1. Call to Order. The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rogers was called to order by Mayor Grimm on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at Rogers Community Center, 21201 Memorial Drive, Rogers, MN, 55374.
Council present: Rob Bell, Jay Bunting, Jamie Davis, Jason Grimm, and Steve Rauenhorst.
Staff present: Jeff Carson, City Attorney; Stacy Doboszenski, Assistant City Administrator; Brad Feist, Fire Chief; Jeff Luther, Police Chief; John Seifert, Public Works Supt.; Steve Stahmer, City Administrator; Lisa Wieland, Finance Director; and Bret Weiss, City Engineer.
2. Open Forum. Don Miller, President of High School Hockey Boosters, presented a payment of their annual commitment to the City of Rogers, a check for $20,000 and thanked the City for providing the facility.
Council thanked Miller for the payment.
3. Presentations. None.
4. Approve agenda. Additions to Other Business: 8.01 Question relating to Code Enforcement (Rauenhorst) 5. Consent Agenda. 5.01 Approval of Minutes from November 10, 2009 City Council Meeting and Minutes from November 10, 2009 Workshop 5.02 Approval of Bills and Claims 5.03 Approval of Resolution No. 2009 - 53, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of Contract and Accepting Grant to Participation in Operation NightCAP 5.04 Approval of Resolution No. 2009 - 54, A Resolution Regarding The Administration Of The Wetland Conservation Act 5.05 Approval of Resolution No. 2009 - 55, A Resolution Authorizing The City Of Rogers To Execute An Agreement With The State Of Minnesota Department Of Transportation For Traffic Control Signals On South Diamond Lake Road At Rogers Drive And Northdale Blvd. 5.06 Approval of Resolution No. 2009 - 56, A Resolution Authorizing The City Of Rogers To Execute An Agreement With The State Of Minnesota Department Of Transportation For Traffic Control Signals On County Road 81 At Memorial Dr. And Industrial Blvd. 5.07 Approval of Ordinance No. 2009-10, An Ordinance Amending Section 10-26 Of The Rogers City Code Relating To Animals 5.08 Approval of Summary Ordinance for Ordinance No. 2009-10 5.09 Donation of Temporary and Trail Easement by Vantage Point Partners 5.10 Approval of Summary Ordinance for Ordinance No. 2009-09 5.11 Approval of Pay Application No. 6 for Well No. 8 to Traut Wells 5.12 Meritex Twin Cities Industrial I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage 5.13 Meritex Rogers II, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage 5.14 2009 Auditor Engagement Letter – Abdo, Eick & Meyers
Rauenhorst pulled item 5.01 due to his absence from the meetings.Bunting pulled item 5.07.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Davis to approve the remainder of the consent agenda. Bell extended a thank you to Vantage Pointe Partners for the easement donation. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Davis, seconded by Bunting to approve 5.01. Motion carried 4-0-1, Rauenhorst abstained.
Consent Item 5.07Bunting stated he pulled this item for informational purposes. Bunting wanted to make it clear the proposed ordinance does not specify a breed, in order to have dog considered dangerous it must actually bite someone; breeds are not included. Chief Luther concurred.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Davis to approve item 5.07. Motion carried 5-0.
6. Public HearingsNone.
7. General Business 7.01 Rogers Plaza 2nd Addition Platting ProposalEngineer Weiss provided background on the proposal for preparing Rogers Plaza 2nd Addition plat. Weiss stated the proposal was amended to include fees for both a preliminary and final platting process.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Davis to approve the proposal of $7,610 to provide engineering and survey services for preparation of a preliminary and final plat for Rogers Plaza 2nd Addition. Motion carried 5-0.
7.02 Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report for 129th Avenue (Arthur Street to Brookside Lane) and Approve a Proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for Engineering ServicesWeiss explained the costs associated with engineering for a feasibility report for 129th Avenue from Arthur Street to Brookside Lane and other related engineering services expenses.Weiss stated the cost of engineering can be charged back to the state aid system with no immediate outlay from city’s general fund for planning purposes. Weiss stated the city has to collect funds from state aid after dollars have been expended and can request for them in a lump sum payment.
Weiss explained the note of 25% covering project costs; that is what is allowed from the state aid process.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Bell to authorize preparation of feasibility report for 129th Avenue and approval proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering services, survey, and geotechnical services at a cost of $53,100. Motion carried 5-0. 7.03 Consider Approval of a Developers Agreement for Rogers Plaza 2nd AdditionWeiss presented the developers agreement for Rogers Plaza 2nd Addition stating it ties into the construction of the detention ponds on the Rogers Plaza property as part of the CSAH 81 properties, and includes outlots as future developable properties. Weiss stated the property owner, Mr. VanHeel, has agreed to donate the property for the ponding areas for the city to fulfill platting activities. Future development areas will remain as outlots with development fees paid at the time they are developed.
Weiss then read the following additional paragraph be added to the developer’s agreement:Owner has agreed to provide City with the needed land for ponding and temporary easement for completion of the Project. OWNER HAS RECEIVED THE BROCHURE TITLED "ACQUISITION INFORMATION FOR PROPERTY OWNERS" AND HEREBY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO AN APPRAISAL AND CASH CONSIDERATION; as consideration, the City has agreed to subdivide a portion of Exhibit A into three outlots, two of which will be deeded by Owner to the City for ponding and a third that will be available to Owner for future platting.
There were no concerns by council.Motion by Bell, seconded by Bunting to approve the developer’s agreement for Rogers Plaza 2nd addition with Rogers plaza Partners for the development of ponding outlots for the CSAH 81 project, including the paragraph read by Engineer Weiss. Motion carried 5-0. 7.04 Approval of Resolution No. 2009 - 57, A Resolution Approving State of Minnesota Department of Transportation Co-Operative Construction Agreement with the City of RogersEngineer Weiss provided a presentation regarding the resolution proposed between the city of Rogers and the State of Minnesota to authorize the agreement for the fly-over project. The agreement sets the stage moving forward, that the city will proceed with the project. Weiss provided cost information including 7% contingency funding for the total construction costs. ARRA funds came off the top of the total project cost reducing the amount the city needs to match at 20%. The City share is then estimated at $1,645,000.Staff is looking at evaluating which signs need relocation and the overhead power lines being relocated along with the cost to bury the lines. Weiss stated he will be brining a visual with pricing for the overhead lines back to Council at a subsequent meeting. The project is to be bid mid December and awarded mid January with a fund transfer to happen March 1st. MnDOT is the construction manager on the site. Weiss then spoke on the cost savings on the project that have occurred already.
There was a question from the audience if the traffic at Target will be impacted during the construction. Weiss stated there will be no impact all as construction is occurring on the other side of 101 and traffic flow will be kept open.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Bell to approve Resolution No. 2009 - , A Resolution Authorizing the City of Rogers to Execute Agreement No. 95643-R with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and identifying TIF No. 1 as the funding source. Motion carried 5-0. 7.05 (cont.) Request by Roger Sabot for Grandfathering of BillboardRoger Sabot addressed the Council regarding the request for him to research the downcast lighting and referenced the email sent from CBS citing some possible concerns with downcast lighting as it relates to traffic and the light that would spill onto the freeway.
Doboszenski explained the memorandum prepared by the Planning Consultant Jeff Miller with the options listed to either to proceed with a public hearing to amend the site plan to remove the condition that the billboard be removed, proceed with a public hearing at a Planning Commission level to grant another Interim Use Permit, or to uphold the 2004 Interim Use Permit requiring removal by December 31, 2009.
Attorney Carson concurred explaining these are the options available to Council.
Stahmer added that with to the two options listed, Council has the ability for more restriction and control with option B; Interim Use Permit.
Grimm asked if the Council approved this at the last meeting, would he still need to proceed with the public hearing. Staff stated yes, after the consultant planner and attorney had a chance to review the request; it does require a public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Bunting stated it is his preference to extend this out for a period of time. He stated he is a little hesitant with complete grandfathering; he is looking for a fixed date.
Grimm stated this is not something new being added, this is existing. Look at a 10 year sunset.
Bunting stated the one point he does want to make is these signs generate revenue for the city and school district; they are taxed highly.
Bell commented on wanting a timeframe on the use if the Council is going to allow the billboard to remain on the property. Bell stated he could go either way with the request, either extending it or having it expire at year end. Bell stated he was somewhat surprised to see the downcast lighting comment from the billboard company knowing across the nation downcast has been used. Bell stated the lighting is something he wants to separate from this discussion.
Stahmer stated the lighting issue can be looked into further with the Planning Commission and Council discussions as this comes back through the process.
Attorney Carson stated that if Council is heading in direction of Interim Use Permit, the Council is allowed to impose conditions on the permit, the process allows for it.
Bunting stated lighting is something to be clarified as process goes forward.
Rauenhorst believes it should be denied based on the previous agreement.Motion by Bunting, seconded by Davis to refer the process for option B (Interim Use Permit) to the Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-1; Rauenhorst voting no. 7.06 Approval of Busch Developer’s Agreement and Assessment AgreementJeff Carson spoke on the partial performance by the City and Busch’s of the 2002 developers agreement. Carson provided background on the developers agreement with the Busch’s and the assessments for the properties as part of the extension of Industrial Boulevard. Carson stated these are not agreements we would entertain or enter into today if starting new. These agreements incorporate a deal made in 2002. Carson explained under the agreement, the Busch family will be paying the assessments on these properties as the lots develop and building permits are issued.
Carson stated the Developers Agreement for your approval is for a plat that already exists, lots would be sold and developed. The other agreement is an Assessment Agreement on the remaining three outlots, assessments will be incorporated into a developer’s agreement as each outlot develops. Three outlots are being deeded to the city as part of this process as well. The Busch’s have signed both agreements and have provided deeds to the outlots.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to approve Developer’s Agreement for Fox Creek North 3rd Addition. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to approve the Busch Assessment Agreement. Motion carried 5-0. 7.07 Discussion Regarding Assessment Payoff – ScherberDoboszenski explained the meeting held between Mr. Scherber, his attorney, Keith Weber, Kevin Scherber, and Al Maue. Staff stated the request is for the Council to accept the payment from Dale Scherber as payment in full for Industrial Boulevard assessments against his property abutting Industrial Boulevard and Edgewater Parkway. Staff explained it was agreed in mediation that Scherber would pay these assessments by November 14th. Given the timing of the payment, and the attempt by Scherber to meet prior to the payment deadline, staff needs Council approval to accept the payment without charging another year’s worth of interest, as staff does not have that authority.
Motion by Rauenhorst, seconded by Bunting to accept assessment payment from Mr. Scherber as payment in full. Motion carries 5-0. 7.08 Budget Workshop UpdateWieland provided an overview of the discussion during the work session regarding the CIP identifying the following five areas of needs: utility infrastructure and equipment, transportation/street projects, facilities, parks and trails, and equipment.
Wieland provided a review of the funding sources for each identified area. No formal action taken.
8. Other Business. 8.01 Question regarding code enforcementRauenhorst stated last week he met with Bell and Stahmer regarding planning consultant selection and the discussion of code enforcement was brought up. Rauenhorst stated the Council has not given direction on whether or not enforcement will be done on a pro-active or reactive basis.
Davis stated he would like to see proactive rather than reactive.
Bunting stated there needs to be prioritization of the violations.
Davis asked, why have a code if we are not going to enforce it?
Bunting stated complaints would take priority, but as something is seen, it should be followed up on.
Davis stated if the CEO is seeing a common theme, then more proactively enforce.
Bunting stated those things that impact property value should be acted on.
Stahmer stated he didn’t know what discussions the Councils had in the past regarding how enforcement should be handled. Different cities approach this differently, some are complaint based and neighborhoods police themselves. Other cities take a more proactive stance, looking for violations. What is the level the council would like to see, and then be consistent; consistency is the key.
Grimm stated complaint based first, egregious violations 2nd, and proactive as they are seen 3rd.
Luther stated the roles and responsibilities of the position were set before he arrived. Luther read from the position description.
Davis stated, as part of job description there needs to be some proactive non-complaint based action taken.
Bell cautioned the Council stating once you start getting into that realm, you are going to run into situations that it is going to have a significant effect on somebody that the Council will have to deal with it. Then we have to take it seriously and consider it. It could lead to changes in code.
Grimm stated we have made accommodations in the past and referenced outside storage of boats and motor homes.
Bunting stated there are levels of buffer; the CEO can verbally discuss or give immediate citation, the second buffer is the police department and the third buffer is the planning commission.
Rauenhorst stated this was not intended to create a half hour debate.
There was continued discussion on different levels of enforcement. Consensus was complaint based first, egregious violations 2nd, and proactive as they are seen 3rd.
Grimm stated part of enforcement is educating the residents.
Rauenhorst stated the City spends the time writing codes that should be enforced.
8.02 Rogers Youth Hockey – Lisa Parent, Treasurer from Rogers Youth Hockey AssociationMs. Parent presented a $65,000 check from the Rogers Youth Hockey to show continued support of the RAC from its 285 members. Council thanked Ms. Parent for the contribution.
9. Correspondence and Reports No action taken.
10. AdjournMotion by Bunting, seconded by Bell to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,Stacy DoboszenskiAssistant City Administrator/Clerk