View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 27, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m.
and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; and Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Roe announced the upcoming 18th annual Living Smarter Garden Fair
scheduled for Saturday, February 15, 2014, at the Fairview Community Center
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mayor Roe noted that this free event had
activities available for the entire family.
announced the upcoming "Great Gatsby Gala" at the Ramsey County Library in
Roseville, sponsored by the Friends of the Ramsey County Libraries, scheduled
for Saturday, February 1, 2014, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Laliberte provided a brief update on the recent and well-attended Open House at
the Roseville Library, hosted by Metro Transit, with attendees from the Cities
of St. Paul, Falcon Heights and Roseville. Councilmember Laliberte reported a
good independent discussion between Metro Transit staff and residents, with
requests for additional stops in Roseville made by residents. Councilmember
Laliberte advised that she had copies available, via the City Manager, of
summary sheets from that meeting, with Metro Transit in the process of drafting
a comprehensive list of comments heard to-date for distribution in the near
future. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte
opined hat requests for extending the Bus Rapid Transit line along Highway 51
(Snelling Avenue) into the TCAAP area was most likely to be considered for
future phases as TCAAP developed rather than at this immediate stage.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim February Black History Month
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring February 2014 to be Black History Month in the City of
Roseville, inviting all members of the Roseville community to renew their
commitment to ensuring racial equality, understanding and justice.
moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming February 2014 to be Black History Month in the
City of Roseville.
6. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve Minutes of January 6, and January 13, 2014 Meetings
Willmus seconded, approval of the January 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes as
amended; and approval of the January 13, 2014 Meeting Minutes as
Corrections/Comments, January 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes:
Page 11, lines 15-16 (Roe)
ethics complaints, Mayor Roe clarified that the intent was to reference a
"super" majority approach, currently part of the stricken text that needed
reinserted and corrected.
Page 11, lines 12 - 13 (Laliberte)
Laliberte clarified that she had asked the Ethics Commission Vice Chair if he
felt, from the Commission's perspective, that the process still needed work when
the entire City Council was named in a complaint that was subsequently brought
to the City Council to address; and had asked the Vice Chair to further address
that in their future review. In order to reflect that statement and request,
by consensus, that paragraph be revised as follows:
request of Councilmember Laliberte, Vice Chair Lehman confirmed that, in
hindsight, the process worked [needed additional work]
from the perspective of the Commission."
Page 21 and forward (Roe)
from "CAC" to "Advisory Commission" should all be corrected to remove any
apostrophes as applicable.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda.
Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
72566 - 72632
McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of business license
applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
Type of License
International Paper; 2425 Terminal Road
*Dragon Divas; 305 Harbor Lane; Shoreview, MN
*To conduct raffle at Rose Vine Hall, 2801 Snelling
Avenue N, Roseville, MN on March 30, 2014
One-Time Gambling Permit
Michelle Robinson; Kneaded to Relax
2585 Hamline Avenue N, #C
Markeesha Clark; Massage Xcape
1767 Lexington Avenue N
Yer Vang; Massage Xcape
Kneaded to Relax; 2585 Hamline Avenue N, #C
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and
contracts for services presented as follows; and as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated January 27, 2014; and Attachment A entitled, "2014
Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 01/21/2014."
Asphalt Patching Materials
Plate Compactor Attachment
Willmus seconded, approval of trade-in/sale of the following surplus item:
2008 Ford Pickup
Receive Update to Grant Applications Report
Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly City Grant Applications update.
Receive Shared Services Report
Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly Shared Services Update.
f. Adopt Resolution Supporting the County Request for Reconstruction
of the Highway 96 and I-35W Bridge as well as the Interchange at County Road H
Laliberte sought clarification, with confirmation by staff, that the bridge had
already been slated for replacement not repair.
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11125 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution of Support for Ramsey County's Request for TCAPP Road
Improvements at I-35W / Highway 92 and I-35W / County Road H."
Consider Resolution to Assign Tax Increment Financing Note for
TIF #19 (Applewood Pointe)
Laliberte pointed out a typographical error in line of the Request for Council
Action (RCA) and should be corrected to state that: "The assignment of the TIF
Note does [NOT] change any part of the agreement or the development."
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11126 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Assignment of Tax
Increment Financing Note;" from Applewood Pointe to PFI II, LLC, parent company
of United Properties.
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing an Application for a MN DEED Grant
for 2785 Fairview Avenue
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11127 (Attachment B) entitled,
"Resolution of Applicant;" authorizing the submittal of a redevelopment grant
from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
Redevelopment Grant application for the property located at 2785 Fairview
Authorize Joint Powers Agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Research
Willmus seconded, authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between
the City of Roseville and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for Emerald
Ash Borer (EAB) Research; allowing for reimbursement to the City for direct
costs up to $4,000 to remove and dispose of suspect EAB-infested trees and/or portions
of trees to conduct necessary research.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
McGehee thanked staff for pursuing these cooperative efforts, such as for EAB
research, as well as another application to DEED in such a timely manner; as
well as supporting the I-35W bridge reconstruction project.
8. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Adopt Ordinance Amendments and Additions to Commission Chapters
of City Code
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated January 27, 2014; seeking additional discussion and
direction from the City Council for staff. Mr. Trudgeon noted that in order
for staff to bring this item back for immediate consideration, staff had
attempted to incorporate previous discussions and feedback in drafting and
revising proposed ordinances as applicable. If the City Council chooses not to
take action on this tonight, Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that it would have some
impact on upcoming deadlines for advertising commission vacancies. If there
was not action tonight, Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council consider
setting up a process to address that delay.
Laliberte thanked staff for getting the process started so quickly, and sought
feedback from other Councilmembers related to the purpose and function of the
newly-created Finance and Community Engagement Commissions; along with
expansion of the Public Work, Environment, and Transportation Commission from
five to seven members. Councilmember Laliberte, while wanting to expedite the
process, proposed that the documents be acted upon at the February 10, 2014
City Council meeting to ensure they reflected all City Council thoughts and
comments, without the need to wordsmith them at the dais tonight.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if adoption was delayed until February
10, 2014, it would impact advertising for vacancies with various media outlets,
in order that all vacancies and openings could be identified, with the intent
to then immediately advertise effective February 11, 2014.
Whether or not
the ordinance were approved at tonight's meeting, Mayor Roe suggested that
staff include these openings in the broader commission opening advertisement
rather than delaying or separating them from other commission openings.
McGehee seconded the preferences expressed by Councilmember Laliberte; and
opined that she had no problem delaying the new Commission starts.
Councilmember McGehee further opined that the City's new Communications Manager
should be responsible for wordsmithing them; however, she stated that it was
important for the City Council to weigh in on duties and responsibilities of new
commissions, and sought to ensure those combined thoughts were included.
Commission (Chapter 207 - Attachment A)
McGehee requested the addition under "duties and functions" to include their
review of any project proposals coming before the City prior to the start of
the 60-day official review period, with the purpose of providing a cost-benefit
analysis for the activity and benefit to be realized by the community.
Councilmember McGehee opined that this was not necessarily all related to
financial considerations, but in an effort to provide a better understanding of
the project and become a formal part of the documentation following the
membership for this commission, Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for
seven versus five members, especially since they were new commissions, and
suggested that they may work better with a smaller number of members at their
Engagement Commission (Chapter 208 - Attachment B)
McGehee reiterated her comments on the proposed number of members for this
initial start up.
duties and functions (Section 208.04), Councilmember McGehee opined that Item A
read more of a mission statement; and while she had no problem with Items B
through D, she wasn't sure that the commission's role was to develop policies
and processes, but to make recommendations. In Item F, Councilmember McGehee
questioned if that commission was intended to serve as a liaison, when the Fire
and Police Departments were already performing that role; and wanted to ensure
that they weren't tripping over well-established areas. Regarding Item G,
Councilmember McGehee opined that the commission could advise the City Council
on policy matters, but they needed to go through channels rather than coming
directly to the City Council, similar to that used by other existing
commissions. Regarding Item H, Councilmember McGehee agreed that the
commission could identify barriers and problems; however, she opined that it
was not their job to remove existing functions (e.g. annual "Night Out" event),
with emergency response teams (CERT's) already in place. With Item L,
Councilmember McGehee questioned what "encouraging fellowship and relationship
building" actually meant. For Item M, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support
of including annual training/conferences in budgets; however, she didn't think
it needed to be done annually. Specific to Item N, Councilmember McGehee spoke
in support of engaging the rental population as a much needed effort; and also
supported Item O for finding opportunities to communicate in a variety of ways
and languages, opining that this item needed further expansion.
McGehee expressed her interest in a subsequent review by Communications staff
on all commissions to provide consistency and commonality in wording and duties
in consistent formats. For example, Councilmember McGehee noted that not all
commissions had a Vice Chair role, which she considered preferable.
Willmus stated that he was intrigued by that commission looking at development
proposals for a cost benefit analysis, something touched on by he and
Councilmember McGehee periodically over the last few years; and asked staff how
that would work related to timing of proposals.
Trudgeon opined that, his initial thoughts were that it would be similar to
park dedication fees, and the developer approaching the Parks & Recreation
Commission for feedback as part of the application process, but prior to their
submission of the application to the Community Development Department and
starting the 60-day formal review period. While that process worked under
those limited situations, Mr. Trudgeon questioned the value of a cost benefit
analysis, as it was difficult to determine a working model, as evidenced in his
work over several years with the University of MN and other communities in
establishing such a format. Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would take a
tremendous amount of time, and had not been accomplished to-date. To consider
punching in numbers for a cost benefit analysis, Mr. Trudgeon questioned how a
commission would work on that, since it seemed to be more of a staff model to
input data and provide a report, provided the data input and formula were
accurate. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would need to hold further discussions
with Finance Director Miller and his staff to determine if that was a workable
option and could or should be part of the duties of the Finance Commission.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in more research and exploration
on that and a future report.
A, Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in the group function equally on
short-term issues and long-term planning.
At the request
of Mr. Trudgeon as to what he considered short-term, Councilmember Willmus
responded that he considered it to be the current budget calendar and process
in any given year.
At the request
of Mr. Trudgeon regarding whether that meant their review of the steps in that
process or their direct involvement, Councilmember Willmus responded that he
would like both included.
Willmus noted that there were some comments submitted on January 6, 2014 that
had been omitted, specific to transparency in the process; with those items
needed for inclusion in the duties and functions section.
Willmus echoed many of Councilmember McGehee's comments, bearing in mind that
this commission would be advisory to the City Council, and where those duties
were stated otherwise, corrections needed to be made.
Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember McGehee related to the
Community Engagement Commission; that some of those duties went over the line
of the function of an advisory commission.
Etten suggested the addition of another item in Section 207.04 Duties and
Functions: "Reporting methods and communication to make yearly budgeting
processes and documents more open and understandable for the public;" to
encourage more transparency, with the intent for someone with a background
knowledge in finance to make the documents and process more easily understood
by the general public.
cost benefit analysis proposal of Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus,
Councilmember Etten expressed some concern, questioning how the timing would
work; and while he concurred that this should always be part of the evaluation
and consideration of any proposal, he opined that it would take a lot of staff
time and may be hard to task a commission to put every project under such
number of members being seven versus five, Councilmember Etten noted that the
City Council majority had agreed with seven members for the PWETC, as well as
seven members for the Community Engagement Commission to allow sufficient
people to attend events. Councilmember Etten spoke in support of seven members
for each commission to round things out; however, from his perspective, he
noted that Finance Commission had been proposed at five members based on the
specificity due to the preferred professional background.
McGehee spoke in support of Councilmember Etten's addition of Item D to address
clarity and transparency; and spoke in support of his recollection of the
number of members for each respective commission.
McGehee reiterated her interest in a cost benefit analysis, clarifying that she
was not intending a formulaic form to plug in numbers, either by staff or the
commission; but for major projects (e.g. Target or WalMart as examples), and a
review of additional city services that would need to be provided
Councilmember McGehee opined that there were a lot of things that would be
supported in the community that weren't necessarily on the plus side of the
ledger, but may be needed for a well-rounded community; and this would be
addressed with a more free-flowing analysis, not a formulaic analysis to
determine their value to the community.
Laliberte expressed her agreement with the majority of comments heard tonight;
and concurred that, at first glance, she found things listed in the Community
Engagement Commission ordinance to be more than advisory, causing her pause.
Councilmember Laliberte also concurred with her preference for more short-term
versus long-term reporting for the Finance Commission as her goal.
Laliberte noted that, as a member of the subcommittee, when she first proposed
her recommendations on January 6th, she had supported a civic
engagement commission and questioned the body on their preference.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal preference that it remains "Civic
Engagement Commission" as it provided consistency over time with where the City
had been and where it was going; although he admitted it may be splitting hairs
in the long run.
McGehee stated that it was splitting hairs; and advised that she didn't have a
strong feeling either way. However, when she considered the term "civic," she
looked at it as getting people involved in government, while she considered
"community" as getting people involved in their community; therefore making her
inclined to stick with "Community Engagement Commission."
Etten concurred with those comments of Councilmember McGehee, supporting
"Community Engagement Commission."
Mayor Roe noted
one solution would be to call it "Civic and Community Engagement Commission;"
however, he expressed his preference that it be "Community Engagement."
thanked Councilmember Etten for his language on the Finance Commission (Item
D), noting that it was along the same lines he intended to suggest. Mayor Roe
expressed concern in attempting a free-form cost benefit analysis and review of
development proposals; expressing his preference for a formulaic analysis,
opining that it would be helpful to have something at the start to inform those
types of applications.
concurred with those items that were not within the realm of an advisory role,
but in fact the role of the City Council. Mayor Roe opined that there were not
actually that many duties or functions remaining in this list, and offered to
provide his notes and comments to staff before redrafting a subsequent
McGehee asked that, when it came back as a future iteration, it include all
commissions in this new format; and concurred with Mayor Roe that a briefer
list of duties and a clean demarcation of duties was prudent for all
Etten opined that all commissions should be advertised together for clarity and
proceeding forward in one direction; and suggested that it be put in place on
February 10th when staff returned with revisions. However,
Councilmember Etten suggested that applications for all commission, including
the Finance and Community Engagement Commissions, could be advertised on
February 1st as originally proposed by staff; with finalizations in
duties and functions made after that advertisement.
Trudgeon sought clarification on the number of members determined for this
Willmus spoke in support of seven members to allow sufficient membership as
members resigned or rolled off; still allowing the commission to function with
a broad enough perspective that the role of the commission was not diminished
during the transition.
Willmus spoke in support of seven members for all commissions.
suggested, if all commissions were proposed at seven members, further
discussion could ensue during ordinance consideration.
her notes, Councilmember Laliberte noted seven members, plus one youth member
was indicated for this commission.
duties and functions based on the discussion at the January 6th
meeting, Mayor Roe noted his intent that the commission also be involved with
the community visioning process, with his language being: "advise the City
Council on development, documentation, publicity and periodic review; and serve
as the steering committee for future updates to the visioning process." Mayor
Roe suggested that this be included as he originally intended.
McGehee concurred, other than for them serving as the steering committee for a
larger visioning project, such as the vision or comprehensive plan process.
McGehee noted that there were times the City Council found it difficult to fill
five vacancies, let alone seven; and opined that she was not convinced seven
members were necessary or doable, especially those new commission just starting
Willmus suggested further discussion on February 10th, at which time
he may be willing to reconsider his position on the size of membership.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he thought it would be beneficial to have 2-3
members with very solid financial backgrounds or professional certification in
the field; as well as members of the general public, and having seven members
would provide a broader perspective, and was causing him to lean in that
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, noting that another advantage of having
seven members allowed varying terms to rotate members rather than having to
start over with a clean slate. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that all seven
members didn't need to have professional financial expertise.
Etten, in referencing the January 6th meeting minutes, noted that
the discussion at that time mirrored tonight's discussion, and suggested
membership of five or seven be discussed at a later date, but with a firm
understanding on what qualifications should be sought for this commission.
Councilmember Etten stated that he was not sure he was ready to provide that
exact language right now, but opined that the City Council should do so.
Laliberte further agreed that advertising for all commissions should be done at
once, including the new commissions.
reiterated his preference for seven members on commissions to allow them a huge
advantage in creating subcommittees for more specific issues and research in a
Mayor Roe noted
that in the Establishment/Membership portion of the ordinance (Section 207.01),
the language indicating the number of members included the statement could be
revised to include language such as, "at least some of whom SHALL have
accounting or financial backgrounds," allowing the City Council some
Trudgeon reviewed and clarified proposed changes for next iteration, including
the need for initial staggering of terms; and questioned whether the City
Council would consider those one-year shorter terms to be partial or full term
for future consideration of reappointment. Mr. Trudgeon noted that it often
took members that first year to get familiar with the work of a commission, and
if they were able to recognize that they were initially signing up and most
likely would be reappointed, it may be more beneficial, especially with the
Finance Commission with the budget process and timing of creation of the
commission and bringing people on board. Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be
challenging to jive creation of the commission with the budgeting process, and
a lot of time may need to be spent initially going over documents.
scenario, Mr. Trudgeon recommended that the first year of the Finance
Commission be dedicated to dialogue with staff and tuning in during 2015 for
the 2016 budget cycle.
Trudgeon suggested that, while much of the cost for creating these two new
commissions would be absorbed by staff, there would be incidental costs (e.g.
copying and event sponsorship), which the City Council should keep in mind for
future budget projections.
Trudgeon noted that interviews by the City candidates was typically done at the
first part of a regular meeting; however, with an additional potential for 16
new positions, in addition to the other vacancies or openings, Mr. Trudgeon
suggested that the City Council consider a separate special meeting, with staff
prepared to suggest some dates and times to program them in.
If the City
Council was comfortable in changing the PWETC to seven members, and changes
proposed for the indemnification definitions, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the
City Council consider approving Attachments B and E tonight. Referencing
Attachment C, Mr. Trudgeon noted that would take further review and revision to
address impacts to the Human Rights Commission, and suggested it be taken up at
a later time with additional discussions for the Community Engagement
Regarding the this
commission not being up to speed until 2015, Councilmember Willmus spoke
against further delaying their involvement in the budget process, opining that
he anticipated those serving would be capable of being brought up to speed
rapidly, and encouraged that they be involved in the 2015 budget cycle as well,
seeing no major concerns, but allowing for any necessary adjustments. To have
the intent at the start to not have them involved until the 2016 budget cycle,
Councilmember Willmus opined that this was too far out on the time line for his
Etten concurred with Councilmember Willmus regarding the timing and involvement
in the 2015 budget process; even though he didn't see them prepared to offer
any recommendations for policy changes that might affect the budget
immediately, but opined that it wouldn't hurt the budget process any, and while
many people may understand budgeting, a natural delay may become evident, but
should not be purposely delayed at the start.
Laliberte concurred, opining that while they may not make immediate
suggestions, they would be able to roll up their sleeves and have a voice in
the process, an important consideration.
concurred, opining that they could plug into the process as they felt
appropriate, and suggested they be part of the process as much as they felt
comfortable in doing. Mayor Roe further opined that, as far as documentation
was concerned, improvements may be evident through the initial involvement of
the commission and be a natural occurrence.
Laliberte concurred that all changes be done as one, specific to Attachments B
McGehee concurred that the things intended for this commission to make the budget
more transparent and easier to understand, were more likely to come from the
commission's involvement as they work through understanding it themselves.
Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1459 (Attachment D) entitled "An Ordinance
Amending Selected Text of Sections 205.01 (Establishment and Membership) of
Title 2, "Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission" of the City
Code;" and enactment of Ordinance No. 1460 (Attachment E) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 1, Chapter 105, Section 105.1 of Indemnification."
McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Willmus seconded referring remaining draft ordinances to the City Manager and
staff for revisions as discussed tonight, including changes to make all
commission documents consistent; with those drafts provided to the City Council
for their review prior to the February 10th meeting, and scheduled
for final approval at the February 10, 2014 City Council meeting.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte regarding the extent of those revisions,
Councilmember McGehee clarified that she intended that her motion include ALL
Mayor Roe advised that such an all-encompassing intent may change his support
of the motion, given the amount of staff time required to accomplish that
request, especially with commissions that already exist. Mayor Roe opined that
it would be prudent to review them as time allows; however, he expressed
concern in asking staff to do so now to make them all consistent.
offered a friendly amendment that only the two new commissions be revised at
this time; with the others reviewed after the adoption of the 2 new ordinances.
The makers of
the motion accepted this friendly amendment.
Roll Call (as amended)
Trudgeon asked that the City Council think about their intent and have an
ensuing discussion at a future meeting regarding whether the Finance Commission
was to review all Department Head budgets and make recommendations to the City
Council, or to be involved in the steps and review those budgets for clarity
and transparency as the City Council considered them. In other words, whether
the City Council's intent was to have the commission at the table with
Department Heads at the staff level before information was brought to the City
Willmus suggested that, as the commission was established, that should be one
of their first discussion points, with some of the process being self-guiding.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he would be comfortable if they wanted to get
into each department in-depth; and suggested further discussion on February 10th
included the best time for this group to meet, opining that it may be better
suited to meeting earlier in the day or after work; but also to make sure those
meeting times remained cognizant of staff and Department Head time and
Laliberte opined that staff should not be required to duplicate their efforts
for the advisory commission and the City Council; but her intent was that the
commissioners watch the Department Head presentations to the City Council to
Mayor Roe, as a
point of clarification, questioned if Mr. Trudgeon intended that the commission
be involved earlier in the budget process at the staff level with Department
Heads prior to presentation to the City Council; to which Mr. Trudgeon responded
affirmatively. Mayor Roe questioned if the commission would actually want to
get involved that early in the process.
McGehee opined that this commission would prove most helpful in interfacing
with the final budget and the public and route questions through a liaison
person. Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw no need for them to attend
Department Head meetings.
Approve/Deny a Brew Pub Off-Sale Liquor License for Granite City
located at 851 Rosedale Center #1005
Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the request by Granite City Food &
Brewery for a Brew Pub Off-Sale Liquor License at 851 Rosedale Center #1005.
Mr. Miller clarified that this step was not a reflection of any change in
operations at Granite City, as they continued to operate as a multi-tiered
liquor licensee, both for on- and off-sale licenses. Mr. Miller advised that
the action being brought forward was simply a change in previous staff
interpretation, and subsequent discussions with the State regarding licensing
requirements, with the State indicating that Granite City should have a Brew
Pub License. Mr. Miller advised that this would be added to the annual liquor
license renewal process under this new interpretation.
No one from
Granite City was present to speak.
opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:15 p.m.; with no one
appearing for or against.
Business Items (Action Items)
Etten seconded, APPROVAL of the request of Granite City for a Brew Pub Off-Sale
Liquor License at 851 Rosedale Center, #1005 for the period ending December 31,
Consider a Request to STAY the Transfer and License Renewal of an
Off-Sale Liquor License to Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC (Total Wine
handouts specific to this item, included a revised draft resolution (Attachment
A); and written public comments dated January 24, 2014 to the Roseville City
Council and City Manager received from Ms. Wendy Thompson attached hereto
and made a part hereof,
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan reviewed the background of the
transfer and renewal; and subsequent action of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage
Association and Stephens Liquor Store (a/k/a Fairview Wine & Spirits)
bringing legal action to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, contesting the City
Council's decisions. Mr. Gaughan clarified that this was not a reconsideration
of the City Council's actions taken in December, but since the request was for
appellate review of that action, the entities referenced above were requesting
the City Council to STAY their decisions pending the outcome of the appellate
Attorney Gaughan advised Councilmembers that there were three options available
to the City Council: 1) to deny the request to stay enforcement; 2) to grant to
stay enforcement; or 3) to grant the request but condition it upon the
Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Stephen's Liquor Store to provide
security to preserve the value of the license to the license holder. Mr.
Gaughan noted that, if the license holder intends to begin operations this
spring, there may be some financial impacts to them if the license is not
enforceable at that time.
Attorney Gaughan advised that the City Council may wish to take testimony from
all parties with a stake in this issue; and in this body's role as a
quasi-judicial authority, they needed to base their action on specific findings
of fact. Mr. Gaughan advised that a draft resolution to that effect, including
blanks for those findings, was included as a bench handout at tonight's
meeting. Mr. Gaughan advised that, no matter the decision whether to stay or
not, the parties could bring a motion forward to the Court of Appeals,
requesting a stay of enforcement. Mr. Gaughan advised that the next step would
be if the parties wanted to continue to pursue this under those legal remedies;
but it would be appropriate for the City Council to hear from the requesting
entities and from others with any potential direct impact on the face of the
City Council's decision tonight.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Gaughan addressed ramifications if the
appellate court found that the City Council had been wrong in transferring and
renewing the license. City Attorney Gaughan advised that those ramifications
would depend on the particulars of any appellate decision, one of which may be
that they return the matter to the City Council for a further decision, opining
that it would be his expectation if the Board of Appeals felt the transfer and
renewal had some defect, that they may want this body to hash it out or bring
to some conclusion. Mr. Gaughan noted that it may be possible that the Board
of Appeals may also determine that the decision should not have been made in
2013 and allow the appeal to continue on, with a potential for the Court to
determine that Total Wine & Spirits is not eligible for a license.
Attorney Gaughan's opinion was provided in Attachments B and C to the RCA via
memoranda addressed to the City Council, and respectively dated December 24,
2013, and January 23, 2014.
Roe briefly reviewed protocol for testimony at this time; and called first on
the Requester(s) for the stay.
O'Neill Moreland, for Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
representing Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Stephens Liquor Store,
O'Neill's written responses were included as Attachments B and D and dated
December 20, 2013, and January 20, 2014, respectively.
O'Neill Moreland briefly reviewed the appeal process to the City Council, and
court rule requirement, addressed in her written submission providing why they
believed they should grant a stay. Ms. O'Neill Moreland opined that this
boiled down to public safety and the issue of their request to the court to
reversed the City Council's decision and no longer have the license in
existence versus having someone in the community operating under a license not
O'Neill Moreland noted that the other issue was one of security, within the
discretion of the City Council and reviewable by the Court of Appeals; opining
that while the City Attorney had said the action was intended to protect the
licensee, instead she referenced the City Council to the actual wording of
court rules that the security was to protect he respondent (i.e. the City), and
that the licensee is not a respondent unless they were to intervene in the
action, but not currently or legally the respondent. Ms. O'Neill Moreland
opined that the security was to protect the City; and advise that they
attempted to estimate those license fees that seemed to be the extent of
potential damage to the City.
Ball, Director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association was present,
but provided no additional comment beyond those of Ms. O'Neill Moreland.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, and based on appellate court action, Ms.
O'Neill Moreland confirmed that if the petitioners sought a stay, they needed
first to appear before this body, and if unsuccessful here, then return to the
Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC/Total Wine & Spirits (License Holder)
Representatives Mark Jacobson, Attorney with Lindquist and Vennum: and David
Tron, Managing Partner of Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits
Jacobson pointed out several other attorneys in the audience as part of the
legal team for the license holder.
the firm most affected, Mr. Jacobson stated that they were in opposition to the
stay. Mr. Jacobson opined that the City Council had made their decision and it
should go forward. Mr. Jacobson noted that the effect of a stay would be to
undo that decision. Mr. Jacobson further opined that this appeal was very
strange, since it was odd to have an appeal to granting a liquor license come
from an association working with liquor stores.
Jacobson advised that they would file tomorrow for a dismissal of the appeal,
since a requirement of an appeal was that you serve every adverse party; and
only after the Court of Appeals found Total Wine an adverse party, were they
served; however, the landlord was never served, and he obviously also had an
interest. While that may sound simply like a technical glitch, Mr. Jacobson
opined that, the reason he thought the landlord was not served was to avoid an
obligation for the parties to put up any security or bond to ensure those
bearing the brunt remained whole.
Jacobson opined that he was confident the Court would affirm the City Council's
decision and that a stay would be in error; and further opined that their
motion to dismiss will end the appeal. If that does not happen, Mr. Jacobson
opined that they expected to prevail. Mr. Jacobson opined that the City
Council had done their due diligence and their duty in properly granting the
transfer to Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits and renewal of that license; and
therefore saw no reason to effectively grant a stay or relief from that
addressing one of the reasons for the stay from the relators being public
safety, Mr. Jacobson noted that their letter didn't identify what that public
safety issue was: if sales to minors, intoxicated people, or events crating a
public safety issue; and further noted that they had not seen any allegations
to that effect. Mr. Jacobson opined that there was a good reason that there
were no allegations available, as Total Wine & Spirits and Minnesota Fine
Wines & Spirits, with over 100 stores nationwide, some in operation since
the 1980's or 1990's, had operated with the vast majority never having received
any such violation.
Jacobson addressed what would happen if the City Council chose to grant a stay:
with citizens, for a period of time, deprived of having a tenth liquor store;
and for a period of time, those employees already hired for the Roseville store
not being employed in Roseville. Therefore, Mr. Jacobson opined that, if the
city Council granted the stay, the people of Roseville wouldn't get the benefit
of the decision the City Council made several months ago.
specifically addressing the bond or security, Mr. Jacobson sought to clarify
that the reason for a bond is simple, that a stay is unusual, and if the City
Council granted one, even though having originally supported the license, but
now taking it away until the Court of Appeals made a decision; the bond served
as an obligation to make the party whole if the Appeals Court agrees with the
City Council decision, including Total Wine & Spirits and their landlord.
the comments of City Attorney Gaughan in his correspondence, Mr. Jacobson noted
that, whatever decision the City Council made on the stay, it would be
appealed; also any decision of the Court of Appeals, probably to the Supreme
Court, thereby making a realistic timeframe for resolution a minimum of one
Jacobson provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, providing estimated costs if such a delay was to occur, of
critical importance to his clients.
Tron reviewed the bench handout by category for real estate-related costs,
facility operating expenses, carrying costs, and payroll costs. Mr. Tron
stated that their team members, a/k/a/ their employees, were a key part of
their company's success. Mr. Tron advised that his family had been in the
business for 30 years; 22 years since the first wine, beer and spirits store
was opened; having gone from a one-store operation building to over 100 stores
over 15 states, with approvals across the county. Mr. Tron opined that the
success of their business is their focus on the customer, from hiring the best
and training, training, training; with 40-50 employees per store - depending on
volume - and 75% of those team members being full-time employees. Mr. Tron
opined that their company was company was committed to providing their
employees with benefits, a crucial step in getting the best people and
service. Mr. Tron noted that this was often not appreciated by their
competitors. Through their firms' selection and focus on customers, Mr. Tron
noted that they had been named by three different trade groups in the industry
as the Best National Retailer three times. Mr. Tron noted that their firm
donated over $4 million to nonprofits in communities in which they work, and
further noted that they believed in becoming involved in those communities.
Mr. Tron noted that this business model had met with long-term success and
never having had to close a store.
Tron advised that this cost is significant if opening is delayed; but the firm
would work to hold those employees on board if already invested in and trained,
such as they had done in the City of Bloomington, with those management
employees still being paid but traveling elsewhere to their other locations in
order for the firm to retain them. As stated by Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Thon stated
that he found no reason to grant a stay, which would hurt their firm
significantly. If the City Council was to grant a stay, Mr. Thon opined that a
bond should be required to make their firm whole if the court concurs that the
City Council had made the right decision in the first place.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Tron confirmed that the management
employees hired in Bloomington had been provided an opportunity to work at
their facilities elsewhere. Mr. Tron noted that merchandisers and cashiers,
their lowest paid employees, had to be laid off, but all management and service
people were now working elsewhere in other states.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Tron responded that merchandisers and
cashiers were typically paid in the range of $10 to 13, with overtime offered
if interested; and store managers typically made about $60,000 to $90,000.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Tron advised that the intent had
been to open in middle or late march of 2014, with the store currently under
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Tron clarified that the landlord was
doing the remodeling, with the license holder responsible for the costs of the
F/F/E (fixtures, furniture and equipment) of approximately $1.1 million, with
inventory purchases anticipated at approximately $2 million. While the
landlord could speak for themselves, Mr. Tron estimated that they would be
investing between $1 million and $1.5 million in the build-out of the facility.
Erin Mathern, Attorney with Larkin Hoffman, representing the landlord, Tanner
Development at Rosedale Marketplace
tenants go, from a landlord's perspective, Ms. Mathern opined that Total Wine
& Spirits was a good anchor tenant for Rosedale Marketplace to bring
traffic to the shopping mall as well as into Roseville generally. Ms. Mathern
confirmed that her client had agreed to expend $1.5 million in landlord
improvements to the leased space, as part of the 158-page lease agreement
between the parties. Ms. Mathern noted that a good portion of the lease was
related to tenant improvements, and what the landlord intended to do so the
tenant could operate in that space. Based on the actual changes being made to
the building, and potential economic injury to the landlord if a stay was
granted, Ms. Mathern advised that the landlord was definitely opposed.
matter the decision of the City Council regarding the stay, Ms. Mathern advised
that the landlord would need to continue with the construction in order to
fulfill their obligations under the lease agreement, providing a significant
and direct interest in the matter.
Mathern opined that they were of the opinion that the City Council had made a
correct decision, and with the matter going before the Court of Appeals, it was
their intent to file a brief as well, since their client has an interest in the
outcome of any action. Ms. Mathern noted that the landlord had not been served
as of last Friday, the last day to do so; and asked that the City Council not
grant a stay, but continue forward as originally intended.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Mathern confirmed that the lease
agreement had been signed September 3, 2013.
Roe offered both parties an opportunity to respond to comments made after their
O'Neill Moreland clarified that they were not asking the City Council to
reverse their decision, but simply asking for a stay; while they sought the
Court of Appeals action to reverse the City Council's decision.
addressing the definition of "respondent," Ms. O'Neill Moreland reviewed
statute language regarding who needed to be served, questioning who the adverse
parties were; and opining that just because someone said they were going to
bring a motion did not mean they would be permitted to do so by law. Ms.
O'Neill Moreland noted that Total Wine & Spirits had to pay rent
regardless, and that negated their argument that the landlord was a
respondent. While not having seen the lease or motion yet, Ms. O'Neill
Moreland further opined that it may be dependent on how those improvements are
recouped during the term of the lease. However, Ms. O'Neill Moreland noted the
need to focus on what is the damage to the City of Roseville.
public safety issues, Ms. O'Neill Moreland referenced their submission showing
research of what had occurred in other states; and regardless of their
commitment to community, opined that the firm had committed errors in their
operations resulting in significant fines, which had not been fully disclosed
to the City Council during their earlier deliberations. Ms. O'Neill Moreland
noted that the City was not considering this company for opening a shoe store,
but for a controlled substance; and their apparent shell game of not disclosing
what needed to be disclosed now needed to be done.
Tron addressed damages, noting that the lease called for their firm to pay rent,
with a ten-year lease, with fifteen years in options, which he had personally
guaranteed for the first five years. After that, Mr. Tron noted that the
landlord would pay and have significant loss.
public safety and health, Mr. Tron stated that he found the comments insulting,
noting that they were considered the best operator in the United States,
following rules and regulation, with the majority of those operations extremely
successful, and out of the 100 stores, having minimal (i.e. 10-11 minor
violations) across that number. Mr. Tron opined that this was a much better
record than could be found elsewhere. Mr. Tron noted that their firm paid
their cashiers bonuses to card individuals under age 30, 100% of the time; with
over $1 million in bonuses paid out to-date. Mr. Tron opined that there was no
danger in their operations; and further opined that, if they were found to
violate the privilege of being a license holder in Roseville, they fully
respected and understood that the City Council had the right to take that
the request of Mayor Roe, concluding testimony, City Attorney Gaughan provided
additional advice. Mr. Gaughan noted that, with the issue of the respondent
and action of the Court of Appeals, an awkward scenario was created, with the
City of Roseville's City Council operating as a quasi-judicial body but also a
respondent to what occurs. Mr. Gaughan noted that the respondent also cites
the trial court as the City Council, which obviously wasn't the case as referenced
in his memorandum to the City Council, with the terminology not perfectly
applying to these issues, with the City Council operating as an agency to take
the place of a trial court but also able to be named as a respondent. Mr.
Gaughan referenced case law from the City of Prior Lake v. MGM Liquors as an
example, in which Ms. O'Neill Moreland had represented MGM Liquors. Mr.
Gaughan opined that it was appropriate to consider Total Wine & Spirits as
the respondent for the request for a stay.
McGehee referenced some new facts included in tonight's packet, with
undisclosed violations pending within the last five years, clearly a violation
of the City's ordinance causing the City not to be able to enforce its own
regulations by granting the transfer under those circumstances. Councilmember
McGehee opined that she found this entire event unfortunate. Furthermore,
Councilmember McGehee noted the date of the lease agreement date of September
13, 2013; opining that this involved the City prematurely, a troubling business
practice, especially since being a license holder was a privilege; and to her
it seemed like the prudent thing to do would be to make sure the license was in
place before signing a lease agreement; and that the City Council would not
have any objection. Councilmember McGehee stated that she found that
situation, combined with the failure to disclose the violations and further
indication of a violation of the City's own code and questionable moral
consequence in the community, to be very disappointing. Councilmember McGehee,
referencing her review of other legal cases, opined that it appeared that the
license holder was attempting to deflect or avoid action and permanent
violations on their record, which would speak to the question of moral fiber.
While not being interested in calling people to question on such issues,
Councilmember McGehee opined that she could see issues with MN State laws and
those of other states.
Willmus clarified that the City's ordinance had language requiring execution of
a lease and going forward with construction of the physical establishment
before applying and being granted a license. Councilmember Willmus referenced
a case having come before the City Council several years ago before with the
applicant coming to the City Council seeking a license before they had a
physical place of businesses; and as heard mentioned by the Minnesota Licensed
Beverage Association and Councilmember McGehee at that time, that applicant was
deemed to have the cart before the horse.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller confirmed the
recollections of Councilmember Willmus; and advised that staff didn't even
bring a liquor license applicant to the City Council's attention before they
had a lease in place.
Willmus noted that the City Council had previously heard from Mr. Burwell of
Stephen's Liquor Store, the issue of harm to public safety. However,
Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't find that potential harm to be any
greater with Total Wine & Spirits than with other liquor establishments in
Roseville. On the other side, Councilmember Willmus opined that there was the
obvious potential for harm to the licensee and property owner. Councilmember
Willmus stated that those factors would lead him down a path to not grant a
stay based on that as one finding of fact.
Laliberte stated that she concurred with some of Councilmember Willmus'
comments; opining that there was a case to be made for more harm on the part of
Total Wine & Spirits than any inferred public safety risk presented.
Councilmember Laliberte also concurred that there was no cause for public
safety concerns any greater than with any other liquor establishment in
Roseville; and took issue with the original complaint or filing of appeal
stating that the City Council had been capricious in its approval.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that she was confident that she had personally
weighed and considered what was presented before the meeting and ad the dais
before making her decision. As noted in Attachment B, the Larkin Hoffman
letter, Councilmember Laliberte referenced the comment that the City Council
has broad discretion on liquor licenses; and reiterated her confidence that
this was how the City Council had acted under that discretionary authority.
Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was leaning toward a denial
of a stay.
Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte, and
offered no further comments beyond questioning what actual losses the Minnesota
Licensed Beverage Association and/or Mr. Burwell would have based on issuance
of this license. Councilmember Etten expressed his confidence in the City's
Police Department in holding this license holder as responsible as it did other
licensees in the City.
McGehee opined that she didn't particularly disagree with the public safety
concern; and in the narrow sense in which the City Council was being asked to
be an appellate body, she would support the stay since she had supported
delaying action in the first place until the City of Bloomington issue had been
resolved. Councilmember McGehee stated that she did have a problem with the
license holder removing wine from the premises of the previous license holder,
opining that this was clearly flaunting the City's laws. With Total Wines
& Spirits having asked the City of Bloomington to delay until April of 2014
a response from their firm to their questions, Councilmember McGehee questioned
what ultimate harm could be felt by them or the other side to grant the stay
under these circumstances, and opined that it would be prudent to do so.
Understanding that she was in the minority, as she had been before,
Councilmember McGehee stated that she could not present any stronger argument
to grant or not grant a stay than she previous stated.
Roe clarified that findings of fact needed to be indicated no matter which
action was taken tonight by the City Council.
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11128 (revised Attachment
A) entitled, "A Resolution Regarding the Determination on a Request to STAY the
Decisions to Transfer and Renew an Off-Sale Liquor License to Minnesota Fine
Wines & Spirits, LLC;" as requested by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage
Association and Stephens Liquor Store, STAYING the City Council's November 25,
2013 licensing approvals pending the outcome of an appeal filed by these same
parties of the City's approvals; as revised; DENYING the request based on
the following findings:
1) There is
no public safety issue;
2) There is
no harm to the Minnesota Beverage Association or Stephen's Liquor;
3) There is
harm to Total Wine & Spirits; and
4) There is
harm to the property owner/landlord.
McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for the following reasons: she did
not feel that the allegations referenced in the RCA of undisclosed violations
between 2011 and 2013 had been fully disclosed by the applicant, clearly
speaking to whether the City of Roseville should encourage such types of
business practices; the failure of the applicant to fully disclose those recent
violations, opining that was a violation of the City's own rules; there was
clearly a failure by the applicant to comply with MN rules for disposition of
liquor; there was no actual damage to aggrieved parties, as all contracts could
be renegotiated; there was no substantial loss to any party involved in this;
and the original action by the City Council to approve the transfer and renewal
was premature, even though she understood there was no place for people to move
into. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would support a stay.
Roe clarified that this motion was not an action to reconsider previous City
Council action to transfer the liquor license; but was a request by the
Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Stephens Liquor (a/k/a Fairview
Wine & Spirits) to temporarily set it aside pending litigation. Mayor Roe
spoke in support of the motion as stated, stating that he agreed with the
findings as stated; and agreed that there was no harm to Minnesota Licensed
Beverage Association or Stephens Liquor Store.
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Consider Waiving Delinquent Utility Charge for 2462 Prior Avenue
Director Chris Miller summarized this delinquent utility billing in the amount
of $12,665.04, for 2452 Prior Avenue, as detailed in the RCA and Attachment A
(City Code, Chapters 801, 801, 803) dated January 27, 2014; and Attachment B, a
January 15, 2014 Opinion from the City Attorney on potential ramifications of
granting the request of Roseville Properties.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan offered nothing specific beyond
his written opinion, other than to note the clear language of code using
"shall" versus "may" as it relates to certification to the County Auditor any
utility charges in excess of ninety days past due for collection with real
estate taxes, removing any discretion of the governing body.
ensued among Councilmembers and staff regarding the number of
commercial/industrial properties (estimated at 200) currently in the name of
the tenant versus the property owner or a management company for the tenant or
landlord; whether or if there could be a remedy for tracking that information
to avoid recurrence of similar situations; and whether staff could monitor
these situations and copy all parties on utility bills to keep lines of
Willmus expressed concerns in setting a precedent if the City Council elected
to waive this charge given the bankruptcy circumstances, and potential for
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated his
interpretation that the City Council did not have the right to waive the fees
at any point, per current city Code, but that they be certified to the property
taxes of the property owner.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller noted that this
was a unique circumstance with the tenant going bankrupt, and Roseville
Properties required to absorb this cost, even though the City Code says it is
the ultimate responsibility of the property owner to be aware of what utility
fees are being assessed to their tenants.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller clarified that the total due
represented only utility fees, but as part of the bankruptcy requirements, the
City had found it necessary to suspend them for several years, with no interest
or penalties able to be applied during that time period, representing direct
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller clarified that these fees represented less
than one year's charges, with the tenant making no effort to pay them until the
City started collection processes the end of 2009, at which time the tenant
filed for bankruptcy.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller was unable to respond whether
this usage was generated by one tenant, as this was a multi-tenant designed
building which could be subdivided; but he thought it appeared to be one tenant
occupying the entire building.
the request of Mayor Roe to establish a payment plan for the property owner,
City Attorney Gaughan advised that City Code did not address that, and
questioned if the City would consider outstanding amounts no longer past due if
a payment plan was in place, opining that it would be difficult to come up with
a definitive answer on that point alone, but would basically be up to the City
Council on how it chose to interpret its own code.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller responded that,
while cross checking internally among departments may have alerted the Finance
and Billing Department to the situation and who the property owner was, it
still wouldn't have been discovered or directed to Roseville Properties, as the
property was under an LLC and not discovered until that notice to the LLC was
forwarded to Roseville Properties.
Rancone, Roseville Properties
Rancone thanked Mr. Miller for elevating this to the City Council level; and
reviewed this unusual situation, as evidenced in his e-mail to City Manager
Trudgeon dated December 2, 2013, provided as a bench handout, and attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Rancone noted that, when tenants
had their own private security contract (e.g. fire and security alarm billings)
the property owner typically didn't know about that, as they contracted with
someone else, with any false alarms then charged accordingly. However, Mr.
Rancone noted that a problem was that one tenant could monopolize that
situation in a multi-tenant building, or they remained unaware of it and it
ends up on the tax statement at yearend.
Rancone addressed the crux of the e-mail and their firm not finding out about
these delinquent fees from 2009, until they received their first notice from
the City in December of 2013. Mr. Rancone reviewed the history of the
situation, their LLC's purchase of the property from UV Color, since bankrupt,
and opined that staff could have found out who the property owner was before
now. Mr. Rancone clarified that the majority of the billing, $9,393,
represented on quarter's billing, with the former tenant being current with
their previous billings until July of 2009. Mr. Rancone advised that, had they
been aware of this delinquent bill, they could have incorporated them into the
lease negotiations and assets of UV Color eventually taken over by Roseville
Properties' LLC. However, since they were just noticed of them in December of
2013 that was no longer possible. Mr. Rancone advised that their meters go
directly to their tenants as a matter of policy to avoid getting in the middle
Rancone opined that better communication was needed between property owners and
municipalities; and questioned whether the City Code was properly utilized,
since there was no 90-day notification given, and notice was finally provided
after an agreement had already been negotiated with a new tenant. Mr. Rancone
further opined that the City needed to take responsibility in this situation as
well as the property owner, and sought a common-sense solution between the two
parties for a fair resolution.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan reviewed state statute enabling
local municipalities to impose just and fair charges, with state statute not
including the term "shall," while City Code does include that provision. Mayor
Roe questioned if that provision was consistent with other City Code provisions
Etten questioned if it was possible for staff to identify or clarify those 100
or so commercial properties through form letter or e-mail to clear up any
future issues and clean up the system expeditiously.
Director Miller responded that the effort could be made; however, he opined
that the bigger challenge would be to maintain an accurate database, since when
a property changed hands, the data would no longer be accurate unless there was
a "but for" process in place to keep current. In this case, Mr. Miller
questioned if it would have been of value anyway, given this unique bankruptcy
situation, unless it had been possible when Roseville Properties had been
marketing the property.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller advised that staff
could attempt to update the data on a quarterly billing basis provided enough
resources were made available to do so. Mr. Miller reiterated that this
situation was an unusual circumstance, and could not recollect another
situation where the landlord was surprised by a large bill outstanding from
several years ago.
Roe questioned if that data wasn't already obtainable from Ramsey County
Property Records and Revenue, and whether that information would have been easy
to find out and determine; and if not part of current procedure should be in
Director Miller advised that staff did use that data when certifying delinquent
bills; and that is how they accessed UV Color in 2009 and beyond. However, in
addressing Mayor Roe's concerns in how further communication was attempted with
the account holders and procedures followed, Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers
that that today's procedures had been revised and were different than those followed
in 2009 when the bankruptcy was filed, and certifications were only processed
annually in October. Mr. Miller noted that now the certifications are done
quarterly, negating such a probable situation occurring again.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the account holder is well
aware of any delinquent bills, even before certification, as a 10% penalty was
applied to unpaid bills on their next quarterly billing.
Roe questioned if, during the time the delinquency is in place, any attempt was
made to notify the account holder or owner.
Director Miller advised that there were hundred brought forward every quarter
to the City Council, including many residential properties that also had
tenants as well. Mr. Miller advised that staff was responsive to the level of
awareness the City Council wanted to bring to property owners; noting that
property owners were ultimately responsible for charges, per City Code, and
thus staff had a limited role in alerting property owners that their tenants
were delinquent; with current code putting the onus on owners versus City
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the City
typically didn't pull meters when accounts were found delinquent, as that
created additional costs (e.g. pulling and/or reinstalling the meter), as well
as winter heating rules and avoiding issues regarding that. Mr. Miller advised
that this is the rationale in using the certification process to collect those
McGehee opined that, given the number of multi-tenant apartment buildings in
the City, there should be no water shut offs due to the landlord creating an
LLC; and she was not advocating that such a process be used. Recognizing that
this was an unfortunate set of circumstances, over which the City had no
control per its own code, Councilmember McGehee noted that any waiver or deal
meant other residents would have to pick up the slack. As an owner of rental
property herself, Councilmember McGehee noted this was one reason she kept all
utilities in her name; recognizing that this put the onus on the property
owner. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was not the City's
responsibility to hunt down every property owner who wished to create an LLC or
hire a property manager. While expressing her sympathy for all parties
involved, Councilmember McGehee opined that this waiver should not be granted.
accordance with current code, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City
Council didn't have an option to waive the fee; and questioned whether it was
proper to rewrite code to address this case specifically, and to do so
retroactively as well. Councilmember Willmus opined that he could support a
payment plan, while unsure of the timeframe; however, given the opinion offered
by the City Attorney, opined that the City Council was in no position to do
anything other than to collect this fee.
Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Willmus, specific to how the code was
written and need to collect the delinquent debt under UV Color; and asked that
staff create a new debt and collect it by yearend to avoid any further
Roe clarified that the action would be to certify collection at the next
opportunity, which would be yearend when action was taken by Ramsey County.
moved, Etten seconded, TO NOT WIAVE the delinquent water and sewer charges for
2452 Prior Avenue in the amount of $12,665.04.
Willmus; Laliberte; and Etten.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:48 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:55
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Discussion
Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the update for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area discussion as detailed in the RCA dated January 27, 2013; and
staff-recommended language amendments outlined on page 2, lines 32 - 58.
Amendments were proposed for the CMU Land Use Category Definition of the
current Comprehensive Plan, as well as the CMU Statement of Purpose in the
current Zoning Code.
Plan Land Use Definition AND CMU (Zoning) Statement of Purpose
included staff's interpretation of a land use mix of 25-50% housing as being
unrealistic under current market circumstances; definition of "civic" and
"institutional;" and staff's recommendation to keep the Comprehensive Plan land
use definitions broad, with specificity addressed under the Zoning Code tables
of use and in direct correlation and consistent with each other.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke clarified that by having the broad
categories with the zoning ordinance telling the specific uses within those
broad categories, it would avoid ambiguities currently found.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment was currently the only CMU designation in Roseville.
concerns expressed by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that the
zoning code would provide the appropriate place to specifically permit or not
Councilmember McGehee's concerns and example of the existing Park & Ride
facility, Councilmember Willmus opined that more thought was needed as he
considered this intriguing situation; however, he further opined that he liked
the proposed revisions outlined by staff better than the current version; but
agreed with Councilmember McGehee's question of whether it went far enough.
responded, in accordance with recent discussions with City Attorney Gaughan,
that it was typical in the planning field that land use definitions not be too
specific, but made broader, with the zoning ordinance bringing that specificity
into play, as it was difficult to enforce those definitions under the
Comprehensive Plan alone.
Laliberte recognized staff's attempt to match up the table with the proposed
language amendments; and opined that she found these suggested amendments to
accomplish that goal, and understood why taking out the specificity took the
burden off those being last to the area being forced to develop in a certain
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte's question in how to get zoning to comply, Mr. Paschke
responded that this was included as the next part of the definition, in taking
those land use aspirations and putting them into law in the zoning section.
McGehee asked that the two be accomplished with a parallel path to allow for
meaningful discussion of what was included under this broad brush.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that this could be done, even given the number of
moving parts, but accomplished through the purpose statement with the next
exercise tonight talking about what the City Council wanted or didn't want,
potentially modifying the zoning code to specify all areas. Mr. Trudgeon
advised that, as all those moving parts were brought together, it was staff's
intent to have sufficient time to figure it out. If staff was heading in the
right direction, Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council confirm that to allow
staff to draft samples for consideration by the City Council and possible
action in the future.
Until she saw
the underlying documents, Councilmember McGehee responded that she was not
comfortable doing that, even though at first glance it seemed appropriate.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she needed concrete confirmation that what
she sees here and what is actually in the revised zoning code is well matched
to meet the vision of the City and its residents. Councilmember McGehee opined
that she often found they were approving one thing, and then the other part
didn't come up to complete the process.
assured Councilmembers that staff agreed with those former problematic
processes, and was attempting to accomplish those same goals and how the
proposed revisions directly applied to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
clarified that staff was not asking the City Council to adopt this language
tonight, but to provide staff with feedback on whether or not they were heading
in the right direction. Since the zoning ordinance amendments followed closely
with the land use definition amendments proposed by staff, Mayor Roe determined
that there was no need to repeat that discussion tonight.
Lakes Area Use Exercise
introduced this exercise (Attachment A) by defining four specific areas in Twin
Area 1 -
Cleveland Avenue and County Road C-2
opined that he was considering that LDR, Retail, Warehousing/Distribution, and
Light Manufacturing may not be good fits for that location.
Willmus questioned if further definition was needed and whether "mom and pop"
shops should be a consideration there.
responded that "retail" meant "retail."
Willmus advised that he didn't want Residential: 12-14 units/acre in this area
to avoid greater density; but questioned if there shouldn't be an option for
residential above retail in smaller development scenarios, with definitions
going forward to better define what was or was not wanted.
suggested considering some retail, but basing it on scale; to which statement
Councilmember Willmus concurred.
McGehee concurred with that; and noted the disappointment expressed by
residents at Applewood Pointe for a lack of those amenities for them in that
area (e.g. pathways and shops), having anticipated such development.
Mayor Roe noted
that such development at this location would be a significant walk for them.
McGehee opined that it would be appropriate to have CMU with retail on the
ground level and residential on top; which would also serve many businesses in
the area (e.g. Center Point Development), as well as those walking the path
around the lake. Councilmember McGehee suggested designing a combination that
would prove useful to the surrounding community as well as serve as an amenity
for businesses in that area.
Since this area
was close to the lake, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she would not rule
out any retail.
Etten agreed with Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee, that this would be the
place to include some of those amenities; however, he noted the need to
consider how long it may take to turn over the area and have residential
included, suggesting it may need to be a long-term version. If the goal was to
tie small retail with residential, Councilmember Etten opined that light
manufacturing and processing could be part of that, as it was often
non-intrusive, as long as sufficiently and clearly addressed in the zoning
suggested it could include light manufacturing and warehousing.
clarified that neither use appears differently than what is there today; and
questioned if the City Council wanted development predicated on density, with Outlots
for a mix with retail or to allow some form of production/processing or light
manufacturing to be consistent with other areas of the Regional Business
District (RBD). However, Mr. Paschke noted that it may not be appropriate here,
and if that was determined, the situation could be delved into in more finite
With Mayor Roe
considering that operations such as "Pour Decisions" and other uses in the RBD
considered production would be included, Mr. Paschke opined that is how he
would term them, specifically in an RB-2 District that could be defined in the
zoning code as allowed (e.g. a brew pub or something similar to Granite City)
with such an aspect within a restaurant providing a more finite and specific
use; while not excluding some other type of production or processing that
would not be appropriate with residential.
Mayor Roe noted
that this was his consideration in allowing light industrial, to allow for
entrepreneurship opportunities. Mayor Roe recognized the need to not limit the
size of retail, and unless others on the City Council objected, he would be
supportive of all types of residential on that site, with a smaller scale of
retail and smaller scale for production/processing.
McGehee advised that she would also have no problem allowing for office use;
but expressed her concern in the scale of retail operations or manufacturing,
not considering RB-2.
Willmus advised that he did not yet know his response to scale, but thought it
would become evident as this exercise proceeded.
for this area, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed that some uses would be permitted
as long as modified for scale; whether limiting size, uses or appearances; but
no light manufacturing; yes to include civic and institutional; but no
Area 2 -
Cleveland and County Road C
suggested breaking this area into smaller pieces; with consensus to consider
three areas as indicated below.
#1 - U
shaped area (boundaries of Mount Ridge Road and Fairview Avenue, north of what
would be a continuation of Iona Lane and adjacent to Langton Lake)
questioned if there was any desire for housing in this area, opining that it
made sense around the park and lake, especially on Mount Ridge Road where the
Hagen property was located.
Willmus noted that on Iona Lane to Arthur, there was right-of-way there, with
Mr. Trudgeon identifying it as a sewer easement.
ensued regarding the location of the Hagen parcels; and current sites being
considered for HRD, currently zoned HDR.
purposes, a line was drawn all the way from Mount Ridge Road to Fairview
Avenue, with the northern half incorporating Langton Lake.
w/s side (boundaries of County Road C and County Road C-2; and Cleveland Avenue
and Mount Ridge Road)
Etten opined that this would be a great spot to remove LDR; but the consensus
was to not eliminate potential HDR of 24 plus units/acre.
McGehee suggesting eliminating warehousing/distribution; with Councilmember
Laliberte noting it was already along Cleveland Avenue and questioned where
else it would be allowed in that area.
advised that distribution was not currently allowed in the Twin Lakes
questioned if light manufacturing should be eliminated; with Councilmember
Willmus noting that that may serve to eliminate a potential medical device
manufacturer, but it was hard to accurately identify that possibility without
advised that this could be specifically permitted, if they were looking for
something like a heart device assembly business, but not a tool and die
suggestion of Mayor Roe to identify a use as "high tech," Mr. Paschke responded
that it would be difficult to identify them.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that civic and institutional
would be allowed, such as a large educational institution, whether public or
private. Councilmember McGehee questioned if that was meeting the goal to
build a better tax base, if allowing for a use that took the property off the
tax roll in a significant way. Councilmember Willmus responded that a private
school (e.g. Rasmussen Business School) may not require it to be removed from
the tax rolls. Councilmember Etten questioned if it was an applicable use if
someone built an office building and a private school leased it.
was that civic and institutional uses remain in this district; with other uses also
(boundaries of County Road C, continuation of Iona Lane, Fairview Avenue and
suggested eliminating warehousing and light manufacturing in this area.
McGehee suggested production precluded based on scale; however, Mayor Roe
suggested it was important to keep that as a use to facilitate potential brew
was to preclude warehousing/distribution, production/processing, and light
Area 3 -
noted that the north part was guided HDR; with Councilmember McGehee opining
that she would be open to HDR with some amenities (e.g. restaurant or small
retail); with Mayor Roe suggesting it be done according to scale and comparable
to County Road C-2 on the north.
Willmus opined that he would be open to LDR north of Terrace Drive, with
consensus for LDR of under 12 units/acre; with Councilmember Willmus noting
this would back up to existing similar housing.
noted that this would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and super-majority
having it set in stone, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would like to see
what it looks like.
stated he was not sure what the market could produce, especially as storm water
management and green space requirements were taken into consideration.
concurred that it may look too crowded.
suggested it be kept below 12 units per acre.
McGehee noted some interesting ideas for small cluster housing coming out of
the Dale Street project.
suggesting delineating areas that would be compatible with the south side of
Etten noted that the current zoning map already designated that
differentiation, but wasn't sure if this was a subzone or not.
questioned if the intent was limiting it to only residential north or allow
other uses north.
Willmus suggested designating only residential north of Terrace Drive, with the
density needing to be the determining factor.
was to keep small scale retail on the north side.
discussion, this area was also divided into two sections: north and south of
McGehee suggested no warehousing/distribution, no production/processing, and no
light manufacturing; opining she was also not necessarily supportive of HDR
Willmus advised that he would need to see what the HDR proposal looked like
before making a decision.
Mayor Roe noted
that, if someone came forward with a proposal that had too many units for the
size of the parcel, the Council had the discretion not to approve it as they
had done in the past.
parcel 2830, Mr. Paschke noted that this was a pre-existing, non-conforming
property, with the building currently vacant and lease expired; and the owner
therefore unable to re-use the building for limited production or light
manufacturing in accordance with state statute and Roseville Zoning Ordinance
provisions. Mr. Paschke advised that the only way for re-use would be under
HDR. Mr. Paschke noted that the question them became whether there was support
for affording some properties, particularly that parcel, to continue on in that
limited use in that type of building if they wanted to re-use the building; or
seek a separate zoning district and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or an Interim
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that the owner had a number of potential
applicants during the one year period, but none had signed and the previous
tenant's lease had expired, and at the end of September of 2013, the one year
allowance for vacancy had expired. Mr. Paschke advised that the property owner
now had to conform to current zoning code requirements.
McGehee suggested removing warehousing/distribution.
Laliberte advised that she couldn't see any residential uses on this south side
unless they were HDR of 24 units or more.
Etten suggested removal of any potential LDR, as well as
suggested removal of production/processing and light manufacturing.
Area 4 -
Fairview and County Road C - north from Byerly's to Fairview Avenue
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe stated that there was always the potential
for constructing new roads given the right circumstances.
noted that, around the cul-de-sac properties, there was a ditch with
significant elevation; and while not an insurmountable issue, it was a natural
barrier (1755 to the blue line and east of the Byerly's building).
was to eliminate the potential for HDR residential (24 units plus); to
eliminate warehousing/distribution; but to retain production/processing and
Willmus suggested, when this returned, that a Special Council Meeting be
scheduled with the sole purpose of this discussion; with City Manager Trudgeon
expressing his full support of that idea.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon reviewed upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Recess to Closed Executive
Etten moved, Willmus seconded
recessing to Closed Executive Session at approximately 9:51 p.m. or the purpose
of discussing pending litigation regarding appellant review of a liquor license
transfer and renewal.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
Discuss Pending Litigation Regarding Appellant Review of Liquor
License Transfer and Renewal
In addition to
Councilmembers and the Mayor, City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan
were present for the closed session.
Etten moved, Roe
seconded, adjourning the closed session and returning to open session.
Etten seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m.