View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2016
Mayor Roe called the meeting to
order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte, McGehee,
Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark
Gaughan were also present.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Laliberte
was unable to attend tonight due to a flight delay.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she would have comments on Consent Items. 8. c, f, and o.
City Manager Trudgeon requested
removal of Consent Item 8.b for separate consideration.
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Item 8.i from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Councilmember Etten requested
removal of Items 8.h and m from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Etten and Roe.
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe read a prepared statement
updating Roseville residents on the May 26, 2013 incident related to the
Roseville Police Department and Mr. Victor Hernandez, following recent
completion of an internal personnel review by the City. Mayor Roe reported on
the action taken and further reported that Officer Gunderson had since resigned
from the Roseville Police Department and no longer employed by the City of
Roseville; and that the other officers assisting Officer Gunderson were
determined not to be in violation of any department policies. Mayor Roe
reported that due to data privacy laws concerning personnel issues, the City
was prohibited from making any additional details public; and now considered
this personnel issue completed by the City of Roseville.
Mayor Roe made several
announcements, including the annual Paint-A-Thon sponsored by the Greater
Minneapolis Council of Churches for painting assistance based on income
eligibility requirements, and providing information on the application process;
and the upcoming "Coffee with a Cop" provided by the City's Police Department.
City Manager Trudgeon provided an
update on the Dale Street Fire Station Development Project, and interest
expressed by potential buyers once some of those units were closer to
completion. City Manager Trudgeon reported that the Greater Metropolitan
Housing Corporation (GMHC) anticipated several models available for inspection
by mid-May of 2016; and advised he would see if a walkthrough could be arranged
of those models for the City Council.
City Manager Trudgeon reported on
his and Mayor Roe's attendance earlier today at a meeting of 6 neighboring city
managers and mayors; and reported that the Quiet Zones for applicable railroad
crossings in neighboring communities of Shoreview and Little Canada were
anticipated to be up and operating by mid-May and should provide some relief
for residents prior to and during the summer.
Councilmember McGehee asked City
Manager Trudgeon to report on the ECHO video project with TPT Channel 2; and
his scheduled appearance on that channel's Almanac program on April 1, 2016.
Specific to a recent newspaper
article on the City of Roseville's meter change-out, Councilmember McGehee
opined that the article didn't accurately reflect the city's goals and intent,
and the actual results of that project. Councilmember McGehee clarified that
the project wasn't undertaken for only conservation purposes, but to provide
better and more reliable meters for the city that could be read at City Hall,
supplying useful data for both the city and customers on their actual usage and
any indications of leaks of problems with their water service. Councilmember
McGehee further clarified that some of the old outdoor remote meter readers
were not accurate; and the result was that some users received "free" water
over a period of time and other users paid for more water than they'd actually
received. Councilmember McGehee noted that this resulted in some customers
receiving refunds and some charged for their actual usage over a certain period
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon reported that a maximum charge of $250 had been
implemented per meter no matter how much extra water was received if that was
the case. For those with excessive usage, City Manager Trudgeon also confirmed
that time payments were made available for those experiencing excessive usage.
In agreeing with Councilmember
McGehee's perception that the article seemed misleading, Mayor Roe opined that
the article seemed to be using the Roseville meter replacement situation to
make another point entirely. Mayor Roe reiterated that the inaccuracy was not
with the inside meter but with that of the outside remote readers; and only
about 10% of Roseville households experienced a discrepancy to some degree
between the inside and outside meters; and recalibration of the original
readings and a one-time make-up refund or additional charge to address
6. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
New Police Officer Introduction
Police Chief Rick Mathwig introduced new Roseville Police
Officer Mitchell Dickens and provided a brief biography.
Officer Dickens expressed appreciation to the City Council
for this opportunity to be introduced and expressed his honor in being able to
work for the City of Roseville beyond his initial internship. Officer Dickens
stated that he looked forward to working with the Roseville Department for a
On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Mayor Roe welcomed
7. Approve Minutes
Comments 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
Approve March 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 7, 2016
City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 3, Lines 35-36 (Roe)
Typographical correction: Correct
Title of Ms. Collins to "Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk."
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
8. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the
Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA)
and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following
claims and payments as presented and detailed.
80578 - 80774
General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000
pointed out the total expenditure of $48,000 for exterior maintenance
represented in this item for the parkway and campus; and suggested that going
forward ways be considered to reduce that maintenance in the future.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in
the RCA dated March 14, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital
Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.
Elections Joint Powers Agreement
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11303
(Attachment B) entitled, "A Resolution - Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey
County for Election Voting System;" joining Ramsey County and Ramsey County
municipalities for new voting system acquisition and operation; and allocating
appropriate funds to complete the purchase.
a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed and Authorize Final Payment on the
Victoria Street Reconstruction Project
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11304
(Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - Victoria Street Reconstruction
Project;" approving final payment and initiating the one-year warranty period.
2016 - 2018 Teamsters Contract
Councilmember McGehee stated that, while she supported the
contract as negotiated, she found it unfortunately timed relative to other
council actions related to employee pay. Councilmember McGehee noted that this
resulted in a 2.5% increase for unionized maintenance employees, a 2.5% to 2.7%
increase for other unionized organizations; while non-union staff only received
a 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2016. Given the City's
classification system and compensation studies to-date, Councilmember McGehee
opined that she found this process an egregious mistake.
Councilmember Willmus stated that this contract represented
a narrow set of city employees, and those differences should be evident.
Councilmember Willmus further stated that the City's COLA policy provided for
consistent annual consideration and use of various employee indices and on
average allowed for favorable outcomes and comparisons for all employees using
those statistics in considering inflation and annual wage adjustments
Councilmember McGehee noted comments she'd made at previous
meetings regarding the equity issues between union and non-union staff and
causing discrepancy between those employee groups. Councilmember McGehee
further noted that past COLA decisions had not necessarily received unanimous
support of the full City Council.
In speaking specifically to the past COLA action, Mayor Roe
confirmed that the vote had received a slim majority vote on the budget by the
council, which depended on Councilmember McGeehee's support to pass.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed
terms and conditions of the 2016 - 2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement with
the Teamsters as detailed in the RCA and directing staff to prepare the necessary
documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.
for Approval for Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of St. Paul,
Maplewood, Falcon Heights, No. St. Paul, Lauderdale, White Bear Lake, New
Brighton, and the Lake Johanna Fire Department and the City of Roseville for
Automatic Dispatch of the Closest Emergency Unit
Councilmember Etten referenced his conversation earlier
today with Fire Chief O'Neill asking that after the initial testing period,
those results be reported. Councilmember Etten also requested that the City
Council and public be made of any significant changes in who or what the City
of Roseville resources were being dispatched to cover; and asked that staff
bring that information forward to the City Council for a public discussion.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Joint Powers
Agreement (Attachment A) entitled, "Mutual Aid Agreement to Provide for the
Automatic Dispatch of the Closest Emergency Response Unit Regardless of
Jurisdictional Boundaries;" and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the document.
Pointe of Roseville at Lexington Encroachment Agreement
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Cherrywood
Pointe of Roseville at Lexington Encroachment Agreement (Attachment A), subject
to approval of the Final Plat and approval of the Public Improvement Contract;
and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Pointe of Roseville at Lexington - Public Improvement Contract Approval
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Cherrywood
Point of Roseville at Lexington Public Improvement Contract (Attachment A),
subject to approval of the Final Plat and approval of the Public Improvement
Contract; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
for Approval of the Cherrywood Pointe at Lexington Final Plat
Councilmember Etten noted his anticipation of future
discussion on tree preservation. However, Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation
for the creative thinking on it and consideration of how best to move forward.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11305
entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Cherrywood Point of
Roseville at Lexington dated December 4, 2016 (PF15-015) (Attachment C).
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of accepting payment
of $63,920 in lieu of replacement trees, pursuant to the tree preservation and
restoration requirements established in Roseville City Code, Section 1011.04;
and stipulating that the fee shall be paid before the signed Final Plat is
released for recording at Ramsey County.
Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaw Ratification
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, ratification by the City
Council of the special legislation passed by the State of Minnesota and
subsequent amended Roseville Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaws (Attachment
A) provided as a bench handout.
for Approval and Authorization of Ramsey County Agreements - Larpenteur Avenue
Referencing page 9 of the Environmental Review section,
Councilmember McGehee suggested when a future road, sidewalk or development
proposal comes forward, consideration be given to a checklist similar to that
used for the City's discretionary EAW used for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that a checklist to review traffic, air quality
and water impacts for each project would at a minimum acknowledge that the City
had taken those potential impacts into consideration. Other than for that
suggestion, Councilmember McGehee stated that she supported the Ramsey County
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to prepare
final plans and specifications and advertise the project for bids.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11308
(Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Community Development Block
Grant Program Agreement (Attachment C) with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for the Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk Project;" authorizing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute the agreement.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11307
(Attachment D) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Cooperative Agreement
(Attachment E) with Ramsey County for the Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk Project;" authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.
Items Removed from Consent
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly
reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.
City Manager Trudgeon noted that the actual drawing for the
gambling exempt permit for St., Rose of Lima Church would be held in St. Paul,
so the City of Roseville did not need to grant a permit for that particular
Therefore, City Manager Trudgeon asked for approval of the
remaining licenses as listed in the RCA.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business and
other licenses and permits for terms with the exception of the St. Rose of Lima
gambling exempt permit.
Tree Replacement Fee Identified in the Recently Adopted Tree Preservation and
Restoration in all Districts Ordinance
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly
reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.
Councilmember Etten noted that City Manager Trudgeon's
review had anticipated his request in removing this item from the Consent
Agenda. Councilmember Etten asked that, before going too much farther with
this new fund, the City Council have a policy discussion on how a determination
was made on how and where those dollars are used and for what purposes.
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request for a future
Along those same lines, Councilmember McGehee asked that the
future policy discussion also consider a concerted effort to keep some of the
replacement trees within the same vicinity as the project; and rather than
taking the cash in lieu of if a development couldn't handle the new trees,
consideration be given to replacing trees in the same vicinity even if on
private land possibly through a lottery system.
Councilmember Etten noted that the first page addressed the
vicinity location; and while along similar thought processes, creative thought
had been given to the Cherrywood Pointe development heard on tonight's agenda.
Councilmember Etten stated that he would also be interested in a policy
discussion for options to replace trees in the same area as a development
Councilmember McGehee clarified that that particular request
was only that replacements be put on public land; but noted her request was
that private land be considered as another possibility.
At a minimum, Mayor Roe noted these items should be
discussed for potential addition to the existing policy; and suggested any
future proposals to deal with these unique situations be approved by the City
Council if future the subsequent policy didn't sufficiently address an option.
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the establishment
of a $500 tree replacement fee in the Fee Schedule as detailed in the RCA and
in accordance with the recently-adopted Tree Preservation and Restoration
Approve the City of Roseville Police Department's Renewal of a
Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the
Village of St. Anthony Police Department, City of No. St. Paul Police Department,
University of Minnesota Police Department, and the Metropolitan Council for the
Metro Transit Police Department
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly
reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.
City Manager Trudgeon noted that this document had come before the City Council
in the past and those minor changes on this iteration had been highlighted accordingly.
Mayor Roe noted the minor revisions were basically specific
to University of Minnesota statutory liability language versus
Councilmember McGehee stated that her reason for asking that
this be removed from consideration under the Consent Agenda was due to her
questioning the value of SWAT. As part of the 2016 and future budget
discussions, Councilmember McGehee asked that a SWAT-specific budget and number
of Roseville officers participating be provided to the City Council, including
the cost to Roseville for special training, equipment, etc. Councilmember
McGehee stated she had been quite distressed to learn of the involvement by
Roseville officers with SWAT and the recent New Brighton shooting.
Councilmember McGehee opined that with Ramsey and Hennepin Counties and
adjacent larger municipalities having SWAT units, those should be sufficient.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff had previously
provided that requested information to the City Council, but could see that it
was done again.
Mayor Roe noted that as a JPA entity the East Metro SWAT
budget and governance information should be available to the public, if it is
not already. Mayor Roe agreed that East Metro SWAT costs needed to be made
more clear and explicit as it related to City of Roseville costs with the next
and future budget cycles.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval for the City of Roseville Police Department
to renew the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) JPA (Attachment A) as detailed
in the RCA; and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
by United Properties for Approval of the Final Plat of Applewood Pointe of
Roseville at Central Park, located at 934 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria
Councilmember Etten noted that on this item and Item l both
had early submission dates in 2015, and yet were now just coming forward in
2016 for final plat approval. Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in
understanding how those timeframes worked and why these gaps seem unusually
Also, while the City Council is able to legally move this
forward, Councilmember Etten noted the absence of a number of documents not
included as part of this Final Plat approval, as noted. In comparison,
Councilmember Etten noted that with the Cherrywood Pointe development, detailed
plans were available and questioned by the difference. Councilmember Etten
advised that his concern was based on this being the last opportunity for the public
to see the particulars of these developments.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed
the variables between the Cherrywood and Applewood Pointe developments and
specific documents and permitting requirements in accordance with state and
city code requirements. Mr. Paschke noted that these documents remained under
refinement, and were typically fleshed out after Final Plat approval going into
closing with that part of the contractual obligations set up prior to the plat
moving forward. Mr. Paschke reviewed some of the other moving parts throughout
these processes and differences in the two projects as well.
Mr. Paschke assured Councilmembers and the public that it
was not at all unusual that all documents are not completed with the Final Plat
approval; and over the last five years, he recalled several differing platting
situations that occurred for specific projects. Mr. Paschke advised that the
City's final approval usually happened with issuance of building permit(s);
with plans continuing to undergo additional revisions between this Final Plat
approval by the City Council and issuance of those Building Permits.
Given past discussion with other developments with grading,
Councilmember Etten noted this was a large area adjacent to parks and park
ponding systems, and suggested the more information the better when
developments of this size and import are being done.
Specific to Applewood Pointe, Councilmember Willmus noted
the conditions typically provided requiring staff approval prior to permits
being issues. Councilmember Willmus opined that this served as a fail-safe put
in place before issuing those permits.
Specific to the timing process, Mr. Paschke advised that in
this case the Preliminary Plat had been approved in December of 2015, and noted
that a developer has six months after that point to apply for the Final Plat
approval, depending on availability for approval on an upcoming City Council
Noting the application process and 6-month timing between
Preliminary and Final Plat approval, Mayor Roe suggested including that
information in future RCA's to remind Councilmembers of the approval period.
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request, and acknowledged
Councilmember Etten's thoughts about having that information available;
advising that he would continue to have those discussions among staff and seek
to provide consistent approaches to align those internal information processes
for the benefit of and to better inform the public and City Council.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11306
(Attachment C) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat dated February 26, 2016, of Applewood
Pointe of Roseville at Central Park (PF15-025);" of the property at 934
Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street; as conditioned.
For this particular project, Mayor Roe stated that he found
it easier to process given the previous building on the site and existing
topography, not allowing for much likelihood of change from his perspective.
Ordinances for Adoption
Receive Presentation on Project Lifesaver Program
Fire Chief Tim McNeill reintroduced the new cooperative
program throughout Ramsey County entitled "Project Life Saver" for locating
missing individuals with cognitive impairment. Chief O'Neill noted a life
demonstration was planned tonight, and also advised the program had been used
this last Sunday.
Prior to tonight's presentation and demonstration, Assistant
Fire Chief David Brosnahan reviewed the consortium providing this service and
provided a background of the transition from Ramsey County Sheriff's Office to
Ramsey County Fire Departments. Chief O'Neill noted that the State of MN is
one of the largest areas in the country for the number of diagnosed
After the presentation, Chief O'Neill reviewed Sunday's use
of the program as an example and quick success in locating a child in Reservoir
Park; and Fire Department personnel provided a live demonstration of the
equipment in Council Chambers. Chief O'Neill referenced the considerable
number of calls received today by the Department after local media coverage by
the four major news networks throughout the day and their interest in the
program and equipment as a result of Sunday's incident.
Mayor Roe thanked those involved in Sunday's successful
recovery; and expressed his appreciation for the Roseville Fire Department's
involvement in the program.
Chief O'Neill expressed his hope that now that the word is
out about the program, more people needing this service will make contact and
benefit from this type of locate available. From the Fire Department's
perspective, Chief O'Neill noted that those officers involved went through 6-9
months of training and during the process learned a significant amount about
dementia and autistic issues and how to effectively deal with people in those
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill
addressed how the bracelet locaters worked through a radio transmitter with
each unit keyed to a different frequency. Chief O'Neill advised that this also
provided online access to officers on the client's characteristics, their
picture and individualized information on the person being searched for.
Councilmember McGehee suggested a better terminology such as
persons at risk versus those with cognitive impairments.
Councilmember Willmus thanked the Department for this presentation
and demonstration; and asked if there was the possibility of pairing this
technology with GPS technology to immediately locate the transmitter.
Chief O'Neill responded that officers had asked that, such as information
similar to GPS applications for cell phones. However, Chief O'Neill reported
that radio frequencies have been found to be better at seeing through walls,
and at greater distances and heights. However, Chief O'Neill agreed that at
some point, he anticipated someone making that technology better as well and
investing in that GPS option.
Assistant Chief Brosnahan agreed that radio frequencies are
better than GPS at this time for heights as well as in water.
Councilmember Willmus suggested that as the departments
reached out to their populations, they include school districts as well; with
that suggestion being duly noted by Chief O'Neill.
Receive MnDOT Construction Project Update
Director Marc Culver introduced Mark Lindeberg, North Area Engineer from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) who in turn provided an update
on several MnDot projects in and around the City of Roseville in 2016 and beyond
as detailed in RCA.
reported on numerous projects as noted, advising that most would require considerable
jurisdictional and timing coordination.
questions of Councilmembers of staff and Mr. Lindeberg included: the number of
and logistics for 1 or 2 lane ramps for specific projects; timing and actual
signage of the detour for the Lexington Avenue bridge project and school
schedules; vehicular and pedestrian bridge replacements; future projects after
2016; and goals to ultimately develop a project on I-35W between Highway 36 and
Lexington Avenue to reduce congestion and improve safety over the next 20-30
briefly addressed related noise wall analyses for the whole corridor from
Roseville to Sunset Avenue; and for Roseville-specific that area north of
County Road C (noise wall on the east side of I-35W), and along County Road D
and beyond as likely candidates for a noise wall. Mr. Lindeberg noted that
those analyses would include a public process and public involvement as they
provided some conceptual bridge aesthetics for County Road C based on the theme
of those throughout the corridor over the last few years in areas with a high
abutment and pattern alternatives.
provided several ways for the public to seek out more information or review
this information, including: MnDOT/gov/metro/projects/I35WRoseville; www.mnpass.org or view current construction
projects at www.511mn.org. Mr. Lindeberg
advised that citizens could sign up for email updates at www.mndot.gov.
advised that MnDOT was doing its best to facilitate each individual project as
well as their interaction with each other.
Specific to the
noise wall, Mr. Culver revisited that advising that as indicated by Mr.
Lindeberg, each section would go through a normal public involvement process
and vote. Mr. Culver reported that he found it interesting with the Roseville
noise walls south of County Road D had been previously installed had been done
only because they qualified for MnDOT requirements due to the trail located
along the freeway. Mr. Culver advised that they had been installed as a component
of the CenterPointe Development Project. Therefore, Mr. Culver reported that
each of those companies as tenants of that land - and the City due to their
trail easement rights - would vote on whether or not to have the noise walls
reinstalled. Mr. Culver noted that, given the current good signage available
for many of those hotels and businesses, they may vote "no" for a noise wall. Mr.
Culver advised that he wanted to point that out as part of the process,
clarifying that it was the landowner's right to decide for or against a noise
wall; and further clarified that those residents on the east side of Cleveland
Avenue but further to the north (e.g. Applewood Pointe and adjacent
single-family homes) may prefer the benefit of a noise wall but not actually
get a vote in the matter. While public meetings would be held this summer by
MnDOT, Mr. Culver sought to make that clear to the City Council and for the
benefit of their constituents.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City Council could receive public input to inform its decision and
reiterate at that time who was able to vote or not and why.
McGehee asked how that affected the wall south of the 35W/Highway 36/Highway
280 commons area, with Mr. Culver responding that it didn't affect it at all;
as this project did not extend down to that area; with Mr. Lindeberg confirming
that and advising that there were no short-term visions for that area since the
long-term vision was to extend the MnPass lanes all the way downtown.
Willmus expressed appreciation for the presentation; and asked why the
northbound Snelling Avenue at I-694 project of several years ago, eliminated the
connection and access to eastbound I-694 from northbound Snelling Avenue.
responded that in working with the city and county as the project developed,
the number of vehicles using that ramp was found to be very low and considering
the safety component from the curve, hill and over the bridge to make that
access created an unsafe maneuver and became increasingly difficult. For that
and a multitude of reasons including the safety of residents in that northwest
quadrant, Mr. Lindeberg advised that the decision had been made to eliminate it
as it proved beneficial to few and created more safety concerns for a larger percentage.
Mr. Lindeberg noted that the pond had some impact in the decision-making as
well; and even though a variety of ideas were modeled, the cost and short
distance for adding a merge didn't justify the eastbound ramp and proved too
expensive for the small number of vehicles using it.
Etten thanked Mr. Lindeberg for the presentation as well and for any improvements
to the north metropolitan area to alleviate traffic congestion and move
traffic. Councilmember Etten asked for an update on the timing for the Highway
36 at Lexington Avenue bridge replacement and when the bridge was scheduled to
responded that based on his last communication and prior to the upcoming
preconstruction meeting to define and solidify the timeframe, preliminary
information from the contractor anticipated shutdown approximately June 15,
2016. Mr. Culver noted this would provide an advantage in not impacting the remainder
of this school term, but unfortunately prove disadvantageous and impactful for
the fall school term, even though it would allow them time to facilitate those
logistics. Based on the construction bids, Mr. Culver reported that the contractor
has set a set number of days to have Lexington Avenue closed; and while the
dates can be moved, it would impact the tail end of the project. Mr. Culver
noted that the school was working with students, parents and transportation providers
on the logistics. However, as a caveat, Mr. Culver also noted that weather
would be a consideration in the project schedule as well.
At the request of
Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lindeberg advised that those existing fences in disrepair
or missing sections would not be addressed until the bigger 2018-2019 project.
Tongue in cheek,
and to look on the positive side, Mr. Culver opined that 2016 would be a great
year for Roseville residents to stay in Roseville and enjoy their community
during the construction going on around the area.
In addition to
requesting additional information from Mr. Lindeberg to be provided to staff
and disseminated to the City Council, Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Lindeberg and Mr.
Culver for this presentation and looked for forward to more periodic updates.
Receive Presentation from Brownfield Consultants
Mayor Roe recognized outgoing Community Development Director
Paul Bilotta to introduce this presentation.
As detailed in the RCA dated March 14, 2016, Mr. Bilotta
noted approval for a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a brownfields
consultant for contract with the City of Roseville and specific tasks in
establishing and documenting baseline conditions for the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area. Mr. Bilotta noted that Liesch Associates, now Terracon had
been contracted for this work; and introduced Terracon representatives in
tonight's audience. Mr. Bilotta also recognized City of Roseville GIS
Technician Joel Koepp and his work in tracking this information.
Eric Hesse, PE, Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Hesse introduced the key members of the Terracon team,
including Eric Beasley, SRF Consulting and Steve Highrun, an attorney and
funding expert helping with the more intricate legal aspects with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) such as in obtaining letters of assurance. Mr.
Hesse noted that the team represented a diverse skill set in helping with
development and redevelopment, and in guiding the brownfields process.
Through Mr. Koepp's assistance with GIS data displayed, Mr.
Hesse presented the range of developments, and dynamic database showing
individual properties that had been investigated or remediated, using the
well-known PIK properties site and most recent development on the north by
Mr. Hesse's presentation included projects completed
to-date; identification and condition of remaining monitoring wells and depth
of measurements 60' below the ground surface in the glacial aquifer as well as
perched aquifers above that level; studies done in the early 2000's in the
broader Twin Lakes area and effects to that overall area as well as more
localized and isolated monitoring and sampling. Mr. Hesse noted that the most
recent samplings indicated little if any remaining contamination, with four
monitoring wells remaining, but one of those damaged to the point that samples
couldn't be obtained, and one other well having gone septic. Mr. Hesse opined
that the remaining wells provided sufficient data for sampling at this point,
and further opined that his firm had found nothing suggesting the need to
continue sampling or tracking for elevated contaminates, even though it was
good to have those monitoring wells available in case any future testing was
indicated but requiring repair to those wells mentioned.
Mr. Bilotta referenced the Terracon memorandum (Attachment
A) included in agenda materials dated March 9, 2016 providing and entitled
"Twin Lakes Development Environmental Review and Status Report."
Mr. Hesse addressed typical and specific to rumors related
to brownfields and whether the situation in Twin Lakes provided cause for
serious concern needing advanced cleanup now or how he would characterize the
current situation. Mr. Hesse noted it was typical for brownfields ranges with
considerable contractor, manufacturing and trucking activities in the past to
imply contamination concerns that would impact those properties. However, in
his work with Ryan redevelopments in the 1990's (Tract A), Mr. Hesse advised
that his firm had been contracted with to mine a dump used by a former
contractor bringing fill onto that site; and Ryan had received a "Certificate
of Completion" from the MPCA, which was the highest level of assurance
available through the MPCA.
While Mr. Hesse recognized there may be other isolated
pockets for clean-up from previous uses such as a maintenance shop resulting in
contamination from oil spills or tanks, he noted that nothing is causing major
concerns by developers or causing them to shy aware from those properties. Mr.
Hesse advised that he had seen nothing to-date that indicates the City should
be doing something sooner than when a developer takes on a property.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Hesse clarified
that Tract A as previously addressed had been cleaned up to the highest level
for redevelopment to a commercial/industrial level, not residential levels.
However, Mr. Hess opined that it could have well received a Certificate of
Completion to residential levels, but the certificates usually go with the
typical use for a property; and reiterated the significant amount of waste and
soil removed from the site.
In noting some indications of TCE in perched aquifers, Mr.
Hesse noted that no contamination had been indicated in the glacial aquifer 60'
down which was the typical water table in this area, but it wasn't unusual to
see spots indicating contamination in perched water that could be managed in
If a developer was considering underground parking with a
development, Councilmember McGehee asked if they would need to address perched
For typical responses to interact with and redevelopment
properties, Mr. Hesse advised that the developer would need to remove perched
water. However, Mr. Hesse advised that a developer may not be able to
guarantee as part of the process that they would be able to eliminate all
perched water infiltrating to a deeper depth, but he also noted that in this
area, the clay soils most often prevented it getting to a deeper depth.
Councilmember McGehee questioned what entity evaluated that;
and noted the city's use of discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheets
(EAWs) throughout this area; and asked how the city could ensure it had taken
the necessary precautions.
Mr. Hesse advised that Terracon would recommend that the
city use the brownfields process through the MPCA, with developers seeking out
that process ultimately providing legal assurances and agreement with a
clean-up plan and their subsequent receipt of a "No Further Action" letter from
the MPCA based on their plan, implementation, etc.
Since this area is considered a brownfield, Councilmember
McGehee asked if it was automatic that developers would seek assurances from
the MPCA or how sure the city could be that they had taken the necessary precautions.
Mr. Hesse advised that this would be the next part of his
presentation and proceeded to review a two optional flow charts (displayed)
providing models that his consultant team had successfully used for over a
decade and entitled "Development Engagement Procedures." Mr. Hesse recommended
the city using one of these options going forward on projects as they come in,
with one developer-led and the other city-led with funding activity and
cost-share determined on a case-by-case basis and depending on the experience
and aggressiveness of that particular developer. Mr. Hesse advised that this
process provides for a team-type relationship rather than a regulatory one; as
well as making sure a developer is sing any funds that the city is offering
efficiently and that the city has sufficient input as desired.
Mr. Bilotta referenced Councilmember McGehee's mention of
the city's voluntary EAW process; and noted that since then SRF had done a
larger traffic model and now consultants have a more in-depth picture. Mr.
Bilotta suggested staff re-evaluate that process to see if further tweaking is
now needed to help streamline things and provide additional protection for the
Mr. Hesse opined that this process as indicated by the flow
charts, provided more involvement and control by the city and allowing their
input and making sure funds are being distributed property and development is
taking place within the confines of city code and ordinance.
In this type of flow chart, Mayor Roe opined that would be
helpful to include City Council decision points or updates and how that fit
into the overall process. Mayor Roe further opined that by including this
additional information it would prove helpful for staff, the public and
developers and make all parties feel more comfortable with the process.
Without objection, Councilmembers concurred with that addition.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Hesse for the information and great
presentation, as well as the work done to-date; and expressed his interest in
more updates in the future.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:17 p.m.,
and reconvened at approximately 8:23 p.m.
Hearings and Action Consideration
Items (Action Items)
Finalize Community Survey Discussion
Communications Manager Garry Bowman referenced the detail
provided in the RCA and attachments dated March 14, 2016; and advised that new
questions in the survey excerpt were highlighted in yellow (Attachment A). Mr.
Bowman further clarified the differences in "prompted" or "canned" responses
(e.g. #32) versus "free-form" responses (e.g. #24) used in previous surveys and
in this proposed 2016 survey. For those items indicating a "scattered" response, Mr. Bowman clarified that the number or similarity of responses was
not large enough to register. Mr. Bowman advised that after tonight's City
Council feedback, he would go through the entire proposed survey with the
consultant and they would script it and review for accuracy and consistency.
Councilmember Feedback on Questions
#27 (Etten): Typographical error "family"
#32 (Etten): In past surveys related to community
center questions, construction was also considered via an local option sales
tax; switch "may not" to "should not" and change "reasonable approach" to "reasonable addition."
#80, #81 (Etten): New question related to curbside
recycling, clarify choice of "size" for recycling containers.
#89 (Etten): If the city will eventually be required
to provide a compostable waste option and container, Councilmember Etten
questioned if it was necessary to determine whether or not residents would like
to recycle compost or not; but should perhaps concentrate on how they preferred
the city offer that service.
Councilmember McGehee opined that too much had already been
asked about organics since it wasn't yet mandated. However, Councilmember
McGehee suggested the need was to determine whether or not the community had an
interest in separating organics from their garbage; and if not, residents would
not participate anyway. Since many residents already have an option for
composting, Councilmember McGehee suggested a more viable process would be to
talk to suppliers to determine if and how when mandated they intended to
address that organic service and have that information available, and then
determine interest within the community.
Councilmember Willmus stated he tended to agree with
Councilmember McGehee. However, Councilmember Willmus noted in the context of
the Recycling Contractor RFP for a new contract now in process, those variables
will be optioned for vendors to include in their broader proposal. Therefore,
Councilmember Willmus noted that it would be helpful for the city to know
relatively soon if the community wanted to consider it; and would support
retaining question #89.
Mayor Roe suggested keeping and revising the question to eliminate
distinction as to whether this service was something provided by a private
hauler versus the city; and suggested the consultant review the question and
how best to determine community interest rather than the current language
talking specifically about a city program.
Mr. Bowman suggested dropping "the city offering" and revise
to read: "do you support or oppose a curbside collection program for organics."
#90 (Roe): In response to Mr. Bowman, Mayor Roe noted that
question #90 got to that point, but agreed with the suggestion for striking "city offering" from question #89.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised
that the last survey randomly sampled 400 households and provided a tighter
correlation with more factually correct data. However, Mr. Bowman noted that
prices changed significantly based on those larger samplings.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman
volunteered to get information to the City Council related to the error rate
compared to increased sample sizes.
#3, 4 and 7 (McGehee): Mr. Bowman clarified that
questions $4 and #5 were both open-ended while question #7 was prompted.
#26, #27 (McGehee): Specific to new buildings,
Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be more important for her to know
why a resident didn't use one of the new buildings versus their awareness
and/or use of them.
Maintenance of Streets, Pathways, Trails
Councilmember McGehee suggested focusing more on past survey
comments and the receipt of more negative comments of city maintenance of
streets, pathways and trails.
While unable to respond at this time, Mr. Bowman suggested
those questions remained in the upcoming survey.
Councilmember McGehee asked that the questions separate that
maintenance within parks and those interconnecting people throughout the city
in determining if that remained problematic.
City Manager Trudgeon clarified that, while not totally on
point, questions #44 and#45 address plowing in parks and in neighborhoods.
Mayor Roe suggested adding "plowing and maintenance" to the
streets, pathways and trails questions.
Councilmember Willmus noted the need to keep consistency
from one survey to the next for better tracking.
#42 (Roe): In separating street maintenance and
repair, Mayor Roe suggested adding two additional categories: "trail and
pathway maintenance in park" and "trail and pathway maintenance outside of
parks." Mayor Roe noted the other questions as referenced were specific to
those having questions on plowing.
Councilmember Etten clarified that the wording of questions
#42 and #44 would remain as is; with Mayor Roe confirming that.
#31, #32, #33 (McGehee): Regarding community center
questions and current review and future of the Cedarholm Golf Course clubhouse
as well as other needs around the city and numerous unknowns at this time,
Councilmember McGehee questioned if these questions were necessary or should be
eliminated to allow room for other questions. If these questions remain
included, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to seek public input on how to
address ongoing costs for a community center, not just its construction,
opining that was a piece of the discussion too frequently overlooked.
Councilmember Etten stated that, if there was going to be
any consideration of a community center going forward, he wanted this survey's
questions to remain as similar to those of past surveys as possible.
Councilmember Etten noted that this didn't represent too many questions in the
broader survey, and opined that while understanding what it may cost, without a
firm discussion on whether or not to proceed, it would provide data about how
that topic is trending in the community and status of that interest in whether
or not to build a community center.
Councilmember McGehee clarified that she agreed with the
need to continue to know if residents supported or didn't support building a
community center. However, until they said "yes, we want a community center," Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for question #32 and specific cost
carrying forward but no longer relevant. Councilmember McGehee opined that
questions #30 and #31 provided the information needed.
Councilmembers Etten and Willmus agreed with eliminating
question #32, and so without objection the council so directed.
Mayor Roe noted that, if the decision was to proceed with a
community center in the near future, he anticipated a community center-specific
survey would make sense to address financial questions and options.
#66 (McGehee): Mr. Bowman clarified that this
questions, and any others seeking an opinion, were not prompted questions.
#70 (McGehee): Noting the frequent comment heard
about a shortage of townhomes in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee asked if this
question linking townhomes and condominiums could be separated. Without
objection, the council agreed to separate this question.
#27 (Etten): Councilmember Etten referenced
Councilmember McGehee's question related to why or why people had not used park
buildings; but opined that he found that an unusual question compared to other
survey questions. Councilmember Etten suggested a follow-up question related
to whether or not residents had found their experience to be "good, not good,
Councilmember Willmus suggested that question be kept with
the pattern of other follow-up questions for those using city facilities and
their experiences (e.g. are you likely to use it again, etc.).
Mayor Roe concurred that Councilmember Willmus' suggestion
#1, #10 (Etten): clarified that those questions had
Mayor Roe, with acknowledgement by City Manager Trudgeon,
requested that staff bring the revised survey back to the City Council for more
review prior to their authorization to move forward; along with the sample size
and costs and other information requested and available from Mr. Bowman.
Organized Trash Collection
On behalf of Councilmember Laliberte and in her absence,
Mayor Roe clarified one last time that the City Council wanted to remove
references in this survey to organized trash collection; which was confirmed.
City Manager Summary of Tonight's Feedback
City Manager Trudgeon advised that the survey would come
back with final questions and form to the City Council at their March 28, 2016
meeting; and summarized the changes he'd listed from tonight's feedback as
#27: base question on "your experience" and would you use it
again; and if experience was "poor," seek out why.
#42-45: provide for different distinction between
maintenance and repair in parks and neighborhoods; retain plowing questions
#70: separate condominiums and townhomes
Correct typographical errors in recycling topics as noted
#89: removed "city offered"
Appoint Advisory Commissioners
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Julie Kimble
to the Planning Commission for the three-year term ending March 31, 2019.
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Environment & Transportation Commission
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Thomas Trainor
to the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission for the term
ending March 31, 2019.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, appointment of Ronald Bole and Cynthia Warzecha to the Parks &
Recreation for terms ending March 31, 2019.
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Etten seconded, appointment of the slate of Amber Sattler, Chelsea Holub and Erik
Tomlinson to the Community Engagement Commission.
Mayor Roe noted
different term lengths; suggesting the makers of the motion amend their motion.
Willmus seconded, appointment of Erik Tomlinson to the Community Engagement
Commission for the term ending March 31, 2018.
noted that when looking to extend service of commissioners, if they are filling
partial terms, they are free to serve an additional two terms thereafter.
that all candidates were good choices, Councilmember McGehee stated that her
rationale in appointing Mr. Tomlinson to the longer term was based on him
listing the CEC as his first choice.
Mayor Roe noted
that several candidates changed their preferences for serving during the
Call Motion to Amend
Motion Restated as Amended
Etten seconded, appointment of the slate of Erik Tomlinson to a term ending
March 31, 2019, and Chelsea Holub and Amber Sattler to the Community Engagement
Commission to serve for respective terms ending March 31, 2017.
Original Motion, as Amended
McGehee asked that her individual tally (Attachment A) be revised for the HRC
to indicate her Choice B from Candidate Holub to Candidate Johnson; which was
McGehee seconded, appointment of Nicole Dailey for the three-year term ending
March 31, 2019; appointment of Lauren Peterson for the two-year term ending
March 31, 2018; and appointment of Edward Johnson to the Human Rights Commission
for the one-year term ending March 31, 2017.
stated his support for the motion; noting that while unable to interview Mr.
Johnson, he had contacted him via phone and opined that he would provide a very
interesting background to and perspective for the HRC. In moving forward on
the HRC, Councilmember Willmus expressed his support in getting more involved in
that advisory commission. Even though candidate Wong would have made a fine
commissioner after clarification of some of his interview remarks,
Councilmember Willmus encouraged him to apply again in the future.
Mayor Roe noted
his follow-up or lack of ability to reach some candidates after the initial
interviews. Mayor Roe noted that candidate Wong was one of his choices, and
after clarification had the impression that he was very thoughtful about issues
and was confident he would not have let his personal preferences influence his
decision-making on the HRC; and expressed appreciation for that insight.
McGehee agreed with the need for gender mix on city advisory commissions;
opining that progress was being made. Councilmember McGehee referenced the
variety of experiences, skill set and life experiences brought to the table by
candidate Johnson, as well as his age, would represent another aspect of the
Mayor Roe noted
the great candidates applying for these positions as usual; and on behalf of
staff, the community and the City Council expressed appreciation for their
interest in serving in this way, and encouraged those not successful in appointment
this time to apply for future vacancies.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, directing staff to advertise
for one vacancy on the Finance Commission; with an application deadline of
April 5, 2016.
15. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Discuss Long-Term Facility Options for the Roseville License
Finance Director Chris Miller was present and briefly
summarized the RCA detail related to long-term facility options of the Roseville
Mayor Roe recognized supervisory personnel present in the audience and thanked
them for their attendance.
Mr. Miller reviewed the various discussions that had
occurred over the last decade related to the License Center, noting it had been
located in its current location since 2000 and partially remodeled in 2005.
Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to explore
options for a city-owned facility, opining that he wasn't interested in
exploring too many other locations beyond or near the City Hall campus.
Councilmember Willmus suggested the need to look at the bigger picture along
with this facility, including storage needs for the Public Works and Parks
& Recreation department; as well as addressing collaborative efforts across
departments and other opportunities that may present themselves.
If the facility were to continue leasing space at its
current location, Councilmember Etten asked Finance Director Miller if he
thought space would be available to expand the Center in a logical manner.
Based on his recent experience on-site, Councilmember Etten agreed that more
space was definitely needed for more efficient functionality; but asked if that
would be possible in this location.
Finance Director Miller responded that in initial
conversations with property owners to-date, they were aware of the City's
interest in expanding and pursuing that route. However, Mr. Miller noted that
became tricky with existing tenants in the building and would need to be
finessed accordingly to obtain contiguous space. Also, Mr. Miller noted
additional space for strip mall expansion was possibly available, and had been
proposed by the owner over the last fifteen years to no avail. However, Mr.
Miller recognized that as another potential option for the city as well, even
though staff hadn't pursued that particular option at this point. Mr. Miller
noted the need to consider the future and continued viability of the entire
shopping center, and whether or not expanding it to the north was prudent based
on economics and market considerations and based on the fair amount of turnover
in building tenants. Mr. Miller further noted that the License Center brought considerable
traffic into the center.
Councilmember Etten asked that Finance Director Miller speak
to his thoughts on specific locations if the city chose to build its own
Finance Director Miller stated his personal reluctance to
publically identify any specific locations at this point, and noted that this
general location for the License Center had worked well to-date and in
conjunction with other activities happening at the City Hall campus. Mr.
Miller noted that the traffic brought to the vicinity by the License Center
enhanced some of the other city services; and therefore from staff's
perspective he was aware of a strong desire to look in this general vicinity to
continue or promote efficiencies in work flow with that close proximity.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with the thoughts expressed by
Councilmember Willmus; stating that she'd like to see the city have its own
space and make changes to enhance a city asset, as well as addressing other
storage needs, which she found to be a good mix for uses. Councilmember
McGehee opined that she couldn't imagine storage being any more useful in this
vicinity and further opined that she would be less in favor of enhancing rental
or leased space versus a city-owned facility. Councilmember McGehee opined
that expanding would become more expensive and at that point could be
comparable with long-term capital maintenance of a city facility; and therefore
supported staff investigating potential locations.
Finance Director Miller responded to two considerations:
discussions have been held at a Department Head level about the city organization's
space needs, outside and inside, as well as the potential for other office
space needs. Mr. Miller expressed his appreciation for the suggestion that
staff look beyond the License Center needs, opining that made sense.
2) If the
City Council's direction to staff is to explore those options, Mr. Miller note
that this would take time; and in the meantime, the License Center lease period
became tighter and a conversation may be needed within the next few months and
before that lease expires, related to a short-term extension to buy additional
time for other options to be considered and/or acted upon.
Mayor Roe spoke in agreement with the comments and potential
options supported by his colleagues, and recognized the timeframe involved.
Mayor Roe echoed those comments for staff to review a multi-purpose facility,
and expressed his definite support for such a facility fairly close to the City
Hall campus if not on the campus itself. Mayor Roe also threw out the
community center concept as part of this discussion, opining it would be
interesting to see how that long-range plan may fit together with existing and
near-term needs. Mayor Roe noted that this didn't necessarily mean one big
project, but perhaps the thought process going forward could take into consideration
phasing options. Mayor Roe noted that such a link had also come up during the
Park Master Plan process; and also noted needs of the Roseville Visitor's
Association and other things that could be tied into this discussion or at
least be on the radar.
National League of Cities Sewer and Water Line Warranty Program
Director Marc Culver referenced information provided in the RCA related to the
National League of Cities endorsement of the Utility Service Partners, Inc.
(USP) sewer and water line warranty program; and previous discussions as to
whether the City of Roseville was interested in an agreement with USP to offer
this warranty program to Roseville residents.
requested by the City Council, Mr. Culver provided additional information and
research of other Minnesota municipalities using the warranty program, and
related opportunities and costs involved.
reported that nine Minnesota cities partnered with USP (Oak Park Heights,
Columbia Heights, St. Louis Park, Hawley, Pelican Rapids, Perham, St. Michael,
Falcon Heights and Richfield); with an active enrollment in Minnesota of over
5,800 households, over 650 claims filed to-date and the amount of claims paid
out of over $430,000.
reported on his discussion with some of those individual cities, advising that
he found overall satisfaction indicated with the program to-date. Specific
information was provided to Mr. Culver by the City of St. Louis Park; but he
clarified that many cities were still new to the program and didn't yet having
actual claims or positive or negative experiences to relay. Based on those
conversations, Mr. Culver advised that the biggest resident complaint heard by
member cities was with the marketing letters used by USP, the use of city
letterhead, receipt by residents of three separate letters, one for each
service; and lack of ability for enrolling in all three programs at once for
those interested without calling UPS directly. Mr. Culver advised that other
complaints dealt with what USP covered for a repair versus what work the
resident felt should be done (e.g. replace entire service line instead of
fixing one spot).
Mr. Culver noted
some minor changes to the USP marketing agreement since last its last iteration
(Exhibit A, Section IV) with the scope of coverage and additional language for
replacement or repair of backflow preventers to sewer lines; and inclusion of
language covering thawing of frozen external water lines. Also, based on City
Council feedback, Mr. Culver noted that USP had agreed with the option of
removing Section 4 entitled "Consideration" that established the $0.50 license
fee to the city that could be reduced and applied directly to resident fees to
reduce their cost for participating in the warranty program.
concluded his presentation by noting that the City Attorney recommended
additional language in marketing materials sent to residents that more clearly
clarified that the warranty program was not a city program and the city was not
responsible for any losses incurred by homeowners resulting from their
Willmus stated that he had been somewhat intrigued by this warranty program
when it was first presented; however, he found himself now less inclined to
support it. Councilmember Willmus noted his concern with the city disclaimed
endorsement and use of the city logo and name with this program. More
importantly, Councilmember Willmus noted a number of small businesses
(plumbers) in Roseville, some family-owned and his inability at this time to
know how this warranty program may or may not impact them. Without hearing
from those businesses personally, Councilmember Willmus stated his hesitancy in
pursuing this program.
McGehee stated her similar thoughts even though she hadn't thought of the
impact on small business owners. Councilmember McGehee stated that she
definitely didn't like the city endorsement of this, with or without the disclaimer,
and opined that residents would still believe the city thought it was a good
idea and supported the warranty program. Unless the city was willing to arbitrate
problems between this insurance company and residents, Councilmember McGehee
opined that the city was simply asking for trouble. Councilmember McGehee
noted that this is an insurance company and their goal was to make money by
offering the service. Councilmember McGehee further opined that if the average
homeowner in Roseville, experiencing the typical and most common problem with
roots in sewer lines, simply periodically paying for maintaining the line by
removing roots, they would save a significant amount of money compared to utilizing
this service. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this wasn't a good
value for Roseville residents or customers, and may actually hurt some small
local businesses; and presented too many unknowns and potential problems, and
restated her concern with and opposition to this in any way being viewed as a
Mayor Roe clarified
that sewer clean-ups are currently covered by the city through self-insurance
and not through the League of Minnesota Cities; with Mr. Culver confirming that
information that sewer clean-ups were reimbursed at cost by the city as
While not being
adamant, Councilmember Etten stated that he wasn't strongly supportive of the
warranty program based on several aspects he didn't like; and given the opinion
expressed by his colleagues, agreed with them in not supporting the program.
concurred with his colleagues, including use of city letterhead. On balance,
Mayor Roe stated that it didn't make sense for the city to enter into the
agreement at this time.
McGehee suggested taking advantage of the material provided during this
consideration; as well as stepping up educational materials and efforts made
available to residents related to periodic maintenance of root problems and
advantages of a backflow preventer.
Willmus seconded, NOT entering into an agreement with USP for their warranty
thanked staff for their time and effort spent in researching this option.
Private Sewer Service Lining Discussion
Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly reviewed
information presented by Mr. Paul Pasko from S.E.H., Inc to the Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) at a recent meeting. Mr.
Culver recognized Mr. Pasko as an expert in this field, and with his
permission, reviewed those presentation materials and summarized the
Discussion ensued in clarifying differentials between a
mandated or programmatic application of lining private sewer service laterals;
current process in pre-project video inspection and older lines indicating
lining versus newer PVC pipe construction; location of most issues at the "wye" connection point; and City of Roseville wye connections usually within the city
Mr. Culver used the City of Golden Valley, mandating a point
of sale inspection for homes, and other communities concentrating at the wye
connection due to higher infiltration issues.
If the City considered opening discussion on ownership of
laterals at the right-of-way or main, Councilmember Willmus questioned how that
would inform the discussion and city cost going forward.
Mr. Culver responded that the biggest issue in changing the
ownership point and that discussion would involve maintenance of lines at the
wye or in the rights-of-way, and how to address sewer lines without a cleanout
at the point where that ownership changes. Mr. Culver noted the frequent
difficulty in determining that cleanout location and/or infiltration or break
area was at, whether on the public or private side, until expending dollars to
investigate that. Mr. Culver noted that this also created confusion as to
where the problem happened and who was at fault.
Councilmember Willmus stated his rationale in asking the
question was based on staff's previous matrix showing about half those
metropolitan communities around Roseville had ownership at the right-of-way.
Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Culver, that
the ownership referenced by Councilmember Willmus was specific to the water
Mr. Culver noted his recent survey completed at the request
of the PWETC indicating that of forty-seven responses, only two communities had
different ownership for the lateral for the sanitary sewer; otherwise he found
it about 50/50 for those communities retaining ownership to the valve box or to
the main, specific to water services.
Councilmember McGehee admitted this was a question she
continued to struggle with; and provided personal anecdotal information. At
the very least, Councilmember McGehee suggested any program be required to
start from the city side so no damage was done by an inept private contractor on
the city's infrastructure.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that it
would be unusual for private property owners to be able to bypass the city main
due to working with robots, and inaccessibility of their lines other than from
the city main at that connection point. Mr. Culver clarified that any
contractors performing the work for a private homeowner would still be
licensed/qualified and need to pull a permit and have their work inspected.
While this could be done from inside a home, Mr. Culver noted it would require
some oversight, unless the city preferred to perform the lining on a more
wholesale front and obtain more economy of scale.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the city was on the
forefront of doing this right; and with completion in the future of lining its
mains, resulting in an approximate 50-year warranty on that product, it seemed
if the entire system, whether privately or publically owned, could be lined, it
would prove financially beneficial to residents and the right thing for the
city to do as part of the overall update of its infrastructure. While
recognizing that there were many moving parts and things to consider,
Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal support for this option to assist
residents versus that of offering the aforementioned warranty program.
Councilmember Etten noted two different options to require
this inspection or lining: at the point of sale, or as part of the city's
inspection of mains and proceeding a minimum available distance into those
lateral lines deemed problematic. If that inspection indicated problems,
Councilmember Etten opined that the city could then require a property owner to
meet the city standards. Councilmember Etten opined that he thought that would
be the right way to move forward long-term for the benefit of the city and all
of its taxpayers, expressing his personal interest in having that piece of mind
in lining laterals. While the requirement portion may require finessing,
Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in working through that portion; and
offered his support for some type of incentive program if the city mandated
compliance as a way to help may that compliance happen by participating in part
of those costs.
Specific to a trigger for mandating compliance whether at
the point of sale or addressing specific geographic areas of the city,
Councilmember Willmus stated that without knowing more about it, he'd probably
be resistant to inspections at the point of sale.
While wanting to solve the broader community problems, Mayor
Roe stated his agreement in hesitating to make this mandatory, since people
owned their own service laterals. Some Roseville residents, may just be willing
to address roots in the sewer lines every few years and have the city or
government leave them alone. Mayor Roe noted the need to deal with that
preference if deciding to go with something mandatory. However, if the city
proceeded to address a targeted number of service laterals annually and as part
of that seek interested residents, Mayor Roe opined that may be a more popular
approach. Under that scenario, Mayor Roe stated that if insufficient interest
or sign-up from residents in that particular area, the work wouldn't be done.
Councilmember McGehee opined that if considering economy of
scale by concentrating on a geographic area versus citywide, from the city's
perspective if people chose not to participate, the city could still take
responsibility up to the wye or take responsibility for the right-of-way or to
the edge or it, and that was found to sufficiently impact the inflow and
infiltration (I & I) issues, it may result in encouraging residents to
sign-up, but at a minimum complete the city portion to avoid having to dig up
streets between projects.
Mayor Roe stated that he still saw it from the perspective
of a certain geographical area, recognizing that lining of the main and lining
laterals were two separate projects, while still attempting to avoid major or
multiple interruptions in service or needing to bypass them multiple times.
Councilmember Etten noted that, as talked about by
Councilmembers before, when the city performed street rehabilitation, residents
could have their driveways done as part of the project and with that
contractor, but as a private expense. Councilmember Etten stated that
similarly his preference would be for residents being able to sign up in those
areas as well for having their laterals lines, with incentives provided by the
city for doing so at that time and proving less expensive for private property
owners versus having something done on their own or in an emergency situation.
Under that option, Councilmember Etten suggested doing the older parts of the
city first as probably the most problematic areas,
Councilmember McGehee clarified that, with her suggestion
that residents participate in the city's televising of certain sections, and if
lines appear to be failing from the view given during the inspection of the
mains, homeowners be advised and offered an incentive for the city to defray
costs if they participate now, and possibly by rolling that cost into property
assessments versus an immediate payment.
Motion to Extend City Council Curfew
At approximately 10:00, McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
extending the curfew to complete discussion of this topic.
Mayor Roe noted that there were two different contractors
and processes for the main versus laterals. Mayor Roe asked staff if there was
a certain period between being able to do laterals after lining the main.
Mr. Culver responded that, while there was some curing time
and clean-up required where the laterals are cut out to make them ready to
accept and not damage a new liner, there wasn't any significant time involved.
Mr. Culver offered to obtain additional information specific to that; but noted
the preference would be to not bypass the line for too long. Given the amount
of experience by the City of Golden Valley in lining "shorties" or wyes, Mr.
Culver offered to get additional information from them on how they performed
the lining of mains and then laterals and specific timing involved.
Mayor Roe expressed interest in having that additional
In considering discussion of the city participating in some
of these costs, Mr. Culver reminded Councilmembers that doing so would have
significant impacts on sewer utility rates. Mr. Culver noted the remaining
work yet to be done on the main infrastructure, including lift stations, force
main lines and the mains themselves. If this additional cost is added on, Mr.
Culver noted that it would seriously impact that fund.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Culver for that reminder; noting it
would require residents to buy into the program and be ready to absorb those
higher sewer rates as well.
16. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon distributed a
preview of upcoming agenda items.
17. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:04 p.m.