View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Mayor Roe noted that, due to a
scheduling conflict, Councilmember Willmus did not expect to be available for
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
advised that Councilmember Willmus had requested removal of Items 8.a and 8.b
from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
requested removal of Item 8.c from the Consent Agenda for separate
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
On a personal
note, Mayor Roe offered a message of thanks to the Roseville Police Department for
their preparation and planning for and addressing potential contingencies to
the planned protest at Rosedale Center last Sunday. While the protest ended up
being cancelled, Mayor Roe noted the professionalism of the Roseville Police
Department and their partnering agencies had been very impressive. Mayor Roe
noted the additional strain on police departments around the metropolitan area
as well as across the country; and publically thanked public safety personnel
for all they do on a daily basis, and in light of current tensions.
announced an upcoming community engagement meeting next week to gather initial
feedback in the process and issues specific to the SE portion of Roseville near
the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue intersection. Mayor Roe noted the intent was
to begin conversations and obtain feedback on opportunities, aspirations and
the vision for that area moving forward, and how various entities can work
together to make that happen. Mayor Roe noted the City of Roseville was
partnering with Ramsey County, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, and the
Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood for these conversations and encouraged
residents in all three municipalities to participate in revitalization efforts
in this area. Mayor Roe provided the logistics for the meeting, and sources to
gather additional information on line.
excessive heat and humidity, Councilmember McGehee reminded neighbors to check
on their neighbors, especially the elderly; and noted Police Chief Mathwig had
asked that residents contact the Fire or Police Departments if they have any
safety concerns. Councilmember McGehee advised that the Police Department and
Fire Station or other public buildings were available to cool off and seek
Laliberte provided an update on the most recent meeting of the Cedarholm Club
House Task Force, with ongoing compilation of numerous reports. Councilmember
Laliberte advised a final report would soon be available, at which time a
public input meeting would be scheduled to seek feedback from the broader
community. Councilmember Laliberte reported that several more meetings were
scheduled before that final report and recommendations were submitted to the
City Council. Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Finance Commission for their
ongoing participation and input.
reminded the task force to make sure those public input opportunities were well
publicized as they came up.
Trudgeon reported that the City of Roseville had the honor to be the first
municipality in the country to be certified as a Service Enterprise Organization
for its volunteer management efforts. City Manager Trudgeon noted the pride
and elation in having received that recognition of the city's volunteer
commitment, and advised that the City Council would be receiving a full report
McGehee noted this also said a lot about the community's volunteers.
Mayor Roe noted
he had noted during the Park Master Plan process some of the original
documentation and efforts put into development of the city's park system and
when reviewing some of those volunteers involved in those initial efforts,
found it interesting to note some of those names were still involved in volunteer
efforts today. Mayor Roe stated this was a good sign of community interest and
Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
Approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fees Necessary to
Implement and Process the Recently-adopted PUD Ordinance (PROJ0017, Amdt.26)
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the remaining item being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11339 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Creating Application and Escrow Fees Pertaining to the
Planned Unit Development Process."
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for
Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014)
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the
RCA and related attachments dated June 20, 2016.
Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item from the
Consent Agenda was his concern of the term "marginal" in the third bullet point
in that it could have multiple meanings.
on those concerns, Councilmember McGhee stated her agreement to strike the word "marginal" from the proposed resolution.
order to provide some insight from last week's meeting and City Council decision
to deny the minor subdivision request, and subsequent work between his office
and city staff, City Attorney Mark Gaughan addressed the intent of the findings
as noted. City Attorney Gaughan advised that staff had expressly meant
"marginal" as "additional," not negligible; but in recognizing there may be various
ways to interpret that word and since "marginal" was not used in the original
motion outlining findings, he agreed that in this instance, striking "marginal"
may be appropriate.
McGehee suggested changing "marginal" to "additional."
Koland, 1926 Gluek Lane
comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to the Mayor and
Councilmembers was provided by Mr. Koland as part of the record, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Koland verbally summarized his letter and calculations and asked the City
Council to have a majority voting member from the July 11, 2016 Council meeting
move for reconsideration of this denial and subsequently approve this
code-compliant subdivision as recommended by staff and supported by facts
outlined in his letter.
Roe duly noted this request; and for clarification, confirmed with City Attorney
Gaughan that a simple majority versus super majority vote would suffice for a
motion to reconsider.
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11337 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a
Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014);" as
amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "additional."
highlighted in Mr. Koland's written comments, Councilmember McGehee provided
her personal response to her actions of twelve years ago when she supported a
motion to support a previous lot subdivision in this locale. Councilmember
McGehee stated that at that time she was not fully aware of all of the water issues
and extending beyond the immediate area. Councilmember McGehee noted homes
experiencing basement collapse in the area; and everyone was now much more
aware of the drainage issues in that broader area; and many additional developments
have occurred since then. Councilmember McGehee identified that broader area
south of Mr. Koland's property and impacts of this subdivision and development
area essentially built on a lake based on the 1940-era maps. Councilmember
McGehee noted this drainage issue only became more problematic with heavier
rainfall patterns now being experienced. Councilmember McGehee further advised
related to several lot and subdivision discussions, she had been unaware of the
large difference in the front and back of the subject parcel and how current
city code was written. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated she would hold
her position to deny this subdivision request.
Laliberte thanked Mr. Koland for his work in defending his request and bringing
it forward to the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte assured Mr. Koland
that she didn't take denial of the request lightly a week ago, nor did she do
so now. Councilmember Laliberte stated her main concern was with the drainage
issues with this requested subdivision for this parcel; and further stated this
was not the first situation that had come to the city's attention during her
tenure; with the city routinely needing to address those existing drainage issues
if and when possible. Councilmember Laliberte advised that, specific for her
in this area, was the need to rectify larger and substantial drainage issues in
the area before further subdivision.
Etten stated he would not support this motion, as he had not supported denial
of the request last week, since he found the subdivision request supported by
Roe noted that he had not supported last week's denial either, and therefore
could not support a motion to memorialize that denial. However, Mayor Roe
noted he was less troubled by drainage on this site as he was with drainage on
the 1861 site.
Laliberte expressed her willingness to support a motion to amend the motion
deleting the second finding.
Roe clarified that, procedurally, that was not an option.
Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe, further clarifying that this
resolution is not the official action, but simply an additional step used per
city policy to memorialize its findings as per last week's motion denying the
subdivision request. City Attorney Gaughan noted those findings remained as
approved by motion July 11th, and if any changes were desired by the
Council to be made, then a motion to reconsider that motion would be
McGehee and Laliberte.
Etten and Roe.
failed for lack of majority.
Gaughan sought to further clarify for the City Council the intent of this
resolution. City Attorney Gaughan noted the resolution that by voting "nay" on
the resolution, individual Councilmembers were in effect stating they didn't
believe these are the actual findings voted on last week. City Attorney
Gaughan noted that was not actually in dispute.
As having voted
against the denial of the subdivision request last week, Mayor Roe stated his
lack of support of a resolution memorializing the findings; even while
understanding the point made by City Attorney Gaughan.
With two "nay" votes on the prevailing side for the motion to memorialize findings for denial
as adopted last week, City Attorney Gaughan noted it would be up to Mayor Roe
or Councilmember Etten to bring a motion to reconsider findings next week for
the purpose of casting a new vote as to whether or not this new resolution
reflects those findings for denial from last week's meeting.
McGehee expressed her difficulty in understanding the "nay" votes, when last
week the majority vote supported denial in accordance with the findings as
stated, and as memorialized in this resolution. Councilmember McGehee stated
that to vote against affirmation of that record, seemed to her perplexing and
Mayor Roe noted
it was the prerogative for any individual councilmember to vote as they saw fit
on any item.
Laliberte asked Councilmember Etten if he was clear on the intent of this
resolution affirming last week's action.
Etten stated his agreement as noted by Mayor Roe; however, he admitted City
Attorney Gaughan brought up new thoughts after his "nay" vote tonight.
ensued as to whether to reconsider the vote; with Mayor Roe clarifying the
motion to reconsider could occur at the meeting where action had been taken or the
Gaughan clarified that while he didn't believe it technically came into play
under these circumstances, it could be viewed as setting a poor precedent to
vote against a resolution such as this in abstract. If under circumstances
where the City Council was bound by particular time constraints for which
written action may occur, City Attorney Gaughan stated that would be different
than this situation when voting to simply memorialize action taken at a
previous meeting; and due to the absence of one Councilmember, defacto action
Gaughan again offered his input asking that the City Council keep in mind that
this resolution simply memorialized in writing actual events from a previous
meeting; and was not asking individual members to confirm the substance of those
findings, just the existence of those findings in actuality. City Attorney
Gaughan noted the purpose of having this resolution in place was as a means to
make sure the written record was clear so the city could clearly uphold its
60-day requirement for written findings and thereby make the record extraordinarily
clear in through written correspondence to the applicant of those findings; and
for an abundance of caution, the past practice of the City Council has also
been to further memorialize that action via a resolution.
In the spirit
of moving forward and in recognition of the legal counsel provided by City
Attorney Gaughan, Mayor Roe sought to act so as not obstruct the process.
McGehee seconded to reconsider the resolution memorializing findings for denial
of the minor subdivision request at 1926 Gluek Lane.
Motion now under reconsideration and Restated
Mayor Roe noted
this was a rather unique situation created by not having a full City Council
Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for Approval
of a Minor Subdivision of 1861 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016)
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as
detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
Roe reiterated Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item from the
Consent Agenda due to his similar concern and use of the term "marginal" in the
finding, and potential interpretation with multiple meanings.
Laliberte stated that she had the same concerns with this subdivision request
as she had with the previous request related to water drainage; and questioned
why that finding was not also included in this list of findings.
Roe duly noted Councilmember Laliberte's comment.
not having reviewed the meeting tape from the July 11, 2016 meeting when this
subdivision request was denied, City Attorney Gaughan stated it was his recollection
that only one finding was stated in the motion for denial.
Laliberte noted that clarification, opining she must be recalling the broader
discussion during public comment and discussion with staff and City Council
deliberation after public comment.
McGehee agreed with the recollection of Councilmember Laliberte that staff
indicated water issues on this site were even more problematic than the previous
Mencke, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)
comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to Councilmembers was
provided by Ms. Mencke as part of the record, attached hereto and made a
to Mr. Koland's request, Ms. Mencke requested reconsideration of the denial and
a new vote to change that previous decision of the City Council.
Mencke summarized the points made in her written comment, disputing the "facts"
utilized by the City Council in making their determination for denial.
Mencke introduced her contractor to address drainage issues in support of her
request for reconsideration.
Minnesota Residential Contractor Tony Brown
constructed over 600 homes during his career, Mr. Brown noted he had been met
with many challenged, but his goal had always been to find resolution with
drainage on lots in an area; and noted his success to-date in solving those
Brown asked the City Council for their expertise with civil engineering in
having based their ruling on that expertise. Mr. Brown further asked if the
City's engineer had approved calculations for drainage on this site; and asked
that the City Council provide a response or seek additional information to
determine a solution.
noted with the previous item, Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's action was to
memorialize action already taken, or a motion to reconsider that previous
action to deny.
recognizing another home currently under construction in their neighborhood
with similar issues, Ms. Mencke questioned how that had received approval when
theirs had been denied.
Roe clarified that was not under consideration tonight; and without details of
that approval, could not address that. Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Mencke for her
testimony and advised the City Council would take under advisement her request
to reconsider previous denial.
pointed out by Ms. Mencke, Mr. Koland referenced his written comments (page 6)
and calculations he made as a civil engineer, using input provide by the City
of Roseville's engineer. Mr. Koland asked any city professional engineer to
perform their own calculations, or offered to hire a third party engineer to do
Koland reiterated his points previously stated, opining that a fact used for denial
had not been made public nor shared; and as pointed out by Mayor Roe, these
requests were usually handled at the administrative level. Therefore, Mr. Koland
opined that there was no established precedent for such action, or no rules outlined
by the city. If the city wished to create or make rules, Mr. Koland further
opined that it should do so before a subdivision application came forward, as
it was not appropriate to create ordinances on one individual submission.
While the City Council may recognize there is a drainage issue, Mr. Koland
noted there had been no action to prohibit other building within variations of
these two requested submissions, and especially with a home currently under
construction in the area, he found these denials confusion.
King, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)
to the public hearing notice map, as displayed, Mr. King addressed runoff to
their lot from surrounding lots, with theirs being the lowest lot. Mr. King
questioned how and why they should be held accountable for surrounding runoff
but unable to deal with the runoff from their parcel into the established drain
due to topography and changes made by those surrounding parcels over the
years. Mr. King noted the whole mitigation point involves 250 houses above
their parcel and those surrounding neighbors whose parcels drain into their
yard and flooded their yard with each rainfall. Therefore, Mr. King questioned
how any additional impervious surface on their parcel (e.g. driveway) could be
deemed excessive, opining such a statement was a complete double standard and
misstatement of any reality. Mr. King questioned how his one lot could
possibly mitigate drainage for an entire area; and as a Scientist familiar with
flow analysis, had come to the conclusion that there would be zero impact. Therefore,
Mr. King opined the reason stated for denial of the requested subdivision was false
moved reconsideration of the previous motion of July 11, 2016.
Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11338 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a
Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016);" as
amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "additional."
appreciating the work put forth by the applicant, Councilmember Laliberte
reiterated her concerns with this particular area. Also without a full Council
at tonight's meeting, Councilmember Laliberte further noted her inability to
reconsider any of that information presented last week during public testimony.
McGehee seconded the remarks of Councilmember Laliberte; and noted previous
discussion for intent of this resolution to memorialize findings established on
the benefit of the public and applicants, Mayor Roe clarified with City Attorney
Gaughan that, while city code standards indicate areas for consideration in
approval or denial of subdivision requests, city code also provides for some discretion.
Specifically, Mayor Roe noted that discretion included the broader consideration
of the entire community's health, safety and welfare. While not written down,
Mayor Roe noted those were standard considerations and taken into account in
any circumstances or as a result of public testimony leading the City Council
to believe there is a potential issue with a subdivision even if it appeared to
meet all other code provisions.
Attorney Gaughan concurred with that statement; noting there was no mandate
that the City Council rubberstamp conclusions and recommendation of city
staff. City Attorney Gaughan noted there was a reason for the City Council to
hear such requests and make a determination based on their discretion, even if
and when those actions may not be in keeping with staff recommendations. City
Attorney Gaughan stated that as long as the actions of the City Council are not
arbitrary or capricious and their actions were based on conviction about
certain issues or concerns, those actions were deemed appropriate.
his initial support of denial of this request on July 11, 2016, Mayor Roe
stated he would support memorializatoin of that denial in this case as well.
at both parcels on Gluek Lane, Mayor Roe noted a subsequent path to follow at
their choice, via legal recourse through the court system.
Consideration of the Roseville Environmental Review Worksheet ERW)
related to the Java Capital Partners LLC Project at 2700 Cleveland Avenue
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as
detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
McGehee noted several areas needing consideration by the City Council in
general as well as brought forward during her review of this particular EAW.
McGehee referenced numerous items throughout the ERW that stated "pending" and
since she considered these items of import, questioning what that term
"pending" actually meant and how completion of each was monitored and by whom.
Councilmember McGehee stated her preference that items no longer be "pending"
when coming before the City Council, but already approved by other agencies.
in her personal review of this ERW, Councilmember McGehee noted that, while it
may not be well known in the community, neither the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) nor the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWSD) agencies have sufficient
staff to oversee this type or project or others done in the greater
metropolitan area; and that oversight was left to the particular municipality to
Councilmember McGehee advised that in referencing various codes listed throughout
the ERW (e.g. construction codes) stating review would be performed by an
environmental engineer/consultant, typically a consultant hired by the
developer/contractor doing the actual building, and not hired by the city whose
review would be most concerned with protecting Roseville resident's health,
welfare and safety. Councilmember McGehee submitted that it may be worth the
city's consideration as part of its process to escrow funds from the
developer/contractor for hiring an independent environmental person reporting
back directly to the city to guarantee residents are well protected.
McGehee further expressed her disappointment in this specific ERW that the
intent was to re-use contaminated soils for a 50/50 mix in referenced documents
for use in other places rather than stepping up to clean this area further.
Also, referencing documentation related to fill coming onto the site,
Councilmember McGehee noted there was no actual reference to who would review
that documentation. She suggested it would behoove the city to have that
information available and reviewed. Specific to the referenced field
technician cited to review soils for potential contamination, Councilmember
McGehee stated she was dubious about that accountability.
general and throughout her review of this documentation, Councilmember McGehee
suggested the need moving forward for the City Council to put a policy in place
for hiring a consultant approved by the City (and paid for by the developer in
an escrow account), a consultant that was accountable and answerable to the
city versus only to the contractor/developer.
the MPCA letter (page 2), Councilmember McGehee referenced their discussion of
and encouragement to the city to look at low impact design. Since 2005,
Councilmember McGehee noted mitigation through special ditches, vegetative
strips, parking lot swales and other options that were all contributions to the
Green Cities efforts and more forward looking building practices. When time
allows, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that the health, welfare and
safety of municipal residents would also be incorporated into those MPCA comments
and into city policy.
to the referenced engineer, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed for Mayor Roe that
the consultant was hired by the developer at this point.
Roe asked staff to clarify when items are listed as "pending" what that meant:
whether they weren't going to happen or simply hadn't happened yet. Mayor Roe
stated his hesitancy in holding up the development in this case, but asked
staff to note the need for future discussion as suggested by Councilmember
McGehee's review of this ERW.
Manager Trudgeon duly noted the requested discussion for future reference;
advising staff would bring forward additional research and ideas at that time.
Laliberte thanked Councilmember McGehee for her personal research and comments;
and agreed that "pending" could have different meanings creating some
moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of Java Capital Partners LLC
Environmental Review Worksheet (ERW- Attachment A) and the applicant's responses
to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) comments as satisfying the ERW
requirements established in City of Roseville Resolution No. 11198; directing
staff to approve permits when such necessary information and project details
comply with City and State Codes.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Receive 2017 City Manager Recommended Budget
handouts were provided as part of this presentation, including the slide
presentation entitled "City of Roseville City Manager Recommended 2017 Budget" presentation dated July 18, 2016, and revised copies of Attachments A, B and D
to the RCA of today's date.
Trudgeon outlined recommendations, specifically highlighting the proposed
Mental Health Liaison Officer was intended as a pilot program for the first
year, with additional details still pending for presentation at a later date to
the City Council, including specific restrictions on use of Forfeiture Funds
for short-term funding. City Manager Trudgeon further noted the contractual
obligations of $105,000 for cost of living adjustments (COLA) increases,
reducing the total COLA accordingly for non-union employees.
McGehee noted that the recommended use of reserves brought the projected
reserves within a hair of the bottom range and balance. Councilmember McGehee
noted proposed reduction or deferral of capital improvement program (CIP) items
seemed harsh from her perspective.
Trudgeon noted the annual need to analyze CIP needs, and simply because it
shows up on the spreadsheet, that annual examination identified things that
could be deferred or deemed no longer necessary. Mr. Trudgeon noted a harder
part of that conversation involved whether or not a particular CIP need could
be accommodated if there was no funding available; also involving whether to
defer it when weighed against the broader picture in lieu of no available funding.
McGehee requested additional information from City Manager Trudgeon via email
those specific CIP items that remained imperative, those deferred, and those
clarified that could constitute staff checking off those items on the
spreadsheet to provide a list of what was being recommended for 2017 from that
Mayor Roe noted
this provided an annual opportunity to review and understand the CIP with many
questions remaining. While agreeing that each year the review was needed,
Mayor Roe noted the ongoing negative funding that would occur in the near
future and the need to identify solutions for that funding. While confident it
remained on staff's radar screen, Mayor Roe reiterated the need to develop a
plan to deal with those issues.
Laliberte questioned the make-up of the ongoing cost for volunteer recognition
efforts and how much was involved in one-time database costs or for ongoing
support and maintenance of the database.
Trudgeon reported that there was continuing software support of approximately
$2,000 to $3,000; and clarified that in the past this had not been included as
a line item, but going forward would be shown as a budget item. At this point,
Mr. Trudgeon noted it was listed under programming costs for the Parks &
Recreation Department. Mr. Trudgeon reported that the remaining volunteer
recognition funding was to provide recreational opportunities with staffing/training
in several area parks selected to provide segments of the population with
recreational opportunities at their location. Mr. Trudgeon noted typically
sign up for programs was provided with participants coming to the site; but in
this case, staff would be pursuing bringing staff directly to a particular area
(e.g. Karen neighborhood) to serve them. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the bulk of
that cost would be for seasonal employees to staff those programs and train
them accordingly; and obviously would be driven by the number signed up as to
the number of staff needed by ratio of participant to staff person.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon noted the Parks &
Recreation Department was very good at communicating with particular
neighborhoods to determine their needs and interests, thus indicating a
potential need for training in those areas.
Laliberte noted such programs may attract youth from surrounding communities as
well; and asked how staff was prepared to handle that or how to differentiate
residents versus non-resident program use.
Trudgeon stated he wasn't sure such a decision had made yet, and noted the
ultimate goal was to provide such opportunities at a low or no cost option; and
didn't think there was a large distinction at this time, but would pursue
additional detail with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke.
Mental Health Liaison is proposed as a pilot program the first year,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned staff's funding options if it went beyond
that first year.
Trudgeon clarified that the intent for the pilot program was to determine the
deliverables and what worked or didn't work; after which alternative financing
would be pursued; whether via levy funds or via other revenue resources. While
not having an impact on levy funds in 2017 as proposed, Mr. Trudgeon noted it
could very well become a levy factor in the future. Specifically regarding use
of forfeiture funds, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed his understanding that the funds
could be used for supplemental operational needs, and clarified he was
considering this position as an operation need; but further noted he would
continue to review that to make sure use of that fund was being interpreted
correctly, prompting ongoing conversation and involving the city's legal
Laliberte noted she had a similar question regarding funding the Assistant City
Manager position from the Communications Fund as an ongoing allotment.
Trudgeon advised that at this time, he felt confident in funding the position
through that fund, envisioning the position would oversee the entire
communication effort of the city. However, as time goes on and depending on
the status of the Communications Fund with future franchise fees and
collections, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that funding resource would need further
review, but for the foreseeable future, he thought it was appropriate to use
those funds for that position.
Laliberte asked for clarification, with City Manager Trudgeon clarifying that
the CIP budget for $160,000 as a new levy amount for the Pavement Management
Program (PMP) and also an additional$65,000 for pathways and parking lots.
with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee suggested
partnering with the School District for SE Roseville outreach. Councilmember
McGehee also noted past conversations within the community about the need for
adult programming in that area as well with many of those adults in the Karen
community feeling more isolated and currently being transported to Fairview
Community Center for their educational programming needs.
Trudgeon noted the city was always open to partnerships, clarifying that this
particular provision was specific to youth programming; but agreed to look at
adult need and additional partnering opportunities with the School District in
the future. Mr. Trudgeon noted the good relationship to-date between the
School District and Karen of Minnesota organization, and while other opportunities
and possibilities will always be considered, this particular initiative is
focused on youth for the purposes of this budget presentation.
McGehee opined there wouldn't be partnerships unless pursued; and asked staff
to look into it.
McGehee asked staff to pursue the cost for National Alliance
on Mental Illness (NAMI) or Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI)
training dollars to provide such training to each police officer. As an
alternative approach, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city and its
residents would be much better served by training all officers versus having
only one position or one shift person with that training. Councilmember
McGehee further asked staff to determine what funding sources could be used and
how much funding was available in the Police Department reserve fund or other
areas (e.g. forfeiture funds).
Trudgeon reiterated that there were restrictions to using forfeiture funds, and
they should not be considered permanent funding due to their restricted uses.
McGehee noted previous budget discussions indicating seniors were often
forgotten, and while staff had been asked to address that issue, there was
nothing included as part of this presentation.
Trudgeon agreed there was nothing new or proposed in this 2017 budget.
However, as noted in a previous report, Mr. Trudgeon noted the existing
provisions for senior citizens within the community and numerous things already
being done. While recognizing there was always more to be done, Mr. Trudgeon
asked that the City Council remain aware that not all of its priorities will or
can be accomplished in one year. Similarly with the strategic technology
initiative, Mr. Trudgeon noted there wasn't much seen in the 2017 proposed
budget, since staff had determined further and a more detailed review was
needed to determine the gaps in current programming. Mr. Trudgeon noted the
same was true for the needs of seniors in the community, to determine the areas
where they're receiving needed support and to define gaps. Mr. Trudgeon noted
there would be a substantial amount of work in the community to fill some of
those gaps; but further noted seniors were being supported in many areas with
material costs and with staff presence. However, at this point, Mr. Trudgeon
advised that the intent was to continue as is until a more detailed review had
been accomplished and future opportunities indicated; therefore he had not recommended
anything new in this particular 2017 budget.
Laliberte agreed that work was already in place, but asked that this senior
segment of the population not be forgotten going forward.
suggested the Parks & Recreation Department also be involved in that
discussion based on their outreach to the community and awareness of some of
those gaps that the city may know or need to know about.
partnerships with the School District, Councilmember Laliberte noted the
retirement of the RASP person. Councilmember Laliberte noted this created a
need for everyone involved to understand if there were larger gaps with a
change to that position than what the School District provided.
suggested staff obtain a report back from the School District on their plans
and any programming gaps from their perspective; with City Manage Trudgeon duly
noting that verification request.
Specific to the
$65,000 CIP allotment for pathways and trails, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed
for Councilmember McGehee that the intent was to fund long-term replacement/rehabilitation
to avoid the current conundrum in needing significant dollars to repair
Etten expressed appreciation for his opportunity to discuss some of these items
with City Manager Trudgeon last week. Specific to the focus on the senior
population, as an example Councilmember Etten noted recent Parks &
Recreation program focus and response for those seniors, when resurfacing tennis
courts by adding Pickleball lines to allow that activity on those courts as
As noted at the
conclusion of City Manager Trudgeon's presentation, Mayor Roe reviewed next
steps and upcoming opportunities for public comment.
Business Items (Action Items)
Recycling Service Proposal
Works Director Marc Culver briefly introduced the presentation and recognized
the incredible amount of work by Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson over the
last months and his summarization of an amazing amount of information resulting
from four very good proposals received. Mr. Culver noted the current recycling
contract expires the end of 2016; and asked that the City Council would provide
guidance to staff on which option(s) to pursue and to authorize final negotiations
with those options as indicated.
Specialist Ryan Johnson
Johnson summarized components of the review, including criteria, proposals,
scoring, costs for cart ownership, and actual service costs for curbside
recycling, with and without the addition of park recycling service.
Johnson reviewed each proposal and their various proposals and comparisons of
each proposal from a three year or five year contract term, and with or without
the park component and/or cart ownership by the city. Mr. Johnson's
presentation included the best value scoring criteria performed without fees
addressing project capability, community values, value added for each company,
performance reviews; and then review adding their proposed fees and average
Johnson noted maximum points resulting for each company and their shifts when
adding various components.
Johnson addressed cart ownership for their initial purchase price and investment
by the city, and with a ten-year cart life, the addition of a CIP item for purchase
of replacement carts after that point, and needed reserves to facilitate that
Johnson reviewed the various proposal scenarios for each firm for the various
services they proposed, including service frequency, cart ownership, contract
term, curbside collection, and multi-family collection costs, revenue share if
any based on 2015 known data and any potential costs to the city in not meeting
the commodity price compared to processing costs, and their total annual
collection costs per firm and per proposal within those four firms. In
concluding the top firms based on all criteria was 1) Eureka Recycling followed
by 2) Republic.
Johnson further detailed options for park and/or trail pick-up and frequency,
providing a variety of costs depending on the actual park, frequency of use,
and locations of trails and their accessibility.
and based on the presented information, Mr. Johnson concluded that Eureka
Recycling was staff's recommendation with a five year contract including park
collection, and vendor owned carts.
Johnson asked for City Council feedback and authorization to initiate negotiations
with their selected contractor, followed by future City Council approval of a
contract in August or September of 2016.
Etten asked staff to describe the scenarios listed for organics collection
looking to the future, and what they thought may work better based on the
submitted proposals from these four firms.
Johnson noted all proposals, if applicable, considered organic collection as an
opt-in program, with the city or contractor chosen to publicize that offering
and direct contact with the resident to sign up with the vendor. Similar to
the current waste stream option, Mr. Johnson advised that the intent would be
to use smaller vehicles with fewer stops given the lighter load; with the
option available should there be sufficient interest among Roseville residents
to make it feasible. If there was enough interest, Mr. Johnson advised that
staff would work with the chosen vendor to renegotiate prices if and when that
interest became high enough. Mr. Johnson noted there was a large range of
prices in that particular market right now depending on where those organic
markets were found.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Johnson noted the various collection
options also available depending on the contractor; but confirmed in the
short-term organics collection would be a separate bill between the vendor and
resident, with no involvement by the city other than the customer service
realm, with a list provided to the city by the vendor of those homes
the scoring area, Councilmember Etten noted the past performance low mark
received by the current vendor, Eureka Recycling, and asked if that service
issue would be addressed in the future if Eureka was the chosen vendor.
Johnson advised that staff's rationale in the low rank on the performance sheet
was based on a late annual mailing at the time he was performing reviews of the
company, with that mailing two months behind schedule. Mr. Johnson advised
that, in all fairness to Eureka and other proposers, he did not seek out the
reasons for that delay, but simply noted that as a performance issue without further
McGehee noted the recent community survey asked about organic collection
interest, with not much enthusiasm shown. However, Councilmember McGehee noted
the interest in park recycling. Councilmember McGehee stated her support for a
five year contract with Eureka Recycling, with park collection and vendor-owned
and stored carts. Councilmember McGehee agreed staff had done a great job with
this difficult RFP, and recognized the huge amount of staff time it required,
but noted this was also the most thorough job she'd seen done in a long time.
Councilmember McGehee noted that staff time required was part of her rationale
in seeking a longer term contract.
future reference, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the reducing of community
values percentage and increasing added value percentage was likely not the
position of many in the community who strongly favor of recycling. Knowing
where the end product market was for recycling is an important component to the
to process, Councilmember Laliberte asked about the "blue bag" concept for
organic collection, and whether or not that was provide by trash haulers as
well as recycling vendors.
Culver advised that some vendors offered that as part of general waste collection,
and offered to further research that option and provide further clarification
on the city's website or via the city newsletter at the suggestion of Councilmember
Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee's stated preference; and agreed that
recycling in parks was an important and obvious next step for the city to
take. Noting the dramatic differences among bids for park service and recycling,
Councilmember Etten asked staff to further elaborate on the highlights of each
vendor related specifically to that service.
Culver noted some vendors offered to provide dumpsters in the park parking lot,
and other vendors offered rolling carts to the parking lots, while other
vendors offered to walk up to the park buildings and roll carts out to parking
lots or use a smaller type vehicle to traverse trails for less impact. Mr.
Culver noted three of the four vendors were offering to go out on pathways and
service them accordingly. Mr. Culver noted that staff would need to determine
contamination issues going forward, and dependent on which park and the type of
contamination found. Mr. Culver noted the goal was to eliminate park debris,
or to recycle materials versus having them littering the parks and trails.
further expand, Mr. Culver noted previous Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission discussions
about the park component and how it was going to work realistically. Mr.
Culver advised that staff recognized the pricing for this component and
logistics of such a vast rollout of carts at parks and on trails; and
recognition that each situation may not work as initiated. Mr. Culver noted
one issue involved the safety of having vehicles drive down long pathways along
with the wear and tear on those trails that were not designed to support heavy
vehicles. Having heard from a variety of sources, including the public, Mr.
Culver noted the interest and goal was to provide better service for recycling
in parks. Mr. Culver noted there were various opportunities available to do
so, and multiple tiers or levels of service within those options. Therefore,
Mr. Culver stated the intent was to keep all options available through contract
negotiations, but to use care in how carts are rolled out in parks and along
trails, to refine their location(s), and work with the Parks & Recreation
Department and Commission to determine what made sense and what worked and what
didn't work; whether or not they were being used; and what got contaminated;
and then to make adjustments accordingly to achieve the best results.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Johnson confirmed there was also a
seasonal issue for park recycling, with city staff already addressing that use
depending on the type of use a park and/or trail received. Mr. Johnson advised
that where applicable, the vendor would store carts for the winter months, and
then coordinate with the Parks & Recreation Department when use ramped up
in the spring and which parks to rollout carts in first.
Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue
Klink provided her credentials, and for full disclosure noted her former service
as a member of the Board of Directors of Eureka Recycling.
a faculty member with the University of Minnesota in the Environmental Science
and Climatology area, Ms. Klink expressed appreciation as a Roseville resident
the services provided by Eureka. Noting the considerable amount of information
on the makeup of recycling collections provided by Eureka and their facility, Ms.
Klink opined knowing where that recycling material ended up was a value that
was important to the city and its residents, especially given trends over the
Jensen, Resident Sales Manager for Walters Refuse and Recycling Services, Blaine,
Jensen testified of Walters commitment to Roseville; and their active service
as a second generation firm. Mr. Jensen provided a history of the firm and
current ownership; and provided his personal recognition of the firm's
customer-oriented service, including those elderly or handicapped customers
receiving customized personal assistance. Mr. Jensen note that their firm had
a number of refuse customers in Roseville already and expressed the firm's
willingness to communicate with that customer base as well as with new
customers to incentivize reduction of recycling materials entering through the
refuse stream as well.
agreed that park recycling was an important next phase for Roseville, and
supported incorporating it into this new contract. As outlined by staff, Mayor
Roe also agreed it made sense to look at the variety of ways to facilitate that
service; noting there were no objections from individual Councilmembers as to
using that approach. Based on the top performers and scoring indicated in
staff's spreadsheets, Mayor Roe noted it looked favorable for the city for
annual costs and with park recycling but without the city owning carts. Mayor
Roe agreed with Councilmember McGehee that the city had enough items on its CIP
spreadsheet without adding recycling cart ownership to it. While it may be a
lower cost to the city initially, Mayor Roe opined the benefit to the city
long-term was for the vendor to own and maintain the carts. Regarding a three
year versus five year contract, Mayor Roe stated he had no preference, but
thought the longer-term contract may prove more beneficial.
Laliberte expressed interest in this issue having another week for the
community to review and provide input, and then take formal action at next week's
City Council meeting.
ensued regarding the timing for contract negotiation and other logistics
between now and year-end; whether additional public comment would be
forthcoming; and recognizing the public input provided in the recent community
survey supporting the decision at this point.
McGehee spoke in support of taking action tonight, based on the lack of public
comment received since the item was initially included on last week's agenda,
even though not heard until tonight.
Mayor Roe noted
pricing details had not been available to the public before tonight's meeting.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a contract with selected contractor, Eureka
Recycling for a five-year contract term including the parks recycling
component, and ownership of the carts by the vendor; and further directing
staff to return to the City Council for final approval of the contract at a
recognized the community survey results; and also noted there was no major
change or cost in this contract, while providing increased services.
Laliberte stated she wasn't in disagreement with the recommendation; but was
simply asking for a deferred process before approval; and for that reason,
would not support the motion based on that process only.
stated that given the timing and apparent lack of interest in public participation
to-date, he would support the motion.
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:52 p.m.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Authorization to Develop a Contract with Accela for a New
Permitting, Inspections, Code Enforcement and Licensing System
Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced this item, as part of
the organizational priorities included in the City Manager Recommended budget
for 2017. Ms. Collins noted staff had spent parts of the last two years reviewing
various software programs for e-permitting solutions and to improve workflow.
Ms. Collins deferred to Mr. Koepp for his review of why staff chose this option
to recommend and how it would be intended for integration.
As detailed in
the RCA, Mr. Koepp reviewed the city's current permitting, inspections, and
code enforcement software and various ages of those programs. Mr. Koepp noted
the department retained one computer station for historical permit research to
access past digital permits.
Mr. Koepp noted
there were many vendors in this software realm; and reviewed their benefits and
limitations. Mr. Koepp displayed the City of Rochester, MN as an example of an
Accela software user; the recommended vendor of choice by staff. Mr. Koepp
reviewed the potential benefits for the city, residents and contractors in
being able to search the status of permits through a web portal. Mr. Koepp
also noted the benefits for those larger permit and land use applications involving
multiple departments for review, with the current system providing for no
central digitalization of that work flow.
Mr. Koepp noted
that the city's legacy data could be brought into this one system and no longer
require maintenance of those older systems, which had spurred staff as a
priority to improve overall efficiencies and address the responsiveness - or
lack thereof - frequently experienced with those older systems. Mr. Koepp
noted these inefficiencies currently impacted not only Community Development Department
staff, but also that of the Information Technology Department staff and future
viability concerns with that older software with no appreciable updates or
reviewed the functionality of the current system and the need to provide modern
functions and GIS data as a way of life for most users, as well as fusing
mapping and permit systems. Mr. Koepp also noted the improvements in reporting
and data research available with this software, including economic development
and housing data that was cumbersome to obtain in the current system, and
dramatic improvements with this more superior reporting tool and database that
would be available for all departments.
provided a comparison table showing various types of software, staff's review,
and alternate options as well as upfront costs plus ongoing maintenance.
As noted in the
staff report, Ms. Collins noted the recent purchase of Springbrook by Accela
that would allow the city's current Springbrook financial system to integrate
this software as well. Ms. Collins referenced other departments providing
enforcement (e.g. Fire Department) and the ability with this software for all departments
to be on the same page electronically rather than the current phone and/or
email communication system. From that standpoint, Ms. Collins noted the
heightened level of communication and transparency it would provide, particularly
in the Design Review Committee (DRC) updates and workflow and communication advantages.
advised that staff's research had provided very favorable comments from users,
the City of Rochester and Nicollet County, who both had good things to say
about the program, including from an implementation and support side. Ms. Collins
advised that they also gave good reviews for practical community user feedback
as well as from other organizations and with nationwide best practices. Ms.
Collins noted that the City's former Community Development Director Paul
Bilotta at his new employer, the City of Corvallis, OR also used this software
and indicated they were very pleased with its performance.
Mayor Roe asked
if business licensing and/or pet licensing were available with this software
that could make it even more multi-departmental.
advised that it has that capability, but she hadn't yet discussed its viability
with the Finance Department, while focusing on the land management module,
including rental and contractor licenses.
variable components in this software, Mr. Koepp noted modules were priced
according to the number of users; and this presentation was proposed to recoup
costs for installation and maintenance via land use and application fees. Mr.
Koepp advised that other departments could add users at any time, as their departments
were able to absorb the related costs to do so. At this point for the
Community Development Department, Mr. Koepp stated the intent would be for an
initial 8 to 10 users; and the ability to add other users at any point those
other departments were ready to joint into the system. Mr. Koepp advised that
he would suggest at a minimum having the Engineering and Fire Departments have
at least one user to be able to participate in interdepartmental reviews for
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Koepp advised that Accela worked with a third party
implementation partner to convert tables and numbers of standard permit and
license type templates to the greatest extent possible and included in the
initial cost. After that, Mr. Koepp advised there were different tiers of implementation
available and related costs depending on the number of departures from that
standard template. Mr. Koepp clarified that the proposal received earlier
today was approximately $40,000 plus for that implementation that could take
from 4 to 6 months. Mr. Koepp stated the intent was to use the remainder of
2016 to load and update those forms and data; and then go live at the beginning
of 2017 and modify city fees accordingly to recoup costs.
advised that $20,000 had been set aside in 2016 for e-government efforts; and
noted the request is for an additional $50,000 in 2017 with the remainder of
the cost made up through a proposed 1% technology fee applied to commercial fees,
a typical practice for communities using this type of software.
Mr. Koepp noted
that staff had calculated a revenue source of approximately $15,000 in using
that 1% technology fee based on permits issued to-date in 2016. Mr. Koepp
clarified that the intent was to structure any fees to apply to commercial
licenses and permits and shield residential permits and fees to recoup as much
of that annual cost for the software as possible.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten as it related to implementation, Ms. Collins projected
that the fees could be absorbed from each department as applicable when coming
on as a user of the software with their licenses at the 1% technology fee,
anticipating that would make the cost neutral.
ensued regarding the cost of legacy data transfer and ongoing annual
maintenance available through the technology fee; blending of the systems
within the department and reality to do so; and options available to download
paper applications or electronically as per preferred customer choice.
Laliberte thanked staff for their research, information provided and
presentation. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt this came
out of nowhere, but then heard staff had been researching it over the last two
years, which had been new information for her. Councilmember Laliberte stated
staff's presentation made sense, but she wanted to ensure face to face customer
was available for those seeking that, noting it was not only important to the
City Council, but also Department Heads in making that part of the streamlining
process for whatever was decided. Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of
a per user versus per transaction software program.
Mr. Koepp noted the variables in that type of application based on each
software program reviewed by staff; and substantial costs that could be realized
with a per transaction concept versus per user.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Collins addressed how current data would
transfer into this new system for rental registrations, eliminating the labor
intensive nature of the current system and ability to auto-generate renewal
notices and electronic payment options.
Mr. Koepp noted
the current $4,0000 cost paid by the city for Pay Pal online payment support,
but its inability to provide data reports without custom charges to do so.
Laliberte noted in the past there had been some difficulty in getting software
to work with other software (e.g. HSI program) and asked if there were any
concerns in this case.
Trudgeon noted with Accela's purchase of Springbrook, it was anticipated this
would work much better than past experiences had found.
concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the advantages with the less "silo"
system among city departments, allowed more vetting by the Information
Technology Department on potential software programs, which she found a good
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, authorizing staff to start developing a professional services
agreement with Accela to implement a new software solution for permits,
inspections, licensing and code enforcement.
advised staff anticipated having the information available to the City Council
at next week's meeting.
Receive Update on New Employee Positions Created in the
As detailed in
the RCA and attached department memoranda, City Manager Trudgeon briefly
reviewed new positions as adopted in the 2016 City Budget and in accordance
with the City Council's request for a mid-year update on their status.
Specific to the
License Center, Councilmember Laliberte noted past discussion for agreements
with auto dealerships and the city.
Director Chris Miller
Director Miller responded that staff had talked about it internally, and with
the State of MN, but had been unable to-date to find any legal authority or
incentive to do so. Mr. Miller opined that dealers would continue to shop
around, and have the ability to leave on a whim as they chose. Mr. Miller
suggested the best way to retain their business was to provide them with a
level of customer service unavailable to them elsewhere. Mr. Miller noted the
Roseville License Center currently served eleven dealers, higher than at any
point in its history.
thanked City Manager Trudgeon and staff for their feedback; and asked that this
mid-year update be retained as standard practice and part of the process for
Fire Department Emergency Management and Safety and Risk
Fire Chief Tim
O'Neill introduced tonight's presentations and deferred to Assistant Fire Chief
David Brosnahan for this annual update.
Brosnahan summarized this aspect new to Fire Department management,
spoke in support of nationwide encouragement for infrastructure providers to
get these utilities underground.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Assistant Chief Brosnahan advised that the Fire
Department currently offered hands only CPR training, and in the near future
was looking to offer a monthly training for the general public consisting of a
1 to 1.5-hour training format.
Trudgeon publically thanked the Fire Department for the time, and especially
thanked Assistant Chief Brosnahan for taking on the safety mantel and improving
it, both the compliance and training aspects. Mr. Trudgeon personally thanked
them for volunteering to take it on, and recognized the amount of paperwork and
tracking necessary to address this serious component of management, opining
their department was a perfect fit for it.
Fire Department City Code Update Presentation
detailed in the RCA, Chief O'Neill noted the need to update all facets of the
Department's Prevention and Inspection program and city code as it applied to
the area of fire inspections and enforcement. Chief O'Neill noted this would
provide for consistency and compliance with State Fire Code.
404 - Air Pollution Control
O'Neill noted Item D related to Institutional Recreational Burning Permits; and
with typically only one permit issued annually at Halloween time for the B-Dale
Club, recommended discontinuing issuing these permits and limiting them to
portable or permanent burning structures as noted.
an asthma sufferer, Councilmember McGehee noted all burning made a great
difference in her ability to be outside or have the windows open, and
recognizing others in the community shared that difficulty, spoke in support of
eliminating this option.
that on any given weekend in the fall, Chief O'Neill noted there may be
hundreds of burns going on, and clarified the intent wasn't to look to change
code to prohibit those, only large burns.
Etten suggested that staff check with residents around the B-Dale Club who may
be disappointed if this is discontinued, as it served as a wonderful community
the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill confirmed there was no permit fee for
this type of burn, and therefore no staffing or equipment availability on site
by Fire Department staff.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, and with clarification by Chief O'Neill
as to specifications for an enclosed ring versus other options depending on
size of the burn and location, Mayor Roe asked staff to further clarify
language in Section 404.02 (Open Burning) for items 1 and 2 related to
permanent and portable enclosures. Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember
Laliberte that for institutional permits, it might make sense to bring that
removed language as proposed remain pending public input.
902 - Fire Prevention
the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill defined the difference in the Fire
Marshal position (appointed by the Fire Chief) and Fire Inspector position now
assigned to each shift. Chief O'Neill advised that the Marshall addressed enforcement
and Inspectors performed inspections (e.g. multi-family units, permits,
this was addressed within the current staffing section, Mayor Roe asked that
staff address this distinction in code language or elsewhere to make it more
understandable for a layperson and for the benefit of future City Councils.
to Extend Curfew
10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting to the
conclusion of this item.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill advised that trees and
brush are not typically considered part of a prairie burn, with a few
exceptions. Chief O'Neill noted there may be a situation where it was not
convenience or a homeowner was unable to transport those materials (e.g. a
large hill or other encumbrance) and small piles (e.g. Buckthorn) may be
permitted by the Fire Department for burning on site. However, in general,
Chief O'Neill noted code did not allow for it, but advised it was currently at
the discretion of the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall(s) if and when to make such a
permit available, and only on a case by case basis when it made sense.
Institutional Burning Permits, and at the request for confirmation by
Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill advised that fees would be attached to
fireworks, display and sale permits as currently outlined in the city's fee
structure and reviewed annually. However, Chief O'Neill advised that he could
find no corresponding line item in city code, apparently inadvertently missed
when added to the fee structure.
Roe recalled approval of such permits following the change in state law; and
also thought he recalled there was a specific citation in code.
O'Neill opined it must have been missed when the state law and regulations
changed; but agreed to further research other business licenses in Chapter 3 of
city code (business licenses).
Roe noted prairie burns had been approved in the past, and asked staff to make
sure other code references were not in place.
noted by Mayor Roe related to installation or modification of fire alarm detection
or signaling systems, Chief O'Neill clarified this didn't apply to a home smoke
detector, only commercial systems that required those inspections. At the
request of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte, staff was requested to clarify
language that this applied to multi-family buildings as well as commercial applications.
Chief O'Neill agreed to research all areas beyond single-family situations.
to Section 902.05 (Explosives and Blasting Agents), Chief O'Neill noted this
was no longer referenced in fire code and therefore recommended removal in its
Section 902.06 (Storage of Flammable Liquids), and the annual review addressed
in Item 3, Chief O'Neill stated he was unaware of it ever having been done, nor
was it included in any report generated by the department. Since Chief O'Neill
was also unaware of where the Department could obtain the original permit, he
suggested removal of Item 3 as well.
Item B for New Bulk Plants, Councilmember Etten asked staff to review the
geographical boundaries shown, suggesting I-35W may be more appropriate than
with Section 902.10 (Evidence of Compliance with Code), Chief O'Neill
recommended removal of this section completely.
a next step, Chief O'Neill advised that staff would take feedback from tonight
and put together a revised document for future City Council review and formal
Discussion regarding High Density Residential Housing
(HDR) Housing Districts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:12 p.m.