to the taxpayer.
Mayor Roe also noted Councilmember Etten's observation about whether there was
a need to set aside CIP funds for a replacement at the end of the life of this
system, whether the City was sure it would want to replace the system, if other
technologies or funding sources may prove more beneficial at that time.
Willmus encouraged staff to talk to their colleagues in the City of Falcon
Heights as to any surprises they've had with their solar installation.
Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Twin Lakes
Works Director Mar Culver provided a brief presentation, and as detailed in the
RCA dated August 10, 2015. Mr. Culver noted Phase III involved extension of
Twin Lakes Parkway from Prior to Fairview Avenues, lining up with Terrace Drive
continuing east. Mr. Culver provided a history of the first two phases, and
provided a recap of the open house (Attachment C) held July 30, 2015, and four
McGehee opined that from her perspective, it appeared the proposed lane layout
created additional issues for existing residents and put more traffic onto
Fairview Avenue. For the record, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her previous
comments that this is not funded by TIF dollars, but by taxpayer dollars, which
they'd already paid $10 million for infrastructure and had been told they'd get
a return on that investment that had yet to be realized, and that funding would
come from developers. With only the Walmart and Metropolitan Transit park and
ride facility to-date, Councilmember McGehee opined that this extension
provided no benefit for residents; and while she was supportive of this road to
Arthur and Prior, she was not supportive of extending it to Fairview Avenue at
this time. Councilmember McGehee noted the opportunity available with interest
expressed for selling the Hagen property, as well as the PIK property that
might provide an opportunity to redevelop those parcels; and referenced
comments made by Community Development Director Bilotta to her that he believes
something could be done there if the City were to wait with this roadway extension.
McGehee stated that she didn't want to lose $3.1 million in TIF or close the
district, there were other options for designing and completing the parkway
rather than this design; and suggested that time for considering whether
additional development occurred in the next six months be allowed before proceeding
with this extension in partnering the Community Development Department and HRA
with input from the Brownfield Consultant. Councilmember McGehee opined that
this would prove more advantageous and provide a more judicious route to take.
Etten sought clarification from Mr. Culver on the options as the parkway
approached Fairview Avenue and streetscape elements with Option A as detailed
in the RCA the preferred option.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver addressed movement of people
around the Prior Avenue roundabout as far as walkability was concerned. Mr.
Culver noted the debate among proponents and opponents regarding pedestrian
safety at roundabouts. From his personal perspective, Mr. Culver opined that
crossing a roundabout is much safer that even some signalized intersections, as
you only had to cross one-half at a time and only look for vehicles in one direction,
as well as avoiding turning vehicles. However, Mr. Culver recognized that
there are others that felt because crosswalks were controlled by traffic
signals and with roundabouts vehicles were only required to yield, they were
not as safe as a crosswalk at a signaled intersection. Mr. Culver noted that
from his review of data, pedestrian incidents were much lower at roundabouts
than at typical signalized intersections.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver clarified the crosswalk
striping at the Prior Avenue roundabout; colored concrete and potential additional
striping as indicated on streetscape drawings to provide consistency and addressing
regulatory and aesthetic elements for safety, especially at night. At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver addressed the level of enhanced pedestrian
lighting for the roadway, another part of streetscape elements.
response to concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee regarding the number of
lanes at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway between
Prior Avenue and the roundabout, Mayor Roe clarified that there was one left
and one right turn lane in addition to the one through lane.
Culver confirmed that the lane configuration was intended to provide safe and
efficient traffic movement at the signal, and would continue to have only one
lane for through traffic, but by providing the left and right turn lanes, it
should reduce delays in the through lane and reduce collisions.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver further confirmed that the
three-way entrance onto Fairview Avenue was also intended to alleviate any
back-up going too far, and reduce quing at that intersection through potentially
providing at a minimum a flashing turn arrow at some point, but probably not a
left turn phasing arrow from Fairview Avenue onto Terrace Drive or Twin Lakes
Parkway as that would require approval from and restriping by Ramsey County.
McGehee asked what mitigation would be required in anticipation of impacts on
Fairview Avenue north; and potential changes and related estimated costs for
these changes on Fairview Avenue.
Culver responded that as presented to the City Council and public in February
and March of this year, the updated traffic study for connecting Twin Lakes
Parkway with Fairview Avenue provided three scenarios for that development, as
well as background traffic growth modeling for each. With an increase of potentially
several hundred vehicles over the course of the day on Fairview Avenue, and as
discussed multiple times in previous presentations and traffic studies, Mr.
Culver reiterated the strong belief that improvements were needed at the
intersections of Fairview Avenue with County Road D to address existing
traffic, background growth and potential redevelopment of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area. Mr. Culver noted that staff continued to work with Ramsey County to accelerate
such an improvement at that intersection.
anticipated that the City would have to pay for the cost at I-35W now,
Councilmember McGehee asked for estimated costs.
Culver responded that there could be low-cost options he estimated at $100,000
to make minor lane configurations or a four-way stop at County Road D and
Fairview Avenue, which would achieve better efficiencies. However, if a
5-legged roundabout was the option chosen, Mr. Culver estimated that cost of approximately
$800,000. Since this it at the intersection of two county roads and one local
road, and on the borders of Roseville and Arden Hills, Mr. Culver noted that
all those jurisdictions would have cost participation in a project of that
this may be true, Councilmember McGehee opined that Roseville residents living
on Fairview Avenue would suffer the most and the burden would be on them.
the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding the Terrace Drive and Lincoln
Avenue intersections, Mr. Culver reviewed some internal improvements that
could improve and reinforce preferred movements in that area, which could include
some realignment of Terrace Drive at the Lincoln Avenue intersection and
removal of medians at County Road C-2 and constructing narrower medians and a
dual turn lane. Mr. Culver clarified, however, that those options have not yet
been vetted well at this point, and he would estimate roughly several hundred
thousand dollars for those improvements.
Culver confirmed for Mayor Roe that in the scenario shown with the Parkway
connection but no further development, the intersections of Lydia and County
Road D at Fairview Avenue had actually been improved, indicating that extending
the Parkway itself actually alleviates some of the current problems, while what
would make the problem worse is development that may yet happen.
Laliberte referenced an earlier statement made by Councilmember McGehee indicating
that Community Development Director Bilotta felt not dissecting this area would
be preferable or more advantageous than connecting the road with a traffic
signal, and asked for his response.
Development Director Bilotta stated that anytime there was a transportation
improvement it changed the character of the adjacent real estate and added
additional demand for that real estate by changing the character, such as installing
a signalized intersection in this case. Mr. Bilotta noted that this improvement
would reduce the 7 acre parcel to 5.5 acres available for development. Over
the last few days as part of the Hagen, post-Sherman development strategy, Mr.
Bilotta advised that numerous phone calls had been made seeking updates on how
soon the roadway would be constructed, and when advising that could be
completed in 2016, it changes the interest level of potential developers from a
holding pattern of potentially 3-5 years to a more immediate resolution. From
his initial feedback with 5-6 developers he'd contacted, Mr. Bilotta advised
that the road improvement was an important part of their consideration in
whether or not to move forward.
Foster, Representative of Hagen Property
he'd previously spoken to, Mr. Foster clarified that the Hagen family did not
oppose the road, but it created some problems for access to the parcel related
to emergency vehicles and safety issues. However, Mr. Foster noted that the
bigger problem was that the roadway touched the west part of the building, and
since that property is 30' plus in height, the Hagen's would need some
assistance to either remove a portion of the building or with a potential
purchase as noted by Mr. Bilotta. With Mr. Hagen having passed away, Mr.
Foster noted that the Hagen family was under the constraints of a short
timeframe, and also have had several trucking firms interested in purchasing
the property. However, Mr. Foster advised that the Hagen family was still hesitant
to sell the property to a speculator that could hold the property for 5-8 years
unless the city preferred that option. On the other hand, Mr. Foster suggested
if the city would direct staff to work with the Hagen family to remove this one
building temporarily since extension of the roadway created a situation where
setbacks were no longer adequate, it would be greatly appreciated.
the request of Ms. McCormick, Mr. Culver corrected the reference in the RCA
from TIF District 13 to District 17; and confirmed that the intersection will
be signalized in this plan.
McCormick referenced her comments about impacts at various intersections, not
exclusively Fairview Avenue intersections, as made at open houses (e.g. County
Road C-2 and Snelling Avenue). Ms. McCormick noted the frustration from
residents attending the March City Council meeting when this was discussed and
their perception that the City Council was not listening to them, thus opining
this resulted in the low attendance at subsequent open houses. Since having
done more research on her own since the open house, Ms. McCormick and expressed
her concern with impacts and how to prepare for them with the road extension.
Ms. McCormick expressed her disappointment that nothing had been addressed
toward that end at the open house, nor any information presented to address mitigation
efforts, especially impacts on the east side.
McCormick thanked the City Council for at least recognizing resident concerns
and not making traffic worse on Fairview Avenue, but noted the unique situation
of those residents in having no other options in moving south as found in other
areas (e.g. Lexington Avenue) and concerns about being cut off without further
mitigation. Ms. McCormick recognized that they'd received some assurances from
Mr. Bilotta that the city would place an emphasis on wayfinding signage and
extending improvements across Terrace Drive to entice east/west traffic
the purpose of encouraging residents in that area, Ms. McCormick asked the City
Council to the extent possible to address potential bottlenecks when the improvements
happen, displaying and referencing the traffic study presented in February and
showing existing pm peak hour analyses (page 7) at various intersections, and
displaying a photo taken by a resident living in that area to show how bad
existing traffic was at that intersection. Ms. McCormick further referenced
minutes from a public hearing held in July of 1988 related to reviewing a comprehensive
plan update and redevelopment planning on page 5 of that report and construction
phases in this area acknowledging impacts and suggesting mitigation by adaption
of Snelling Avenue.
McCormick asked that, as this continues to move forward, the City Council keep
neighborhood concerns in mind and provide mitigation or resolution of those
a resident in that general area and routinely traveling that corridor at the
time of day indicated in Ms. McCormick's photo, Councilmember Willmus asked if
the picture was taken during road construction in that area during May when for
a period of time the construction did generate more back-ups.
Roe noted that his recent experience in July provided the same picture of
Callaghan expressed his ongoing disappointment with the traffic study, and that
intersections would only improve if Snelling Avenue was at six lane, otherwise
things would be worse.
Callaghan expressed his strong recommendation that drainage from this roadway
not be directed into Langton Lake and rerouted elsewhere.
no further public comment offered, Mayor Roe asked staff to follow-up on
several questions or issues raised.
the Hagen property, Mr. Culver noted that the right-of-way purchased from the
Hagen family appeared to clip a small corner of the building, but he was
unaware of the actual square footage involved, even though very small. Mr. Culver
clarified that the road construction will not impact the building as the road
is narrower at that specific spot crossing the ponds, and confirmation had been
received that the roadway could be constructed without impacting the building,
but it would impact operations of the existing business and how that building
may be used in the future as it would cut off circulation around the building
which was still being used for trailers and storage, impacting how that
existing business currently operated. However, Mr. Culver noted that the city
has owned that right-of-way for a period of time, and honestly believed the
Hagen's would no longer own or be involved in the property when the road way
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that there was no property issue
or concern with the city if the building continued to sit on its right-of-way
at this time other than that it no longer was a conforming use due to setback
requirements. From that point of view, Mayor Roe asked if it created any legal
issues in the ability of the Hagen family to sell the land.
Bilotta opined that setback issues wouldn't come into play, since it was the
right-of-way creating the issue not the Hagen's building anything. Mr. Bilotta
referenced changes in state law that had been modified recently on existing
uses, and if necessary most of the the building could be rebuilt without the
small section extending into the right-of-way. Mr. Bilotta suggested that the
city attorney may want to get something in place to address that, but reiterated
that only a very small amount of the property would be displaced and was a
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta duly noted his request that if something
was needed from the City Attorney to protect interests of both parties that
staff follow-up with that.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that Fairview Avenue and Terrace
Drive work would be completed as part of Phase III.
Roe noted comments suggesting that the City not do this phase until other
mitigation was discussed, clarifying that this would be a policy discussion by
the City Council. However, Mayor Roe further clarified that traffic volumes
were projected out for a number of years, and actual 2015-2016 build conditions
did not instantly pull that impact onto Fairview Avenue but only occurred when
development happened, and would receive cost participation for mitigation from
those future developers.
Culver confirmed Mayor Roe's statement regarding initial impacts on the day of
opening the extension, anticipating some additional traffic using this
through-route, but not impacting Fairview Avenue to a major extent at the point
of construction. As previously noted, Mr. Culver reiterated that staff had
started internal discussion about seeking permission from the City Council to
pursue a mitigation project in the very near future for improvements on Terrace
Drive, Lincoln Avenue and County Road C-2 that could realize some short-term
funding sources available to proactively address those areas in anticipation of
development versus being reactive at a later date.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver addressed storm water patterns in this
area to mitigate runoff, with existing flow from Arthur entering existing
ponds, with that body of water expanded when Arthur was constructed and a cell
constructed to treat water from that street. Mr. Culver noted that the
proposal was to maintain that treatment and flow pattern, while created another
stormwater cell further north and building raingardens in two corners to the
south to accept water and flow up to those ponds, but not directly into Langton
Lake, with 2-3 cell treatments prior to it getting there. As noted by Mayor
Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that watershed district approval would be required
and their regulations met throughout the area.
to the traffic study and one scenario suggesting mitigation through additional
lanes on Snelling Avenue as noted by Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver admitted that Mr.
Callaghan had a point from the perspective of assuming that was one option in
evaluating mitigation for Twin Lakes Parkway at Fairview Avenue and impacts on
Cleveland Avenue. While not a realistic scenario, Mr. Culver noted that it was
important that the traffic study model run that scenario and analyze those
intersections without removing that particular filter to review additional
traffic movements and potential impacts.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the plans for Twin Lakes Parkway - Phase
Three Project; and authorize staff to advertise for bids.
Willmus spoke in support of the extension in that in provided an opportunity to
facilitate redevelopment needed in the Twin Lakes area, which he had strongly
supported for some time. Councilmember Willmus further noted the huge improvements
in stormwater management ultimately achieved with this phase, as well as the
tremendous advantages for business and commercial property owners in the area
for pedestrian access along the Parkway as well as providing greater
flexibility for property owners to develop those interior parcels.
Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus.
Laliberte thanked those attending the various open houses and meetings,
expressing her strong desire to make sure residents are heard and have the
chance to speak. Councilmember Laliberte expressed disappointment that in some
cases residents had appeared to give up, and assured them that they were
heard. Since originally pursuing this extension, Councilmember Laliberte noted
her ongoing support, even while recognizing this was not supported by all parties,
but still supportive of pursuing it. Councilmember Laliberte assured the
public that she was not attached to a thirty-year old plan, but believed today
that this was a way to facilitate long-overdue development in this area and
show developers that Roseville was not against development. While recognizing
that the extension would reduce the available property for the 5.5 acre versus
7 acre Hagen parcel, Councilmember Laliberte noted that it still provided for a
less intense but potential corporate use for the parcel and a use that could
provide additional jobs and address traffic impacts at peak times.
McGehee stated she would not support this and hadn't all along for the reasons
she'd previously stated. Councilmember McGehee noted her long-term work collecting
water samples at Langton Lake and significant improvements to the south basin
over the last 4 years, and even over the last 8-9 years in some cases.
However, she noted that it was still a very fragile shallow lake, and proved
crucially important for ongoing tracking to ensure it remained an amenity for
the entire community. Councilmember McGehee further referenced the comments of
Ms. McCormick with traffic impacts and further noted her concerns with costs to
taxpayers and reviewed concerns with using TIF funds and inflicting additional
debt on taxpayers.
Roe spoke in support of approving these plans to complete anticipated work on
this roadway as presented. Mayor Roe noted there was no argument that the area
experienced traffic problems, but suggested that this may serve as a partial
solution for those current issues. Mayor Roe opined that the suggestion to not
do this now without committing to additional mitigation didn't indicate that
they were not going to happen since everyone recognized that they were
necessary steps to take. However, Mayor Roe noted that this was one of those
next steps at this time and therefore, he supported moving forward.
taxpayer dollars, Mayor Roe clarified that only taxpayers in the district paid
into each jurisdiction in Ramsey County, and part of that tax payment went into
paying for infrastructure costs as within the parameters of TIF District 17.
Mayor Roe opined that the notion that this money was taken out the pockets of
Roseville taxpayers was not a fair way to describe it, but more accurately
stating that tax money from within the TIF district was used to pay for those
improvements to avoid taxpayers having to pay additional taxes was a more
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
the current hour, Mayor Roe alerted those present that since members of the
public were in attendance for the next item, the Council would address it;
however, he could not guarantee the following item would have sufficient time
for discussion yet tonight.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Discussion on a Draft Ordinance Regarding Wildlife Management in
Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this issue as detailed in the RCA dated
August 10, 2015, and referenced the draft ordinance prepared by staff and the
City Attorney to initiate discussions (Attachment A). Mr. Trudgeon noted a
one-page proposed ordinance drafted by Councilmember McGehee and provided as a
bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled "Proposed Ordinance Relating to the Banning of Deer Feeding in the City, Title
4, Chapter 411."
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that this
draft ordinance was not reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission for
the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that
model ordinances form other metropolitan cities were used, with this draft
based primarily on that used by the City of Shoreview. When researching the issue
and contacting other metropolitan cities, Mr. Trudgeon noted that many of them
were in similar positions to the City of Roseville, and were seeking input on
the City of Roseville's research and recommendations.
Willmus opined that the portion dealing with ground feeding and height of
feeders in Councilmember McGehee's draft addressed that better than the staff
draft, one aspect he was interested in pursuing further.
Manager Trudgeon clarified that it was not the intent of staff to get into the
minutia of specific issues unless so directed, but the preference was to
educate residents versus patrolling and enforcement.
Willmus noted, acknowledged by City Manager Trudgeon, that the draft ordinance
referenced a Wildlife Management Plan not yet created.
McGehee clarified that, from her recollection, previous discussions had been
about a feeding ban, and if so, the staff draft ordinance was not at all what
she was expecting to receive.
Roe stated that from his recollection, this was the direction staff was given.
McGehee sought additional information including other types of wildlife in
Roseville involving neighbors; some of the definitions in the staff draft
actually addressing pets versus wild animals; creating too broad a feeding ban
when the original intent was for a feeding ban to avoid deer eating vegetation;
management of the regional deer herd by Ramsey County and whether permission
from other communities was already a given; and whether that deer her would
congregate specifically in Roseville requiring the city to deal with it
response, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the draft ordinance was intended
to refer to wild animals versus domestic pets; confirming those communities in
Ramsey County having given permission for management of the deer herd; and recognizing
that it was unlikely that all deer would end up in Roseville, but the draft
ordinance attempted to address migration patterns evidenced to-date.
to meet the educational efforts intended, Councilmember McGehee opined that a
clear deer feeding ban should be in place as a first step, then if necessary
allow Ramsey County an opportunity to reduce the deer number indicated in their
most recent deer survey.
a co-author of the draft ordinance, City Attorney Gaughan noted references to
other wildlife compared to Councilmember McGehee's understanding of the deer
feeding ban. Based on his recollection of direction to staff, Mr. Gaughan
noted there had been other concerns raised by the public (e.g. raccoons) that also
needed addressed; and even though he admitted this was new ground for him and
staff to some extent, his approach was to address the issue with a broad brush
that would then allow the City Council the opportunity to pare it down. Mr.
Gaughan noted that the wild animal language came directly from the Shoreview feeding
ban ordinance, and opined he thought it appropriate to include in this first
draft to allow the City Council to determine what and what not to include.
Mr. Gaughan reiterated that his recollection from public testimony indicated
the issue went beyond just deer feeding.
Roe concurred with the recollection of public testimony, further noting that
feeding of any wild animals had also been part of the City Council's discussion
with the Parks & Recreation Commission.
that point, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City of St. Paul ordinance
was strictly for enforcing a prohibition on feeding deer, and as a resident of
St. Paul noted that there were rabbits and raccoons all around, but the local
ordinance pointed only to deer. Mr. Gaughan reiterated that staff was working
in the dark since as a community it was not clear what was actually needed.
Roe noted that wild turkeys and other wildlife were also problematic, and
suggested may be why the Shoreview ordinance was broader.
Bull, 3061 Woodbridge Street
Bull echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee that this was a deer issue in
the community and there was no need to identify a broader wildlife feeding
issue. Mr. Bull stated that deer would eat and if not fed they would find food
elsewhere and that would mean continuing landscape issues. Mr. Bull opined
that based on survey information, the missing piece was not a feeding ban, but
to make sure the deer herd was not being overpopulated and precipitating the
issue by creating a more widespread problem. Mr. Bull stated that the solution
was to concentrate on managing the right number of deer in the city.
Toogood spoke in support of Mr. Bull's comments, expressing his disappointment
with the "summary ordinance" based on previous discussions with the City
Council and Parks & Recreation Commission indicting that feeding was only a
small part of the problem and managing the deer herd was the real issue. Mr.
Toogood noted that this draft ordinance didn't even discuss harvesting deer,
and his understanding was that the ordinance in the packet was going to be
presented and finally after all this time would be formally adopted by the City
Council tonight, causing him further disappointment in hearing so much dissention
among individual Council members. Mr. Toogood asked that the City Council face
the issue head on and make a decision.
Callaghan stated that his understanding was that the city was going to verify
the actual acreage of deer habitat in this area; and opined that he didn't
think the Park & Recreation Commission's research number was anywhere close
to the actual but much larger. Mr. Callaghan further opined that some of the information
received at the last discussion was incorrect, including the statement made
that all green area shown on the map was public land, which was inaccurate
since at least 1/3 of his backyard adjacent to Little Johanna had been
identified as public.
Callaghan opined that the city was historically poor at enforcing its ordinances,
and therefore why adopt this one. Mr. Callaghan also asked how much its enforcement
would cost when there were other things brought forward needing attention.
Callaghan reiterated his issues with the University of Northwestern and city's
lack of enforcement of its noise ordinance that they had violated over 100
times in the last 12 years, and his inability to get city staff or police officers
to address even though he was assured by City Manager Trudgeon in his former
role as Community Development Director that he had personally checked it out,
but if so it had not been observed by Mr. Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan noted the
lack of enforcement in ticketing Northwestern students violating parking on
Lydia Avenue, significantly impacting driving and narrowing that roadway. Mr.
Callaghan questioned if only certain individuals in Roseville were treated as
Callaghan stated that his personal belief was to do no harm or cause injury to
wild animals, and based on that philosophy he had no intention to pay for any
control method, and based on the recent Supreme Court decision, that personal
right had been justified and whatever the city did to control wildlife, he had
no intention of paying for in any amount.
Bridgeman, 471 Wagner Street
Bridgeman reiterated her issues with raccoons on her property due to neighbors
feeding them, and the cost so far of over $500 to eradicate them and take steps
to mitigate their return. While supporting natural habitat, Ms. Bridgeman
noted this wasn't the same as someone deliberating feeding wildlife and was not
necessary when it created problems for neighbors, feces and damage to landscaping
and other problems.
approximately 10:00 p.m., Etten moved, seconded by Laliberte to extend the
meeting to completion of discussion on this particular item.
Ayes: Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
Bill Frank, 3141 Sandyhook Drive
Frank expressed disappointment in the draft ordinance, opining that he was
convinced it would only address part of the problem, but something beyond a
feeding ban was necessary. Mr. Frank addressed ramifications in feeding deer
depending on the time of the year and significant impacts that could actually occur
for deer with certain enzymes in their digestive tracts. Mr. Frank opined that
this draft ordinance was the wrong solution, and while an ordinance against feeding
deer may be great it would not solve the problem; further opining that a hunt
was the only long-term solution to reduce deer herds in this quadrant.
City Council discussion and staff direction
Councilmember McGehee spoke to earlier, Councilmember Willmus noted the
mechanisms in place in surrounding communities to address the deer population.
Whether in conjunction with a wildlife management plan simultaneously with the
draft ordinance before the body, Councilmember Willmus opined that that was the
direction needed. Councilmember Willmus stated that his position had not
changed, and the time had come to address this issue.
Etten addressed some technical issues he had with the draft ordinance and
suggested the following revisions to staff's draft ordinance (Attachment C):
Section 411.02: Definitions
of items f - h retaining other definitions that related to potential wildlife
evident in Roseville
· Incorporate Section 411.02 (Prohibitions) from Councilmember
McGehee's draft ordinance into staff's draft ordinance, Section 411.03
(Prohibitions), replacing staff's second sentence verbatim with Councilmember
McGehee's second sentence addressing the height component, but removing the
reference to deer
Etten agreed with the City Council discussion held with the Parks &
Recreation Commission on the need for a wildlife feeding ban beyond just deer,
noting that this would language as amended would address the amount of food and
height restrictions for those desiring to feed deer.
justifying the need for a feeding ban, Councilmember Etten opined that while it
may not do much it may reduce the concentration if deer have trouble finding
food and have to forage, further supporting natural eradication. Councilmember
Etten recognized that this draft ordinance represented only a small step and he
wanted to see a draft wildlife management plan and move that forward with the
ordinance as a comprehensive plan.
McGehee stated that she had additional problems with the suggestion to remove
items f and f.
Roe noted that there appeared to be some confusion among Councilmembers and the
public with the draft ordinances, and clarified that the draft prepared by
staff and the City Attorney was included as Attachment C to the RCA, and
Councilmember McGehee's draft submission was the one-page bench handout and
specific to a deer feeding ban.
McGehee suggested language in item a of Section 411.02 (Definitions) of staff's
draft ordinance should stop at the comma simply stating "animals and birds, the
keeping of which is licensed by the state or federal government." Would suffice
and the remainder of the list was meaningless with few of them seen as
wildlife, while some were actually kept as pets by some people. While unsure,
Councilmember McGehee opined that item d in that section should be struck as
Councilmember Etten noted that item d addressed domestic breeds, and while some
of the items were applicable, it also set up that exemption.
McGehee questioned whether feral cats should also be addressed since not a
current problem, should not be excluded. Councilmember McGehee opined that the
distinction should be in feeding outside versus inside pets; and also noted the
need for the ordinance to provide an exemption for the Wildlife Rehabilitation
Center, as well as exempting licensed animals or those used in a school setting
for education and demonstration purposes.
McGehee agreed that the ordinance should rely heavily on education at this
point, but noted her inclusion of Section 411.04 (Penalties) in her draft
ordinance to address fees that could become part of the City's annually adopted
fee schedule. Councilmember McGehee suggested a brochure be created to be used
along with the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) efforts and talked about
annually; offering a copy of the St. Louis Park brochure as an example that
addressed a variety of issues as part of those educational efforts while addressing
problematic animals. Councilmember McGehee suggested this could be addressed
under the City's existing nuisance ordinance versus a separate ordinance with
court ramifications if not addressed even though she was not sure a significant
problem existed to justify that process.
McGehee stated that she didn't want to see the city come out initially with
guns blazing, but preferred to encourage personal responsibility, providing
residents with simple solutions for various wildlife issues requiring limited
expenditures to mitigate. Councilmember McGehee opined that to impose a rigid
and objectionable hunting program for Roseville when surrounding communities may
or may not have a similar program seemed to be unnecessary, further opining
that Ramsey County and the Department of Natural Resources were already tasked
with that obligation and had the legal rights to manage the deer herd, negating
any reason for the City to duplicate that at this time. Given plans for that
fairly active program yet this fall, Councilmember McGehee opined that it
should indicate a reduction in the herd.
Laliberte agreed that it was disappointing that it had taken so long to get
this draft ordinance, and suggested returning to the Parks & Recreation
Commission for further vetting and to get a draft ordinance closer to what
people were expecting. Councilmember Laliberte opined that discussing a
feeding ban and what might happen next if this doesn't work was too much and a
next step could address what might be appropriate if and when that didn't
work. Councilmember Laliberte suggested the need for something allowing
property owners to live on their property and do what they chose to do within
reason in feeding non-nuisance animals, while at the same time addressing
issues found in pockets of the community. However, Councilmember Laliberte
stated that this draft was not what she envisioned, and didn't even reach a
starting point for her.
the request of Mayor Roe, individual Councilmembers indicated their preference
for a more comprehensive ordinance or wildlife management plan.
Laliberte indicated that this draft ordinance went too far without addressing
what happened next, especially with definitions of some animals referenced in
items f and g. Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in some of the ideas
in Councilmember McGehee's draft that supported feeding of birds and squirrels;
however, she noted it didn't address other concerns or provide a solution to
safety and traffic issues specific to deer.
Roe opined that staff's draft provided a good first step and supported revising
and removing some of the definitions, but to focus on what Roseville needed.
Mayor Roe expressed interest in the height component in Councilmember McGehee's
draft; and supported the penalty (Section 411.05) section in staff's draft as
presented in that it didn't bar other resolutions but provided another tool.
Under exemptions in staff's draft (Section 411.04), Mayor Roe noted language
addressing other agents which he took to include the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center;
and expressed interest for the management plan to include an option for a potential
Roseville hunt. While the feeding ban got to the nuisance issue for neighboring
properties, Mayor Roe opined that it needed to be balanced with code enforcement,
recognizing that you had rights on your private property but as soon as that
infringed on the ability of others and rights on their property it required
some controls to be in place, as also addressed through the City's zoning and
code enforcement ordinances. Mayor Roe recognized that some may think there is
no harm feeding wildlife on their property, but further noted that wildlife
didn't observe property boundaries, and created other issues beyond deer, and
obvious in surrounding communities, whether wild turkeys, geese or other
wildlife issues. While it may be a selfish desire for a property owner to see
wild animals in their yards by feeding them, Mayor Roe noted that it could
become detrimental to the natural health of that wildlife when it changed their
natural habitat situation. Mayor Roe suggested it may be more beneficial to
let wild animals be wild and not feed them on properties in Roseville, while
the City addressed management of the deer herd when overpopulated.
referencing previous discussions, Councilmember Laliberte noted the type of
hunt was not identified or what triggers were activated if the hunt didn't
Roe opined that it made sense for this to return to the Park & Recreation
Commission for their feedback.
this proposal originated with 14-15 complaints, and in her research of other
ordinances (e.g. Shorewood) and prior to their enacting a feeding ban, Councilmember
McGehee suggested it may be prudent for Councilmembers to read the results of
that survey. Councilmember McGehee noted that some communities actually went
out and sought where critical issues stood in their community, opining that was
something rarely done in Roseville in the broader sense.
Attorney Gaughan stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission had no interest
in further hashing out this issue with the many other things they have on their
plate. Regarding what may trigger a subsequent action, Mr. Gaughan admitted
that neither he nor City Manager Trudgeon claimed to be experts in this area;
and asked the City Council for their input on what sort of trigger or metric
they preferred, or details on how they wanted that section of the ordinance to
Laliberte suggested something about Department of Natural Resources (DNR) counts,
with Councilmember in agreement and also recognizing counts from Ramsey County.
Roe noted his discussion of triggers at the previous meeting, and suggested if
neighboring cities were participating with Ramsey County, the City of Roseville
should do so since it made no sense not to participate.
McGehee noted that Ramsey County had not asked the City of Roseville to
participate and since many of its residents have asked not to participate, the
City should listen to its constituents.
Roe clarified that just because people had differing opinions, it didn't mean
that their City Council and its staff were not listening, suggesting that
Councilmember McGehee was well aware of that.
Laliberte questioned if there was a representative at Ramsey County who could
talk to the City Council and how Roseville could factor into their efforts.
Roe noted that this had been part of the research of the Parks & Recreation
Manager Trudgeon opined that tonight's discussion and ongoing dissention should
allow an understanding by the City Council and the public of staff's dilemma in
drafting this ordinance. For further direction, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that
the consensus was a desire to maintain a wildlife feeding ban in some form and
beyond deer; to draft a wildlife management plan with specific triggers identified;
and provide next steps, including the hunting option contained in the draft
Roe noted that this was at least the direction from three Councilmembers.
Manager Trudgeon apologized while recognizing that this effort seemed to keep
missing the mark, and was aware of the community's frustrations, but also noted
it obviously was not a simple issue. If the intent was to focus only on deer,
Mr. Trudgeon opined that the Parks & Recreation Commission had come forward
with great recommendation, and suggested staff base options on that in drafting
a wildlife management plan, further opining that he had not gotten that
direction clearly during previous discussions, and seeking as much clarity in
direction as possible.
the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus concurred with the need to
reassess the situation after two years; with Councilmember Willmus further
supporting getting in line with surrounding communities as soon as possible to be
included in the DNR deer hunt.
Roe directed staff, majority opinion of the council, to draft a plan for the
public and Councilmembers to respond to.
agreement with that direction from Mayor Roe and consensus of the majority,
City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the two year period for reassessing was
specific to the hunt, but not appropriate for the ordinance itself. Mayor Roe
noted that the City Council could also choose to re-evaluate it at any time.
Laliberte clarified that she didn't want to wait another two years for more
information on how to participate with Ramsey County but preferred that
information immediately, which was duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
Discussion of 2015 - 2017 Policy Priority Planning Document
Deferred to a
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:29 p.m.