View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
December 1, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon requested removal of Item 7.d from the Consent Agenda for separate
Trudgeon noted removal of Business Action Items 13.b and 13.c from tonight's
agenda while staff gathers additional information, and for presentation at a
requested removal of Consent Item 7.b for separate consideration based on input
from the public.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Bartley Bloom, Bent Brewstillery, 1744
requested an extension of hours for this and similar type businesses in Roseville,
especially seeking that extension until Midnight and additionally to 1 AM New
Year's Eve for the benefit of patrons, family and friends. Mr. Bloom noted
that, without an ordinance amendment to extend their hours of operation, it was
creating a significant loss of revenue for their business, a vibrant part of
the Roseville community, and active participant in community events and contributor
to area causes.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff would prepare additional
information for City Council consideration at their December 8, 2014 meeting,
allowing action on extending hours of operation, if approved, before year-end.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe made
several announcements of upcoming events and activities, including the
Minnesota Wild practice at the OVAL on December 21, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. until
Noon, with the Wild on the ice at 11:00 a.m., and other family events and free
open skating available. Mayor Roe also announced acceptance of winter clothing
donations by the Roseville Visitors Association and as part of OVALumination
events, with drop-off available inside the OVAL and skating center.
Laliberte reported as liaison at the recent Ramsey County League of Local
Governments meeting and summarized their agenda items, as well as their January
2015 agenda items. Councilmember Laliberte confirmed that the City of Roseville
would be hosting the March of 2015 meeting at the Roseville Fire Station in the
training room. The January agenda would include meeting with state legislators
to review items of interest to metropolitan municipalities.
reported as liaison to the North Suburban Cable Commission, and invited the
public to attend the December 4, 2014 meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Arthur Street
C-TV facilities off County Road C, as CenturyLink will provide additional
information to the Commission and public on the possibility of them becoming a
second franchisee for the ten member cities.
Donations and Communications
Accept and Recognize General Donations to the City of Roseville
& Recreation Director Jill Anfang provided a summary of 2014 donations and
recognized several community organizations in attendance at tonight's meeting
and thanked them for their contributions to the community. Ms. Anfang reported
that 2014 donations totaled $153,324, as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated December 1, 2014.
Bill Bakeman, representing Friends of Lexington Park
introduced and thanked Mr. & Mrs. Bakeman, in attendance for the
contribution by Friends of Lexington Park, for a climbing rock play structure
at the park.
noted that it had proven a very positive experience for children to-date; and
expressed the neighborhood's appreciation of Lexington Park.
Trudgeon accepted a $30,000 check as a donation from the Friends of Lexington Park,
presented by Mr. and Mrs. Bakeman.
announced that invitations had been sent to neighbors of Lexington Park for a
preview of the new park building on December 16, 2014, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.,
with family activities and light refreshments planned. Ms. Anfang noted that another
open house at the new park building, also part of the Park Renewal Program
improvements, was scheduled for Sandcastle Park on December 17, 2014; with
Villa Park facilities scheduled to open in late January of 2015.
Lou Zibell, Friends
of Roseville Parks
introduced Ms. Zibell, representing Friends of Roseville Parks, and reviewed
their partnership over the last year and hosting of several events to assist in
expanding the Park Renewal Program, including a new display and welcome desk
and display at the Interpretive Center. Ms. Anfang also noted their donation
for installation of brick gas fireplaces at each new park building being
Ms. Ziell noted
FORParks work over the last forty-five years to help enhance Roseville Parks;
and Mayor Roe thanked FORParks for all they do to further the cause.
noted the success and strength of the City's established network of affiliated
groups in Roseville, a sought-after accomplishment by other communities without
one already in place.
On behalf of
the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe thanked each group and/or
individual for their contributions and donations.
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, acceptance and recognition of general donations to the City of
Roseville from community organizations, citizens and program participants, both
in material and money, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated December 1, 2014.
Accept Fire Department Donation from Hugh & Julie Thibodeau
Fire Chief Tim
O?Neill introduced Hugh & Julie Thibodeau, and summarized their generous
donation of $5,000, as detailed in the RCA dated December 1, 2014 toward Fire
Department needs and activities. Chief O?Neill noted that the Thibodeaus had
been friends of the Fire Department for over a decade; and recognized Mr.
Thibodeaus' service on the City's Fire Station Study Group, as well as their
ongoing support for animal rescue training efforts and equipment purchases for
noted that Basic Animal Rescue Training (BART) was a quality of life issue for
Roseville residents, since pets were part of the family, and with this training
would also receive the same specialized care as other members of the family.
On behalf of the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe thanked the
Thibodeaus for the generous donation.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, acceptance and recognition of the donation of $5,000 to the Roseville
Fire Department from Hugh & Julie Thibodeau to be used for Basic Animal
Rescue Training (BART) and the annual department recognition dinner.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Thibodeau advised that he would make information
on window stickers available from BART to City staff to include on the City
website for public information and availability of the stickers.
McGehee thanked the Thibodeau's for this and previous donations.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
6. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight?s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve Minutes of November 10, 2014 Meeting
Mayor Roe noted
additional changes suggested by McGehee and staff as follow-up, provided as a
bench handout, with changes noted on pages 8, 10, and 17.
Page 6, Line 37 (Laliberte)
error: Delete the duplicate "that"
Page 7, Line 21 (Laliberte)
error: Change "per" to "her"
Page 17, Lines 19-21 (Roe/McGehee)
Add "million" to $19.25 bond issue
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2014 as amended.
Approve Minutes of November 17, 2014 Meeting
Mayor Roe noted
two bench handouts consisting of requested changes by Councilmember McGehee to
pages 4, 8 and 15; and staff?s submission and recommended language following
their review of the meeting video tape, specific to page 14, lines 38-44 and
page 15, lines 1-32 regarding findings for a special burn permit at 1894 Alta
McGehee stated that she was in agreement with staff's submission taken directly
from the text of the meeting; and asked that other minor changes to pages 4 and
8 in her initial request remain.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2014 as amended.
For the benefit
of the entire City Council, Mayor Roe noted that, after discussion with City
Attorney Gaughan, he had clarified that the specific findings were not required
in this case as part of the language as they did not have the same formality as
required for findings being listed in denial of land use cases.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no
additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the
request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 27, 2014, and
attached check register.
75704 - 75902
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for
services presented as follows; and as detailed in the RCA dated December 1, 2014;
and Attachment A entitled, "2014 Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 10/31/2014."
Police squad radios
Soil borings/pavement analysis
Approve Part-Time Firefighter PERA Resolution
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11190 (Attachment A) entitled, ?Part-Time
Firefighter PERA Declaration.?
Approve a VARIANCE from State Aid Rules for the Victoria Street
Mayor Roe noted
his agreement with the proposed option, since the other option would be to
construct a road through a park and wetland, with extensive associated
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11191 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Requesting a Variance from State Aid Rule 8820.9936 for Victoria
Street Reconstruction Project;" seeking a variance of the curve design speed
and implementation of new signage and improvement of roadway lighting along the
curve on Victoria Street east of its intersection with Roselawn Avenue.
8. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits
An e-mail from
Ms. Sherry Sanders, Chair of the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association, was
provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, expressing
neighborhood concerns for their safety with Pawn America?s recent front door
relocation and criminal activities.
advised that, prior to the start of this evening's City Council meeting,
members of the public had requested removal of this item from the Consent
Agenda; and recognized approximately seven members present who wanted to speak
to this issue, among them Association Board members and neighbors.
reviewed public comment protocol and opened the meeting for comment.
363 S McCarrons Blvd.
spoke to the proposed renewal of the Pawn America business license; and
concerns of Ms. Judy Anderson based on her view of their parking lot, with no
fence beyond that on her property.
questioned if the business had submitted their remodeling plans to the City
before proceeding with them, and if they had followed the approved process when
relocating their main entrance to the north side facing residential homes and
In her review
of the business license renewal application, Ms. Sanders also noted that there
were ten pages referenced, but only six were available on line, and wanted to
know why pages were missing and the reason those pages were not available to
displayed a photo of Ms. Anderson?s view from her backyard, and negative
impacts to those homes in the immediate area and parking lot traffic.
further noted a 22-page list of crimes happening in the immediate area over the
last year, as provided by the Police Department earlier today, as requested by
Anderson 156 S McCarrons Blvd. (behind the Dairy Queen)
expressed her concern for her personal safety, and cited several examples of
discomfiting experiences. Ms. Anderson also noted the considerable trash
coming onto her property from the Pawn America parking lot, creating urban
blight and making the area appear like a ghetto. Ms. Anderson noted that her
mother had previously occupied the home since 1974, so she was familiar with
the previous qualify of life and current problems, including noise, loitering,
car lights, swearing by patrons, and other issues she considered a real
invasion of her privacy as a Roseville resident. Ms. Anderson noted that this
had become more problematic since the relocation of the door for Pawn America;
and with the recent hold-up of the facility, she was even more insecure with
changes and the consequences of those changes over the year.
spoke to other experiences she?d faced at her residence, with an SUV crashing
into the home in 2011; and other stresses that she felt made her home no longer
safe, and were eroding the neighborhood. Ms. Anderson thanked the City Council
for their consideration of her concerns.
sought specific remedies being sought by the Neighborhood Association, whether
specific to the precious metal license currently before the City Council, or
with other specific issues.
advised that the neighborhood, at a minimum, wanted to see a barrier or fence
installed by Pawn America to reduce opportunities of crime, excessive noise and
lights from vehicles. Ms. Sanders asked the City Council for a site review of
the property to determine impacts.
movement of the door asked about by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised
that he had noted that public comment, and would ask for staff's review of that
466 Bayview Drive
noted that, with this business license renewal initially part of the Consent
Agenda, the public typically didn?t study that portion of the agenda in great
detail. However, Ms. Hilden noted that this experience may prompt them to do
so in the future. Ms. Hilden noted the existence of the Neighborhood
Association for twenty-two years, and suggested this was a good example of why
the City should provide notice to them and other associations in the City of
this type of action item to allow them to provide input. Ms. Hilden stated
that an ongoing and grave concern of the neighborhood is that the whole corner
of Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street are continuing to deteriorate, and asked
that they be included in part of the discussion and solution in resolving
issues related to that area. Ms. Hilden asked that, in the future and as
applicable, the Neighborhood Association be notified in some official way of
potential issues of interest to them, including future Consent Agenda items.
recognized the Association?s interest and expressed appreciation for bringing
their request for involvement and notification to the City's attention.
Armstrong, Chief Legislative Officer for Pawn America
noted Pawn America?s location at this site since the mid-1990s, as the fourth
store in their current chain, with facilities in over twenty-four communities. Mr.
Armstrong stated that it was his understanding that the store did follow the
proper and quite extensive procedures for remodeling.
offered to provide his business card to residents of the Neighborhood
Association; and expressed his firm's interest in being a good neighbor, and
asked that they contact him with their issues and concerns, allowing them to
all work together to resolve issues. Mr. Armstrong advised that he was aware
of attempts by a previous manager at the facility to reach out to the
neighborhood, but was unsure of the results of that attempted connection.
However, Mr. Armstrong assured the City Council, and Association of his
interest in being of assistance in resolving any problems.
On a side
noted, and regarding the recent robbery, Mr. Armstrong asked to go on record in
expressing his appreciation to the City Police Department for their efforts and
response, and subsequent apprehension of those individuals and bringing them to
justice. Mr. Armstrong expressed his sincere appreciation for the Department?s
fantastic work, opining they had done a great job. Mr. Armstrong advised that
this was the first time a firearm had been discharged in a robber, and
hopefully the last.
McCormack, Wheeler Street
Ms. McCormack expressed
her appreciation and empathy for what she was hearing from another neighborhood
association other than from her own neighborhood. Ms. McCormack advised that
she had been unaware of the discharge of a firearm during a recent robbery,
which she found disconcerting.
In her personal
review of the RCA, Ms. McCormack noted that business licenses were subject to a
successful background check; opining that this raised an issue for her as to
what that investigation involved, or was deemed necessary for City Council
approval for certain types of licenses; and if calls for Police service were
part of that regular background check a review. Ms. McCormack expressed her
hope that they were part of the review; however, she asked that the review be
written down to allow discussion to ensure the safety of a neighborhood.
remodeling of the facility was done after their initial application, Ms.
McCormack asked what appropriate conditions of the license or review were required;
and sought clarification if this was a land owner issue for screening, or if
there was an exemption in relation to business licenses.
With no one
else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe closed public comment at this time.
Mayor Roe asked
staff for comment regarding their review of the remodeling and door relocation;
whether handled through administrative approval of the building permit or if
staff needed more time for follow-up on that public question.
Trudgeon advised that staff had reviewed some information prior to tonight's
meeting, noting that in 2009, a Building Permit was issued as Pawn America
expanded into vacant space in the building. Since the existing use was normal
and permitted in this building, Mr. Trudgeon advised that no site plan or other
City Council action was required, nor were there any requirements triggering a
screening fence for this existing use, with the Building Permit handled as a
typical remodel. Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation that Mr. Armstrong had
come forward tonight, and agreed with the suggestion from the neighbors for a
fence, and his intent to follow-through with Mr. Armstrong to determine Pawn
America?s willingness to consider that recommendation. However, as part of
their license renewal, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would need to research
that, but did not think installation of a fence or screening could be made a
condition of their license renewal.
Specific to the
referenced Police Department report presented by Ms. Sanders, City Manager
Trudgeon clarified that the report included ALL police calls to the site over
the last three years, whether for medicals, proactive police visits or other
reasons, with the entire twenty-two page report not all crime-related. Mr.
Trudgeon further clarified that the Police Department performed background
checks as part of their normal course of action for all license applications
stated that it would be helpful to him to have information from staff
pertaining to the original Interim Use Permit and conditions required for that
Trudgeon clarified that the operation was under a Conditional Use, not an
Interim Use permit, but duly noted Councilmember Willmus? request for
additional information on original conditions.
public's concern with renewal of this license, Councilmember Willmus suggested
separating the question to consider this license from the other renewals.
Mayor Roe asked
City Attorney Gaughan whether or not conditions could be applied to this
specific license renewal request.
Gaughan clarified that this license application renewal was for a precious
metals dealer license; and advised that very rarely could items such as
screening for lights be made a condition for renewal if not part of City Code. Given
the nature of this professional license, as noted by City Manager Trudgeon, Mr.
Gaughan advised that there were no conditional prerequisites in place; and
clarified that the City?s Zoning Code applied to properties, and was a more
appropriate place for those issues to arise, but not as part of a professional
license application or renewal.
the background checks, Mayor Roe asked if that was required by State Statute or
by City Code.
Gaughan advised that background checks were a statutory mandate, and as a point
of information for the City Council and public, a considerable amount of the
data obtained during that background check was covered under the Government
Data Practices Act and considered private data. Mr. Gaughan advised that this
was often why approvals coming before the City Council stated that approval was
pending completion of those background checks, for those circumstances when or
if criminal history was found by the Police Department, its specifics or history
cannot be publically disclosed; but a simple "yes" or "no" be provided as to
whether or not the applicant passed or did not pass the background check,
without public disclosure.
current Zoning Code now includes screening of some type, Councilmember McGehee
asked if the City Council could now enforce that screening now included in
Code, if not included in 2009 when the initial Conditional Use Permit was
Gaughan responded that no, the legal, non-conforming use had been grandfathered
in, and as long as they complied with the requirements of their Conditional Use
Permit at the time they were allowed to undertake their project, they should
remain status quo.
suggested that the City Council take up all other license applications as
listed on the RCA, excluding this item.
Laliberte opined that, if it is not normal practice to approve or deny a
professional license based on zoning issues, she was unsure why it was
necessary to separate the question and exclude this renewal. While expressing
her appreciation that the neighborhood concerns had come forward, and that Mr.
Armstrong had heard the concerns and could respond accordingly, and staff address
those zoning issues, Councilmember Laliberte questioned why that should be tied
to this requested action.
suggested that until further research was done by staff on what could or could
not be taken into account as part of this renewal, and a verification of
Conditional Use Permit conditions, it may be appropriate to table this
particular renewal until the December 8, 2014 City Council meeting, thus his
rationale in agreeing with separating the question.
Based on the
fact that approval had already been given for the firm to remodel and relocate
the door, Councilmember McGehee opined that the only pending question was
whether or not the firm was in violation of their Conditional Use Permit
conditions, which was not tied to this license approval either. Therefore,
Councilmember McGehee opined that she could see no reason not to grant the license;
with the firm being good neighbors to-date and expressing her confidence that
they would work with the neighborhood on those areas of concern.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, unless otherwise noted, for applicants as listed in the RCA dated
December 1, 2014; with the exception of the Pawn Shop and Precious Metals
Dealer License renewal for Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Pawn America, located
at 1715 N Rice Street.
spoke in opposition to the motion. However, Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had another license renewal she wished to discuss and remove from the list
of license renewals: that of Walters Recycling and Refuse for a Solid Waste
Hauler License, as they did not disclose where they took their waste, as
requested as part of their application information. In following up with staff
by requesting that disclosure, Councilmember McGehee advised that she had
simply received a list of all possible places they might take their waste (e.g.
landfills and/or recovery resource sites throughout the State) which she did
not find in the spirit of information requested as part of their license renewal
application. Councilmember McGehee noted that other applicants specifically
identified where they hauled their materials.
to exclude the license renewal for Walter?s Recycling & Refuse from
consideration and table consideration until they met requirements of the application
declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
Etten noted that another solid waste hauler, Randy's Sanitation, Inc., had done
the same thing; and suggested staff include those disclosures as part of the
information provided to the City Council when considering license applications
and/or renewals. Councilmember Etten agreed that more detail was needed from
applicants and should be included by staff in the process next year.
Mayor Roe expressed
similar frustrations on reporting by haulers when listing transfer stations for
waste drop off. In his personal review of State Statute, Mayor Roe advised
that haulers need to specify where the waste went from the transfer station;
and agreed with his colleagues that the City needed to be more stringent and
diligent to determine the information being sought; and opined that it was also
helpful for residents as part of this process to get full and detailed
McGehee stated that she would like to support that suggestion more strongly;
and suggested that staff include that additional information on haulers in the
newly-expanded newsletter for the benefit of residents.
Willmus, Etten, and Roe.
Laliberte and McGehee.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, TABLING consideration of the Pawn America renewal to the December 8
meeting for receipt of additional information as requested.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, and Roe.
expressed his interest in receiving follow-up information on any interaction
between Pawn America and the Neighborhood Association between now and December
Trudgeon duly noted that request.
thanked those present in the audience for this item, and his hope for good
development and resolution of the issues and concerns brought forward.
Approve 2015 Council Calendar
Trudgeon provided a revised schedule as a bench handout, replacing the original
draft provided in meeting packet materials.
noted conflicts with his work and concert schedule in May and December; and
sought rescheduling; as well as other dates in conflict with Councilmember
included meeting requirements in December as they related to the tax levy and
meeting those deadlines to facilitate public comment and adoption of the final
levy and budget exclusive of statutory requirements and levy meetings of other
jurisdictions and agencies with taxing authority; and whether or not any and
all conflicts could be eliminated.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the 2015 City Council meeting schedule as revised.
January 5 (Organizational)
July 13 (Work Session)
August 17 (Work Session)
March 9 (Work Session)
September 21 (Work Session)
April 13 (Work Session)
October 19 (Work Session)
November 16 (Work Session)
June 15 (Work Session)
Laliberte expressed concern in identifying monthly Work Sessions, opining that
it caused some confusion, even though those meetings functioned the same as a
regular business meeting.
to consider a monthly Work Session as a practice, but not to identify them as
such in the meeting schedule.
declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.
9. General Ordinances
Request by Community Development Department for a Zoning Text
Amendment to Roseville City Code, Section 1990.03 Interim Uses
Thomas Paschke summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated December 1,
2014, and related attachments. Mr. Paschke referenced the Planning Commission
meeting minutes of October 8, 2014, and their lack of support for the proposed
text amendment as noted. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was seeking City
Council action to approve the draft ordinance as recommended by staff, or
recommendation for denial and specific findings for denying this text
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke clarified that the requested changes had been
initiated by the City Council for review and reconsideration of the current
Interim Use ordinance; and also suggested changes brought forward by staff to
for City Ordinance to comply with current State Statute; specifically addressed
in Item 3 of the draft ordinance (page 3, lines 70-71) outlining when an
Interim Use ceases to exist.
Development Director Paul Bilotta addressed the specifics of state law, noting
that the current City Ordinance and 5 year restriction was more stringent than
state statute, with Item 3 of the draft ordinance attempting to clarify by
using a specific event not just the current fuzzy ambiguities to determine when
a property was ready for development, allowing for identification of definite
events. Mr. Bilotta opined that the Planning Commission seemed to be most
concerned with elimination of the five year term, not with events.
Willmus noted his attendance at the Planning Commission meeting where this was
discussed; and opined that the Planning Commission deliberately and extensively
deliberated and rejected the entire premise of it. With regard to potential
action by the City Council and findings of fact for denial, Councilmember
Willmus questioned if there was no action taken by the City Council, was the
ordinance as drafted considered adopted, or could staff withdraw the requested
suggested that this was not an application subject to the 60-day rule.
Gaughan opined that this was a somewhat grey area, and referenced State
Statute, Section 15.99 and strict requirements of the 60-day rule; opining that
lack of action by the City Council could be deemed an approval. Mr. Gaughan
noted that statutory requirements included written findings for denial, and
those were put in place in statute to protect applicants; and in this case,
even though the request was staff-generated, if an entity was out there that
sought to do so, they may be able to have an argument that lack of action may
In order for a
complete process, and for this issue not to come up again, Mr. Gaughan advised
that it would be appropriate and he would recommend that they approve the
requested change via the revised text language in the draft ordinance, or deny
it based on written findings. If a motion seeking approval fails for any
reason under wording of the current statute, such as due to lack of a second,
Mr. Gaughan advised that the official record of the meeting needed to record
those members not voting in favor of adoption and their reasons stated for not
supporting it. While this could be deemed rather technical in nature, Mr.
Gaughan advised that the City Council follow this procedure to avoid any
outside entity bringing a technical challenge against the City Council, and in
order to follow the State Statute, Chapter 15.99 strictly.
As to the
question of withdrawing the requested text amendment, City Attorney Gaughan
opined that it could, or the City Council could do so as it was taking the
place of the applicant rather than staff withdrawing the request. However, in
terms of completing the process without any future questions being raised, as
long as the issue was currently before the City Council tonight, Mr. Gaughan
suggested that the City Council take action tonight one way or the other, as he
previously outlined. Mr. Gaughan reiterated the need for those voting ?Nay?
should a motion to approve come forward, that they state their reasons for the
record; and if a motion to deny was brought forward, that findings be
memorialized in writing as well.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Community Development Director Bilotta confirmed that
this requested zoning text amendment was staff's attempt to make the City Code
consistent with state statute for the most part, with the recommended five-year
term optional, which appeared to be where the most resistance was coming from
and desire to not remove that self-imposed restriction by the City.
Gaughan noted that deletion of that term was drafted in the earlier language,
but now the five year term was in the upper limit of the City's Interim Use
Permits, and in deleting that and other expiration date language, the City
would be erasing that certainty from the code.
moved, Willmus seconded, DENIAL of the requested Text Amendment for Interim
Uses to City Code, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 1009.03; based on the following
Findings of Fact:
current fixed timeframe of five years is more desirable than open-ended
current ordinance language provides for an optional renewal at the end of that
five-year timeframe; and anything beyond five years is not desirable or of
benefit to the City, making the five-year limit still appropriate;
or redevelopment in the City should be seeking long-term or permanent solutions
and tenants for properties and neighborhoods;
an Interim Permit is stretched beyond that five year timeframe, without ability
for City Council review of that initial use, it may become problematic for that
site or the adjacent area, and extends beyond an interim solution.
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of the motion and findings of fact; specifying that the motion be
considered city-wide, not just considering one redevelopment area in the
expressed his support for a five year term or in accordance with state statute,
and sought to amend versus deny. Councilmember Etten stated that he agreed
with the findings listed, especially the last one that provided a check for
non-conforming uses in a neighborhood. As an example, Councilmember Etten
noted the Pawn America situation and impacts on the neighborhood with changes
over time, even though he recognized that was a Conditional Use versus Interim
Use. Councilmember Etten expressed his confusion as to how to vote, and
suggested deferring action until staff brought back a clean draft for denial.
In his personal
understanding of statute, Mayor Roe noted that State Statute superseded City
Ordinance anyway, and while existing language is vague, it therefore could not
circumvent statutory requirements. Therefore, Mayor Roe stated that he was
comfortable supporting the motion.
Trudgeon agreed with Mayor Roe?s statement; noting that an Interim Use can
expire on a date specific or upon certain events.
stated the State Statute requires that conditions are not nebulous.
McGehee advised that the only reason she was wavering, was that she saw Interim
Use Permits as an alternative to Conditional Uses, opining that there were a
tremendous number of problems with Conditional Uses granted 20-30 years ago;
and this would provide some flexibility. Councilmember McGehee noted the
current tight operations of banks in financing businesses; and suggested that staff
return with something that would address that problem with something other than
a Conditional Use.
Willmus concurred with Councilmember Laliberte; opining that his focus was on
the specific length of time considering the title of the permit as interim; and
when the term stretched beyond that of the current Interim Use it no longer was
interim, but in essence conditional. Councilmember Willmus stated that this
was the overriding factor in his support of the motion in denying the text
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of the motion to deny; even though he could have supported a motion
to amend as well. Mayor Roe noted that it while it was true that current City
Councils and staff were often forced to deal with the consequences of
Conditional Use permits issued a number of years ago, he was not supportive of
using the Interim Use as a way to get around different types of approvals.
Consider Changes to City Code, Chapter 314.05; the 2015 Fee Schedule
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this request, noting that other than
removal of the word "text" on page 15 of the draft fee schedule as previously
requested by the City Council, there were no other changes beyond those from
the first presentation, and as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated
December 1, 2014. Mr. Miller sought any additional feedback from the City
Council on the variance appeal fees as previously discussed; and if they were
comfortable with the schedule as presented, asked for two actions approving an
ordinance and ordinance summary for publication purpose.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Community Development Director Bilotta
addressed the rationale in seeking a fee for appeal of a planning decision
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the background in
fee change for an outdoor sales display permit (multiple) on page 14; as a
result of City Council concerns expressed last year with certain businesses
needing to apply for multiple permits for periodic or seasonal sales, and
subsequent creation of an application for multiple permits during a given
year. Mr. Bilotta opined that this should provide for significant savings for
most applicants; but would also cover staff?s time in addressing these events,
with the Fire Marshal needing to make a visit each time an event took place.
the appeal of Planning Division decisions fee, Councilmember McGehee questioned
the need for residents to have to pay to appear before their municipal
government. Councilmember McGehee also requested additional discussion and
feedback on municipal administrative fees versus statutory fees.
requested by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan provided synopsis of the research
performed by him in conjunction with staff and reported that those municipal
administrative fees had been an issue over the last 5-10 years, and resulted in
a report by the state auditor's office. Mr. Gaughan noted that some cities
issued administrative citations for traffic enforcement, and in the Attorney
General?s formal opinion and that of the State Auditor, it was determined that
only state law violations could impose those.
Mr. Gaughan noted that the 2009 legislature had passed some level of support
for local, municipal-related traffic offenses (e.g. less than 10 miles over the
posted speed limit and/or vehicle equipment violations) to be addressed under a
local administrative citation. Mr. Gaughan noted that the City of Roseville
typically uses local administrative citations to deal with parking issues,
which was a fairly common practice in the metropolitan area. However, under
the Attorney General?s opinion, Mr. Gaughan noted that parking issues should
still be under state law authority; but it was also his personal understanding
that many of the administrative citation fees are relics from the past and
continued in case future legislatures expand the authority of local
governments. During his tenure with the City of Roseville, Mr. Gaughan advised
that no violations were issued locally, but defaulted to the state, but the
administrative fees remained in the fee schedule in case the legislature
expands administrative authority to the municipality.
or not, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City?s fee schedule be cleaned
up in accordance with state statute; and provide specificity to discourage
staff from charging residents.
Roe clarified that this was a policy discussion for the City Council.
Roe asked if the appeal of residential variance fee was the same cost for anyone
who appealed, whether a resident or business.
Development Director Bilotta responded affirmatively; noting that the fees are
part of the overall appeal process. Mr. Bilotta noted that there are multiple
opportunities for citizens to address the City Council with or without staff or
City Attorney involvement. Mr. Bilotta noted that appeals are at the discretion
of the City Council and before something reached the court system if they feel
staff is in error. Mr. Bilotta advised that the fee under discussion would
only be applicable for those contentious issues that were time consuming and
required long-time deliberation for resolution.
Willmus stated that, during his tenure on the City Council, he was only aware
of two appeals; and therefore, didn?t see an overwhelming need to have this fee
in place, and expressed his willingness to strike it from the proposed fee
Roe clarified that the fee was for the appeal of a planning decision, not the
fee for the appeal of the variance itself.
Laliberte expressed her agreement with Councilmember Willmus in the lack of
activity for this fee. With current efforts to engage the community more,
Councilmember Laliberte suggested removal of this punitive fee to initiate a process
to talk to city government, and spoke in support of striking the fee as well.
general, Councilmember Etten agreed to striking the planning appeal fee.
moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1474 (Attachment A)
entitled, ?An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2015
Fee Schedule;? amended to exclude the Administrative Fines: Parking
section in its entirety, with the exception of the Parking: Snowbird fine of
$25.00 (page 6) and deleting the Community Development Department Permit and
Miscellaneous Fee for ?Appeal of Planning Division Decisions (page 15).
Chief Mathwig clarified that, under Ramsey County traffic court citation
requirements, as recognized by all cities in Ramsey County, including Roseville,
the fee of $41 for removal of vehicles during snow emergencies was the fee
used; and opined that this was the default fee versus that of the City?s fee
schedule. However, Chief Mathwig expressed his caution in striking the fee now
unless it was referenced back to page 6 of the fee schedule under "snowbird."
parking violations, Chief Mathwig clarified that those are also identified by
Ramsey Court fees, and that fee schedule is distributed with every ticket
issued by the City?s traffic officers, under the express charge by Ramsey
County to "Do Not Divert," and therefore he hesitated to remove that from the
Roseville fee schedule at this time as well.
Willmus questioned the master sign plan fee increase proposed (page 15), with
Community Development Director Bilotta advising that it was based on the amount
of staff work for those permits, whether residential or commercial with similar
costs. Mr. Bilotta clarified that this did not relate to single-family
residential properties, but was applicable to residential multi-family buildings
or complexes or hotels with a massive sign plan, and if varying from typical
Planner Paschke noted that this is the first time the fee had been increased
for seven years; and summarized some of the staff time expended in managing
applicants and/or property owners through the process and consultation with
sign companies, reviewing plans to ensure compliance and holding public
hearings, with the process continuing to be more complicated as time goes on.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary (Attachment B) entitled, "Amending
Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2015 Fee Schedule."
Roll Call (Super
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:09 p.m.
11. Public Hearings
Conduct a Final Hearing on the 2015 Tax Levy, Budget &
Director Chris Miller provided a presentation of the City?s proposed 2015
budget, tax levy and utility rates, as detailed in the RCA and Attachment A dated
December 1, 2014.
Finance Director Miller's presentation, Mayor Roe attempted to put things in
context and reviewed how property taxes were determined and how they related to
the City's budget and levy for most residential city property tax rates divided
among all properties in Roseville. Mayor Roe noted that, on average,
single-family residential properties had seen an 11% increase in their property
taxes from 2014 to 2015. Mayor Roe noted that this also affected how the
overall amount the City collected was distributed between residential and/or
commercial properties. Mayor Roe clarified that the City could control the
levy as it related to spending, but not the overall property value except
through its code enforcement and redevelopment efforts to keep its tax base up.
Willmus requested additional information from staff before next week?s meeting,
for more detailed and up-to-date information on any carryover from the 2014
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller reported that the
City had not seen a decline in recycling tonnage in the community after
switching from dual to single-sort recycling. However, in his consultation
with Public Works Director Schwartz, Mr. Miller advised that Roseville tonnages
remained higher than many other metropolitan communities, but the resale market
for materials collected continued to decline and evolve.
Willmus reported, from his recent tour of the Eureka Recycling facility, that
paper products (cardboard and paper) were weighing in less than before, which
was attributed to them being in closed bins versus coming in wet when stored
and collected in open bins.
Roe called to order the public hearing at approximately 8:46 p.m.
Groff, Marion Road, Chair of the Roseville Human Rights Commission (HRC) and
Lisa Carey, Member of the HRC
Carey provided a program synopsis of her research on a previous presentation
given on proposed civility training for 2015, through the Institute for
Civility in Government? and the core efforts available that the HRC proposed
would be of great benefit to the community. Ms. Carey advised that the Institute
was excited about the possibility of partnering with the City for preventative
efforts. Ms. Carey provided an overview of the Institute, and history of their
efforts; and provided several bench handouts from the Institute, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Carey advised that the HRC was partnering with the Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch to bring the Institute in, at a total cost of $3,000, to which
the library had agreed to contribute $1,000 and provide space for the training
meetings, on average of four hours each, and interactive in nature for 40-60 participants.
Ms. Carey requested that the HRC was requesting an additional $2,000 be added
to the HRC 2015 budget to address the remaining amount needed for these
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
Grefenberg addressed the property tax situation, and asked Finance Director
Miller to display his overview of property taxes from 2006 to 2015. As a counterpoint
to Mr. Miller's data and comparison, Mr. Grefenberg displayed his own city tax
rate comparisons from 1995-2014, opining that Roseville's taxes increased
73.4% during that time from 2006-2015 compared to the City of St. Paul at
57.4%. Mr. Grefenberg noted that his comparison of peer cities included Ramsey
County Cities of Roseville, all subject to the same mandates as Roseville, and
including St. Paul, Maplewood, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, Arden Hills, Little
Canada, Falcon Heights, Mounds View, New Brighton, and White Bear Lake. As a
public information request, Mr. Grefenberg asked Mr. Miller to provide the
amount being paid annually for bond payments as part of budget impact levy
items and by what amount taxes were affected. When the median family income
decreased from 2000-2010, Mr. Grefenberg opined that many were having trouble
understanding continued to increase significantly.
Grefenberg complimented the City Council and Finance Director Miller on his
presentation this year, opining that it was much better than those of the past
and expressed his appreciation to the City Council for their efforts to reduce
the proposed 2015 tax levy.
Vitalli, Aladdin Street
a resident since 1972, Mr. Vitalli noted the significant increase on his property
taxes (11%); and specific to Roseville?s portion of the tax bill, asked that
they hold the city levy to the lowest possible minimum amount, opining that the
City would still get more money based on increased market values. Mr. Vitalli
noted that while income has gone down, cities still had a hard time keeping
spending in check; and while loving life in Roseville, as a retiree, he did not
get a raise. Mr. Vitalli noted the impact of losing the utility discount,
opining that the discount was being taken from residents who'd lived in Roseville
for 40 plus years, having paid taxes and bills all that time; and now giving it
to those recently coming into the community, which didn't seem fair or right to
him. Mr. Vitalli opined that he'd rather see the money go to a young family
struggling to make ends meet, further opining that priorities seem to be wrong
and he was finding it frustrating. Mr. Vitalli asked that someone listen; and
opined that the property tax situation was ridiculous, as well as the utility
bill frustrating. Mr. Vitalli opined that the City should get at least 10%
more money with the increased property values and without raising the levy at
Bergman, West County Road B (by Fairview Community Center)
Bergman opined that property tax statements continued to go up, and he continued
to hear lies, more lies, and statistics. From 2010-2014, Mr. Bergman stated
that he'd seen his property tax bill increase by 80%, or $600, while the CPI
only went up 10% during that same period. As a retiree on a fixed income, Mr.
Bergman asked for reinstatement of his senior utility discount. Focusing on
the tax base, Mr. Bergman recognized the proposed levy increase going from 3.6%
to 2.5%, but noted that the CPI only increased 1.7% annually; and asked how the
City could justify that amount of an increase. While recognizing that the
City's infrastructure needed to be addressed, Mr. Bergman expressed his
frustration in seeing continual double-digit increases.
Beck, 842 Lovell Avenue
a forty-one year resident of Roseville, and having worked for the School District
for 18 years, Ms. Beck stated that she never voted for a school levy due to the
waste she observed in the school system. Ms. Beck stated that she was
appearing as her taxes went up 16.7%, and living on a fixed income of only a
pension and social security, she didn't understand the increase and could not
afford it in addition to losing the utility discount. Ms. Beck noted that she
got help in the past with heating bills, and if she could still qualify, would
seek that assistance again. Ms. Beck opined that she was being taxed out of
her home, and at age 72 would need to go back to work to pay her property
taxes, even though she had a special needs son at home to take care of, and
preferred to spend her time with him. Ms. Beck noted that her home was not
even 1,500 square feet, and she refinanced it about four months ago through U.
S. Bank, who valued the home at $165,000, and now her property taxes are based
on a value of $211,000. Ms. Beck opined that it was all too much, plus
insurance and a house payment. Ms. Beck noted that she had attended one of the
other tax hearings and obtained information on possibly qualifying for another
tax reimbursement that she was going to pursue. However, without the utility
discount and no raises in Social Security, Ms. Beck stated that it was making
it difficult; and asked that Roseville not put in any more parks, as they
in the audience, Ms. McCormack expressed her interest in hearing the touching
and moving stories tonight; opining that the Council Chambers were the fullest
she'd seen them for a long time, and was glad to see residents talking to their
City Council. Ms. McCormack also expressed her favorable impressions with the
City Council, and with Finance Director Miller's presentation. While note
having paid much attention to the budget this year, Ms. McCormack suggested
that some of the intelligence, creativity and talent in the community be tapped
to bring people together and bridge some of the gaps to alleviate some of the issues
brought forward tonight. Ms. McCormack expressed interest in fostering more
involvement in her immediate neighborhood and garnishing energy toward
problem-solving; and suggested creative ideas in how to reduce the property tax
levy was a worthy goal for next year, and expressed her excitement about that future.
Cunningham, 2062 Dale Street
Cunningham asked how the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) monies and
levy played into this picture, with Mayor Roe offering to speak to that
following public comment.
Willenbring, 822 Lovell Avenue
Willenbring advised that his taxes increased by 64% from 2014 to 2015; and suggested
that the City Council analyze everything and find out if all taxes have to be
applied, and what they were doing when increasing taxes.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Willenbring advised that his market
value was increased by Ramsey County by $70,000.
Willmus opined that such an increase from one year the next was significant
without any improvements to the home; and strongly suggested that Mr.
Willenbring talk to Ramsey County.
Willmus also suggested that Ms. Beck also speak to Ramsey County about the
significant difference in the recent home appraisal and market value; noting
that appraisals were generally good for six months.
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Mayor Roe asked
Finance Director Miller to come forward to assist in responding to questioned
raised during public comment.
annually on park renewal and fire station bonds
Director Miller advised that the additional debt for the City for the bonds was
$2.2 million annually; with other proposed levy increases basically inflationary.
Mr. Miller advised that the bonds increased the City?s levy by approximately 2%
annually, including other capital funding.
Levy and how it relates
Roe clarified that the HRA was a separate tax levy collected specifically for
HRA purposes. Mayor Roe advised that the HRA developed an annual budget and
levy for approval by the City Council. Unfortunately, Mayor Roe noted that, on
property tax statements, the HRA appeared combined with other taxing districts,
so HRA specifics were not seen.
Director Miller advised that the 2014 HRA budget was at $703,000, and they were
proposing to keep it flat for 2015; with residents typically paying approximately
$35.00 annually, or $3.00 per month for an average property value.
Willmus noted that the HRA had initially proposed to increase their annual levy
from 2014, but had reduced it to keep it flat for 2015.
and HRA Member Etten concurred that a zero percent increase was recommended at
the most recent HRA meeting.
Roe advised that the HRA levy was calculated differently and much easier than
property taxes, and based on a different market value calculation: market value
versus tax capacity.
McGehee referenced comparisons made by Finance Director Miller at a previous
meeting on what would happen if utility rates were added to the tax levy, and
where any savings may occur within three income brackets and property values.
Roe clarified that the three property values used were: $194,000, $251,000 and $275,000;
and reviewed both sides of that equation and related increases and decreases.
McGehee opined that such a method seemed to her more fair and meaningful to
assist a broader range of people in need; and would save approximately $50
Roe noted the challenges faced in making such a policy decision, since there
was no link in income and home value; and suggested further discussion based on
facts as part of the broader December 8, 2014 budget discussion.
12. Budget Items
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider the 2015 Utility Rate Adjustments
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller advised that staff was prepared to
provide any additional information requested, but the RCA dated December 1,
2013 provided information to-date and recognized previous discussions; with the
draft resolution included in the packet ready for Council action at their
In light of
tonight's earlier presentation, Councilmember Willmus suggested that the public
be given the opportunity to digest the information; and asked that the City
Council not take action on this tonight.
Laliberte concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus; adding that
she'd like the opportunity to hear privately from homeowners if they so desired
before taking action on December 8, 2014.
Consider an Appeal for an Exemption from Roseville's Rental
License Program from the Roseville Senior Apartment Building Located at 1045
December 8, 2014 meeting.
Discuss City Tagline Project and Request to Contract for Tagline
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming preliminary meeting agendas.
Laliberte asked that a representative of the Public Works, Environment, and
Transportation Commission (PWETC) be present at the January 26, 2015 meeting
for those items within their domain and areas of interest.
concurred, noting that their attendance and comments provided a more
three-dimensional picture than could be found from meeting minutes alone.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:28 p.m.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.