View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 12, 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.
Mayor Roe noted
that Councilmember Etten had previously indicated that he had a scheduling
conflict and would be unavailable for tonight?s meeting.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
Laliberte requested the addition of two additional items to tonight's agenda:
Reconsideration of Item 13.c from the January 5, 2015 meeting regarding the
City Council/staff retreat; and a staff update on the upcoming Twin Lakes Planning
suggested the staff update on the Twin Lakes Planning meeting be addressed
during tonight's "Council Communications, Reports and Announcements" section.
Willmus seconded, reconsideration of the City Council/staff retreat from the
January 5, 2015 meeting.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte explained her rationale in
requesting reconsideration of this item due to her perception of some confusion
during the vote and whether that vote was specific to the original motion, the
amendment to that motion, or an amended motion. Councilmember Laliberte
suggested some of that confusion seemed to be regarding the actual dollar
amount authorized. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she also had remaining
concerns regarding the actual scope and cost, and since she had voted in the
affirmative, sought input from her colleagues as to whether they also felt more
discussion was needed.
Mayor Roe stated
that he would vote against the motion to reconsider, as he considered the
record indicating clarification of the amendment and original motion on January
5, 2015 duly reflected the intent and subsequent action. As a supporter of the
motion, Mayor Roe opined that he had no concern regarding the costs outlined,
nor any need for reconsideration.
Laliberte advised that part of her intent in reopening discussion was to
consider going out for bid on a facilitator.
McGehee concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe; but if the issue was to be
reconsidered at all, it should be done when a full City Council was available
to discuss it.
due to lack of majority.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
advised that, as Roseville City Council Liaison, she would be attending the
monthly meeting of the Ramsey County League or Local Governments (LCLLG) later
Laliberte announced locations and times for upcoming Metropolitan Transit open
houses scheduled this week for the "Rush Line" corridor proposed from St. Paul's
Union Depot to Hinckley, MN; with the public invited to share their comments as
options were discussed for routes, station locations and rationale for studying/constructing
briefly reported on recent North Suburban Cable Commission franchise activity;
specifically that the membership had been reduced to nine member cities with
the formal withdrawal of the City of Shoreview from the Commission as of December
31, 2014. Mayor Roe advised that the Commission would be revising the joint
powers agreement accordingly as it related to governing aspects of the member
cities and their working relationship, as well as incorporating changes due to
federal law changes. Once finalized by the Commission, Mayor Roe noted that
each member city would be receiving the revised and updated document for
subsequent action and approval on their part.
announced the upcoming volunteer opportunity scheduled in Roseville at Acorn
Park for removal of Buckthorn debris as part of the Parks Renewal Program Natural
Resources work at Roseville Parks.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta provided a brief
update on the public meeting scheduled later this week in the Skating Center?s
Rose Room regarding the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, as a result of the City
Council seeking additional community input on various aspects and actions in
the area. Mr. Bilotta advised that this was intended as a listening session,
as the City Council took the pulse of the neighborhood, the overall community,
and area businesses; and would serve to inform future City Council discussions
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the notice area covered by
mailed post cards, as well as other opportunities to spread the word; with post
card notice mailed beyond the normal 500? area and extending into the James
Addition sough of County Road C and Langton Lake up to Lydia Avenue. Mr.
Bilotta noted that word-of-mouth-advertising would also provide additional
coverage in getting the information out.
McGehee noted the need that this topic involved the entire community, not just
the immediate neighborhood, since it had citywide impact; and encouraged the
entire community to attend if interested.
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte's request for "next steps," Mr. Bilotta advised that
another meeting was scheduled for February 18, 2015 to present results of the
first meeting; and at that point, additional issues based on previous actions
should be available, and that the results would dictate those next steps at the
City Council level. Mr. Bilotta clarified that it would be dependent on public
comment and determining areas of consensus.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon discussed timing of the City's
newsletter as it related to these community meetings; and addressed other ways
to get the word out to the public as the process unfolded. Mr. Trudgeon
assured Councilmembers that staff would work to provide ongoing information to
the public; and encouraged public comment directly to staff and/or the City
Council in written form at any time, whether or not they could attend the
advised that written comment received before, during or immediately after
the open house would be uploaded on the City website for public information.
Mr. Bilotta recognized that, due to health- or weather-related issues, some
residents would not be able to personally attend the meeting, but still wanted
their voice heard. Mr. Bilotta noted that the important part was to receive
that public feedback.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring January 19, 2015 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in
Roseville, inviting a renewed commitment in the community for racial equality and
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, declaring January 19, 2015 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, and Roe.
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 Minutes of January 5, 2015 Meeting
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2014 as presented.
8. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated January 12, 2015 and
attached check register.
75997 - 76286
Approve Business and Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of
one (1) year, unless otherwise noted, for applicants as listed and detailed in
the RCA dated January 12, 2015.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and
contracts for services as detailed in the RCA dated January 12, 2015.
Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for Victoria
Street Reconstruction Project
McGehee stated that she had previously discussed this project with City
Engineer Marc Culver, specific to drainage issues, with assurances from staff
that they would be working with the Capitol Region Watershed District to
maximize those efforts.
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11203 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Receiving the Feasibility Report for Victoria Street Reconstruction
and Ordering Public Hearing for Improvement;" with the hearing scheduled for
Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Award Contract for Engineering Services for Replacement of Wagner
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of awarding an engineering services contract
to Bolton & Menk, Inc. for engineering services for reconstruction of the
Wagener sanitary sewer lift station, in an amount not to exceed $25,775.
Award Contract for Engineering Services for Rehabilitation of St.
Croix Lift Station
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of awarding an engineering services contract
to S.E.H., Inc. for engineering services for the rehabilitation of the St.
Croix storm sewer lift station, in an amount not to exceed $58,817.
Adopt a Resolution Accepting Part-Time Firefighter as a Member of
the Public Employees Police and Fire Plan
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11204 (Attachment A) entitled,
?Part-Time Firefighter PERA Declaration;? accepting part-time firefighter Adam
Sabotta (employee #50295) as a member of the Public Employees Police and Fire
Request for Renewed Approval of Outdoor Storage of Boats as an Interim
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11205 (Attachment C) entitled,
"A Resolution Approving a Temporary Boat Sales, Service, and Outdoor Storage
Facility as an Interim Use at 1705 County Road C (PF09-025)."
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Request by HR, LLC for Approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2750
Thomas Paschke reviewed this request, as detailed in the RCA dated January 12,
2015; noting the addition of two conditions since the Planning Commission
meeting approval; as noted on Pages 2 and 3, lines 32 through 51).
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the parking agreement
would be recorded as part of the title for affected properties; including any
modifications or revisions necessary. Mr. Paschke noted that any amendments to
that agreement would at a minimum necessitate approval by the City Attorney
before re-recording, if not before the City Council.
McGehee stated that she had been interested since the beginning to encourage additional
green space; and options that were possible under watershed district requirements.
However that final determination is made, Councilmember McGehee expressed her
hope that at a minimum the pathway proposed for installation north of the site
would retain sufficient adjacent green space.
Laliberte noted previous City Council discussions with the developer and staff
about walkability and pedestrian safety within the site itself, and sought an
update on those efforts as they related to the shared parking agreement.
responded that an internal sidewalk from Iona Lane and north of one of the
hotels was proposed in the site plan, accessing the commercial development
proposed to the south on the former Xtra Lease site, and in addition to
external sidewalks. Mr. Paschke displayed several maps outlining those
amenities and connections based on site grades.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the proposed Twin Lakes Hospitality Place PRELIMINARY
PLAT, as presented and detailed in the RCA dated January 12, 2015, and based on
the comments, findings, and nine (9) conditions stipulated therein.
McGehee suggested that a bench amenity be considered along the pathway to
provide an area for walkers to rest.
Mayor Roe confirmed
with staff that the final plat will come before the City Council for review and
approval in the future.
Request from Roseville Senior Apartments Building located at 1045
Larpenteur for an Exemption from Roseville Ordinance, Chapter 908, for Rental
Licensing for Multi-family Rental Properties of Five or More Units
e-mail comment dated January 12, 2014 from Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street in
Roseville, was provided as a bench handout,
Coordinator Don Munson introduced Lester Goldblatt, representing Stanley
Management Company, 5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 105, Minneapolis, MN, owner of
the property, ?Roseville Senior House,? a Section 8 authorized HUD apartment
detailed in the RCA dated January 12, 2014, Mr. Munson provided staff's review
of the request for exemption noted in the firm?s letter dated October 8, 2014
from Stanley Management Company (Attachment B). While Mr. Munson recognized
the inspections done by other regulatory agencies at this facility and recognized
the privacy concerns of tenants, Mr. Munson noted that those inspections did
not address the same areas overall as stipulated by Roseville City Code. Mr.
Munson provided the specifics of City Code addressing tenant safety, tenant
rights in accordance with written lease provisions, and the infrequency of the
City of Roseville?s inspection program for those buildings licensed in the
upper tiers, which this building would most likely qualify under. Mr. Munson
noted that the result would essentially require a fifteen minute inspection
once every six years, and opined that didn't not seem overly intrusive from
staff's perspective to ensure tenant safety and well-being. Mr. Munson further
noted the violations and issues staff had previously found in buildings under
HUD inspections, some minor and some more significant.
Munson advised that staff recommended DENIAL of the request for an exemption
from the Rental License Program, requiring that the building be licensed as per
Roseville City Code, Chapter 908.
Goldblatt, Representing Stanley Management Company
noted in staff's comments, the RCA, and the October letter from Stanley Management
Company, Mr. Goldblatt expounded on the number of annual inspections occurring
at the facility already, opining that any additional inspections were unrealistic.
Mr. Goldblatt noted that their facility had been operating for over 36
years, and during that time, the City's Building Inspector had never voiced any
complaints. Mr. Goldblatt advised that the only property issues were created
by the adjacent shopping center and use of the adjoining alley as a dumping
ground by its customers, even though the shopping center was cooperative with
clean-up efforts at the apartment complex. Mr. Goldblatt advised that they
took special efforts to keep their property up, and opined that they had an
outstanding record, as well as the building being highly respected among
Section 8 HUD properties.
Goldblatt advised that HUD inspected 10% of their units annually; and expressed
his willingness to share results of those inspections with City staff at any
time, in his plea for preserving the privacy of their tenants and avoiding an
invasion of that privacy. During a recent refinancing of the property, Mr.
Goldblatt noted the number of inspections required as part of that process, and
the complaints of tenants about that invasion of their privacy. Furthermore,
Mr. Goldblatt assured Councilmembers that he and his staff kept well ahead of
any issues as they were proud of the quality of the building with any
maintenance issues addressed within 24 hours of being reported; and had never
been written up for any safety violation by a HUD or other agency inspector,
operating at an 88% acceptance rate for the REACT program.
there was some other way to work things out and ensure tenant privacy, Mr.
Goldblatt offered his willingness to work with the City, and arbitrate between
his tenants and the City.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Goldblatt advised that there were 127
units in the building, all Section 8, and reviewed the number of units inspected
(HUD a minimum of 10% and REACT usually 25% of the units).
McGehee opined that the building was well maintained, and expressed her
appreciation for the sense of community by the tenants, that she had personally
observed in her site visit. Councilmember McGehee asked if it would be
possible to coordinate the City?s inspection of units with those of other agencies
simultaneously for less intrusiveness of tenants. Councilmember McGehee expressed
her empathy for tenants and her interest in working something out.
Goldblatt spoke in favor of that coordinated effort; and Mr. Munson responded
that it could be possible, but given scheduling of limited staff and the number
of other building inspections, he could not guarantee that it would always be
feasible, but offered to pursue such an effort.
Willmus sought confirmation that the City ordinance calling for initial
inspection of 100% of units to establish a baseline.
Munson clarified that staff was initially inspecting 25% of units annually over
a three year cycle, at which time it rotated. Mr. Munson noted that the City
did not have sufficient staff to do an inspection of 100% of the units at one
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Goldblatt confirmed that the facility
had a large community gathering space for use by its tenants. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested that staff arrange with Mr. Goldblatt for a presentation to
tenants on the City?s rationale in and the purpose and intent of the inspection
process and what that inspection involved.
Mr. Goldblatt and Mr. Munson expressed interest in pursuing that avenue; with
Mr. Goldblatt noting the annual presentation by the City?s Fire Inspector in
that group setting.
public comment was sought by Mayor Roe, no one come forward to speak to this
Willmus stated that he was not supportive of waiving the City inspection; and
supported pursuing the strategies suggested by Councilmember McGehee if and
Roe concurred, further supporting the suggestions of Councilmember Laliberte.
moved, Willmus seconded, DENIAL of the request of Roseville Senior Apartments
Building, located at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue, for exemption from the City of
Roseville Rental license Program, requiring the building be licensed in accordance
with City Code, Chapter 908.
Laliberte asked that staff attempt to coordinate all City Rental License
Program inspections with other inspection agencies as feasible in an effort to
be sensitive to tenants and avoid multiple intrusions, including opportunities
for staff presentations to a larger group of tenants to ensure the health,
safety and welfare of Roseville residents in these facilities.
McGehee offered a friendly amendment directing staff to work with other
agencies (e.g. HUD) and their inspection schedules.
Manager Trudgeon clarified that the City no longer performed HUD inspections,
as their reimbursement did not cover the City?s actual cost.
the maker of the motion, Councilmember Laliberte did not accept the friendly
amendment; opining that as noted in her previous remarks, she did not want to
tie the potential coordination into the motion; but was confident that staff
would pursue that option if and when possible.
the seconder of the motion, Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember
Laliberte; noting staff's direction to try to coordinate at their discretion
but not specifically tied to this facility or this action.
Roe stated that he tended to concur with Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus,
and opined that he was not prepared to make a broad directive for staff to have
to comply with coordinating efforts in all cases depending on specific situations
and schedules. However, Mayor Roe advised that he would be interested in
hearing from staff how those coordination efforts were working during the process
to see if it made sense to pursue further, and depending on which other agencies
were performing inspections. Mayor Roe spoke in support of explaining to
tenants the rationale in the program and its purpose in addressing their
McGehee stated that she'd go along with the Council majority, recognizing the
necessity and validity of the City's Rental License Program. Councilmember
McGehee noted that the program was implemented to address other buildings, not
this specific facility, to address severe problems in those facilities.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her faith in City staff in working with Mr.
Goldblatt; and asked that he and other multi-tenant building owners in the
community keep the City Council apprised of their experiences with the Rental
License Program as everyone remains in the learning curve during the initial implementation
of this new program.
thanked Mr. Goldblatt for his attendance and comments; but confirmed that the
motion denied his request for exemption for this facility from the inspection
process under the City?s Rental Licensing Program.
expressed his disappointment in the City Council's action; noting that most
other multi-tenant buildings were not regulated with rents they can charge;
however, owners of this building would be forced to absorb this cost rather
than being able to spread the fee over the units.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Update on Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment
Trudgeon provided a verbal update on the status of the Dale Street Fire Station
Redevelopment Project, and took responsibility for and personally apologized
for not communicating the project status with the City Council and public
before now, including the provisions staff was working under in the Predevelopment
Agreement. Mr. Trudgeon stated that one reason for the delayed reporting was
that staff kept thinking the end was in sight, but obviously that had not
happened and the process went on far too long.
reviewed the history and background of the project; and the recent expiration
of the Preliminary Developer Agreement, with financing for the project
remaining the final piece of the puzzle, but also still unresolved. At this
point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation
(GMHC) was still attempting to secure financing, and was awaiting completion of
an appraisal with the latest bank considering financing the project.
advised that staff was collectively of the opinion that it was time to pursue
other options for the land. Mr. Trudgeon stated that the next steps from
staff's perspective were for the City ? and Housing & Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) as owner of two of the three acres and the City's partner - discuss
options for the property. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the project was and
would remain a city-led process.
advised that the HRA next met on January 20, 2015, at which time they would be
discussing the project?s status, along with options and alternatives.
Subsequently, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council and HRA?s next joint meeting
was scheduled for February 9, 2015, where a larger discussion and HRA
recommendations were proposed for discussion, and the next steps.
amount of time given by the community to-date in considering and agreeing on
the right development, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he would lean toward
recommending that the City determine if other developers are interested in
doing a similar development as that proposed by GMHC.
Willmus thanked City Manager Trudgeon for his update and explanation; and
expressed his concern with the overall process and consequences of the
predevelopment agreement lapsing. While several actions had come before the
City Council during the process, Councilmember Willmus opined the silver
lining, if there is one, was that the City retained control over and title to
the property and other parties were not yet involved, which could have resulted
in some major issues. Councilmember Willmus stated that something to be
learned from this process for the City Council, the HRA and staff was the need
to stay on top of these things, whether it had been extension of the
predevelopment agreement by the HRA; or going forward what measures or stop
gaps could be put in place to call attention to issues periodically through
such a process, or flagging certain dates to provide that periodic review.
Trudgeon concurred that, certainly on staff's part, assurances of certain dates
and better project management, as well as more frequent updates with the City
Council, were called for. As one option, Mr. Trudgeon suggested a report by a
representative of the HRA at each City Council meeting to check-in on a
process, and/or clear documentation of dates and information and updates available
to the public throughout that process, essentially a series of checks and balances.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that this project could serve as a learning experience, and
expressed his thankfulness that no lasting repercussions resulted from this delay;
however, he duly noted the points brought up about the failure of the process
in this case.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon, confirmed that the public
would also have an opportunity to weigh in at the HRA meeting if they chose to
that the delay was problematic, Councilmember McGehee stated her assumptions
that the HRA was following it closely. Councilmember McGehee expressed her
thankfulness that the City owned the land; and while having participated in the
public meetings, opined that it remained a good project with neighborhood
support. While also understanding that the financing was holding up the
project, Councilmember McGehee referenced her understanding from the
residential and commercial community that appraisals were delayed across the
board from lending institutions at this time as the economy continued to rebound.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her support of the GMHC proposal, and looked
forward to the recommendation of the HRA from their upcoming meeting.
Laliberte expressed her disagreement with her colleagues, opining that the HRA
did not follow this project closely enough; and expressed her hope that they
paid much closer attention in the future. As a regular viewer of HRA meetings,
Councilmember Laliberte noted how brisk they were; and suggested the HRA take
more time at their meetings to ask the right questions, since the community
granted the HRA a good deal of money to operate. While the City owned the
property, Councilmember Laliberte noted that one of the repercussions of the
delay was that a great deal of time had been lost, with City staff and the
community at large having put a lot of time and energy into the planning stages,
with the end proposal highly praised. Councilmember Laliberte opined that it
was unfortunate that some much time had been lost, and expressed her disappointment
that, when it was first determined that financing was problematic, it should
have raised more flags than it did.
stated that he was not in any way pleased with the time lapse for this project
as noted by Councilmember Laliberte, but also remained thankful that the City
held the property title, and ramifications were few other than reversing
drainage and utility easements. However, Councilmember Willmus reiterated the
need for the City Council, HRA and staff to be in a better position to keep
track of various projects.
that this item will come back to the City Council for discussion at their
February 9, 2015 meeting, Councilmember Laliberte noted that, while some other
proposals initially came before the City Council, it had been determined at
that time that they were never going to work, and cautioned that they really
didn?t need to be reviewed again, since the community meetings had supported
that the GMHC proposal was the best option, and there should be no need to
start over again with less viable proposals.
shared the disappointment expressed that things were not better tracked during
the process, while recognizing that everyone was working toward the end product
and were confident that financing would fall into place more quickly than it
did, which to some extent was out of the City?s control. However, Mayor Roe
admitted that he would have been more comfortable if that information was
brought forward before now. Mayor Roe stated that his takeaway from tonight's
discussion was that the GMHC proposal was the best concept brought forward, and
suggested the directive to City and HRA staff should be to see if other
developers were willing to pursue that concept.
that the former Owasso School property, now vacant, had received proposals for
higher-density, owner-occupied homes, Mayor Roe suggested that it may interest the
same developers as part of this development to mix single family homes with
higher-density units that may make a larger package more attractive to them
versus them attempting to propose something completely different than what had
already been ruled out based on community input.
Trudgeon advised that staff would pursue a package similar to that proposed by
GMHC with the development community. Mr. Trudgeon addressed the four action
items requested of the City Council immediately during or after expiration of
the pre-development agreement and noted their status:
Council approval of a right-of-entry for GMHC to install a sign to market the
advised that this had never happened, with no sign installed.
Council resolution adopted allowing the use pooled tax increment financing
(TIF) dollars to assist with this development.
advised that the resolution remained in place as the broader TIF District had
been amended to make this development happen, but was not tied specifically to
this developer?s project.
Council acknowledgment of the Planning Commission?s determination that the
concept was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
advised that, provided another concept remained consistent with the original
proposal, that acknowledgement would remain; and only need revised if a new proposal
differed substantially from the original proposal.
Council action related to the drainage and utility easements on the project
advised that, since the City still owned the land, and the easements have not
yet taken effect and would be subject to final plat approval, yet to occur,
they technically remained in place and had not yet been recorded.
777 Lovell Avenue
Ms. Gelly thanked
the City Council for keeping the neighborhood involved so far, and expressed
her appreciation for being able to participate in the meetings, and for the
collaborative approach. Since the GMHC proposal was supported by the
neighborhood for a variety of reasons, Ms. Gelly asked that the City attempt to
preserve that plan with the current developer or other developers, or stay as
close to that original proposal as possible. However, if it was necessary to
start the process over again, Ms. Gelly asked that the neighbors be allowed to
participate again. Ms. Gelly suggested that, if the GMHC was aware that they
may lose the project, it may provide an incentive to keep things moving
660 West Lovell Avenue
communications were good during the four initial community meetings, Mr.
Hartman alerted the City Council that communications with the neighborhood
regarding tonight?s meeting had been non-existent. Mr. Hartman noted that the
HRA should have most of the e-mail addresses for concerned neighbors, and suggested
at a minimum a monthly update.
thanked the City Council for their ongoing involvement and for listening to
area residents to at least get a plan started, even though it was unfortunate
that that plan had apparently fallen by the wayside. However it played out in
the future with this or another proposal, Mr. Warwick expressed his concerns
with timing, and asked that any future plan received all the same input as
voiced the last time to retain the good cooperation between the neighborhood
and the City.
personally and on behalf of at least four of her neighbors unable to attend
tonight, Ms. Atwood wanted to go on record echoing the comments stated
previously tonight; and thanked the City for this good plan for their neighborhood.
Johnson, Representative of Developer J.W. Moore Inc.
developer?s perspective, Mr. Johnson opined that the project could be viable,
and expressed the interest of their development firm in discussing it further.
alerted staff and the City Council on the availability of two other empty lots
on Lovell that had been vacant for some time and while unsure of their
ownership, may also be available to add to a project.
Mayor Roe and
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted the communication concerns expressed by
Zero Waste Discussion
Engineer Marc Culver briefly summarized what he preferred to term "Toward Zero Waste"
public events, as detailed in the RCA dated January 12, 2015. Mr. Culver noted
that the 2013 contract with Eureka Recycling, now in its second of three years,
included four "Zero Waste" events. Mr. Culver suggested options would be to
include more events when issuing a new Request for Proposals (RFP), to add
additional events immediately at extra city expense, or to find more volunteers
to staff those efforts, recognizing that there was no guarantee that volunteers
would be available to staff the events, which would create additional expenses
for staff resources that he estimated between $1,500 to $2,000.
Culver noted that part of the "Toward Zero Waste" effort was educating the
public, but also vendors; and cautioned that in moving that direction, the City
may not want to require their participation and potentially lose some of those
vendors. Mr. Culver suggested starting with the educational process with vendors,
and perhaps by the time a new recycling contract was available, that education
could have been completed.
Willmus noted that when discussing Rosefest, it was actually only one specific
event, the Taste of Rosefest, and suggested continued review with
recommendation by the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission
(PWETC) to get more events covered.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus, and suggested working with the
City's Volunteer Coordinator to pursue those efforts beyond just education, but
in moving them forward as much as possible without further delay.
Roe spoke in support of the volunteer aspect especially for those specifically
interested in recycling and diverting waste; and suggested that they may be
interested in making themselves available for third-party events as well such
as for renters of the banquet center who want city assistance to incentivize
that. Mayor Roe suggested funds could possibly be set aside from the recycling
contract?s profit sharing fund of a certain amount annually to facilitate zero
waste events on city property, whether city events or private. Mayor Roe
opined that this would send a clear message that the City was actively
promoting moving toward zero waste.
Laliberte agreed that the PWETC should look at it and evaluate different events
on city property, whether a city organization function or large event by an
outside party. Councilmember Laliberte further spoke in support of pursuing a
group of interested volunteers to staff those events and continue educational
Willmus suggested they could be identified as the "Zero Waste Reaction Team."
Klink, 525 Ryan Avenue W
her role as Hennepin County Master Recycler, and as a Roseville resident, Ms.
Klink expressed her enthusiastic interest in being on that volunteer team or
assisting in any way needed to pursue this effort. Ms. Klink stated that, ?" am
your zero waste person;" and having facilitated a number of reasonably successful
events, reiterated her interest in helping the City and staff with this.
Klink noted that with more interest in zero waste, vendors were moving toward
that as standard operating procedure, and while it took time to get everyone
on board and organized, and needing more than one volunteer, she expressed enthusiasm
that it was doable.
Roe thanked Ms. Klink for her offer, and asked that she coordinate with staff.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming preliminary meeting agendas
suggested that the January 26, 2015 meeting be in Work Session format.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
commission meetings started at 6:30 p.m., Councilmember Laliberte noted that
the Community Engagement Commission meeting would be starting at 7:00 p.m. this
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the Buckthorn
removal at Acorn Park was removal of brush stacked for removal, not actually
eradicating it during the winter months, as noted on the informational flyer.
Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:39 p.m.