Maplewood City Council, 10/23/06, Totally Unofficial Notes by JN

First off, let me observe that there is an open wi-fi access point in the council chambers, which gives me a good 1.4 meg connection speed to the internet. So yes, you can sit and watch the city council and play World of Warcraft or download YouTube clips at the same time! Just keep the volume muted, or bring headphones. Or, from a more serious point of view, you can grab information off the internet at will, or download entire council meeting packets from the city's website if you forgot to get it before the meeting (downloading the packet, I got a good 110-120 kb per second download rate), or google people who are speaking to the council to try to figure out what's their deal anway.

But really, if waiting through the long segments on topics of little concern to you have kept you away from meetings, think about bringing a laptop — you can take notes, and surf the web when the meeting isn't holding your interest. Think of it as one more thing to make it easy to become an involved citizen.

Pledge, Approval of Minutes, Etc.

Usual stuff...minutes approval, etc., with no surprises.

Visitor Presentations

Bob Zick — Research for his television show prompts him to come. Questions concerning recent history of city attorneys.

In July K&F resigned, Kantrud hired as interim, reported to public. Is this true?

Kantrud in answer recalls mid-July as request for him start as interim.

In August when Nancy Lazaryan was asking who was prosecuting att'y for Maplewood, Mayor said Kelly & Fawcett was “wrapping up” biz according to Zick; in late August or early Sept. city council discussed not paying final K&F bill; Knaak & Kantrud now civil & criminal att'y both.

Kantrud steps up to point out that when they started as interim they were doing civil only, and K&F continued until the RFP got K&K hired for both formally and permanently.

Nancy Lazaryan — of Rice, MN. Wants to know why Kelly & Fawcett is filing complaints in October on behalf of Maplewood. Some attorney at K&F apparently filing a lawsuit about the issue of the title to the land that Maplewood disputes. She says the action of this Chad Lemons “constitutes fraud and is criminal.”

Kantrud invited by mayor to explain. “Quiet title action,” signed off on behalf of city by Chad Lemon/K&F. Being done pursuant to policy of title insurance, apparently the attorney is actually suing on behalf of the title insurance policy, in Maplewood's name.

Lazaryan wants to talk more and repeat herself. Mayor says, “OK, very good, thank you for your comments.” Wants to move things along.

Zick Redux — was down at the courthouse, picked up documents, is confused about these people and who is representing themselves as lawyering for Maplewood. Longrie & Kantrud try to continue to clarify that Lemons is authorized by the city's insurer to perform legal services on behalf of Maplewood vis a vis the title policy. Zick calls up other concerns, claiming Lemons' father owns the title company, claims that Dept. of Commerce is investigating the title insurance company, etc.

Bill Kayser — makes his regular appearance. Says someone (Chad Lemons) is doing something illegal on the city's behalf, and thus it's Maplewood's responsibility for whatever they do. “He makes his claim that on May 1, 1995, James and Evelyn Kayser signed a purchase agreement with the city of Maplewood for the property that is exhibit A in [the legal document]” which Mr. Kayser says is a false claim, “and on that basis he says they have no claim, they gave up their rights, they signed a purchase agreement for all of Applewood.” Mr. Kayser says the document signed was for 1.1 acres, not 24 acres, so Lemons forged the document to say 24 acres. “If you don't do something about this, in my opinion, you become, what do you call it, accessories after the fact.”

Kayser says he brought only the first and last pages of what he claims is the authentic purchase order for only one acre, as the mayor asking if he could provide the document. The mayor then asks about a bunch of other documents that had been promised by Lazaryan as follow-up to discussion of this matter at a previous council meeting.

Lazaryan then comes back, and she says the reason she and her family didn't provide documents that were promised to the council before was that they now are moot because of a court order.

Consent Agenda

Copeland reads through the agenda. Rossbach pulls 3, 5. Hjelle pulls 13. Juenemann questions/pulls on 1, 5, 12. Cave comment on 16. Longrie on #10, 13, 14.

Juenemann moves approval of items not pulled, Hjelle seconds, all vote aye.

Juenemann on #1: Kathy wants to pull a specific item from the payments. Kantrud says validly presented bill; we can pay it and still ask the question later about what we've been paying for. Becomes clear it's already been paid. Everyone votes to approve the claims, and get the more detailed billing info later.

Rossbach on #3: User fee study in 1993 set appropriate levels for fees; over the past 13 years we've only been adjusting for inflation. Asks if we should take a look at it all afresh, since inflation for different services etc. haven't risen in synchrony (some things rise faster than inflation on the average, some less). Finance Director Faust agrees that it's time to do such a review, but says that no such study was directed for 2007. Rossbach asks what a study might cost, Faust isn't sure offhand. City Clerk Guilfoyle agrees with Faust that it can be expensive to do, but (while hesitant to commit to such a project until after the election is past) says her department could put together a report of comparisons to fees in other cities; whereas a fee study done by a company would look at in-house costs rather than market comparisons, as it were. Rossbach thinks a study is the only way to actually get the information (since you don't really know that other cities have done such studies themselves).

Motion, second, aye to approve #3.

Longrie on #5: Wants Public Works Director Chuck Ahl to explain what's going on with a contract that needs revision. After discussion, all vote aye.

Longrie on #10: Question about 4-way stop sign on Hazelwood and Jarvis, wonders if it's part of the project. Ahl says it's not. And the problem there is that trucks like to run over the landscaping there. All vote aye.

Juenemann on #12: Asks Chief to “verify” what the Justice Assistance Grant is about. JAG replaces local law enforcement block grant. Roseville, Maplewood, St. Paul police & Ramsey Co. sheriff share the grant. Using money to enhance multi-housing program for crime prevention.

Hjelle on #13: Wants to know why we don't go to N-router for wireless rather than A and G. Mychal Fowlds addresses technical questions, wanting this architecture because of scalability, ability to use outdoors, etc. Longrie asks about ongoing cost: this part of the budget for the upgrade basically is extended service coverage, 24-hours a day. Installation and management to be done in house. City of Roseville uses same wireless tech, so we'll be using their expertise as well.

Longrie on #14: Wants to know about new A/V features and how they'll be used. Fowlds says new features are added bonus (e.g., being able to spotlight different part of the screens, transitional things) for upgrade that is needed anyway. Longrie asks about price range. Fowlds says he couldn't tell us; hasn't looked into it, but is just going on recommendation of vendor (or maybe the cable people? I didn't follow the conversation closely enough here).

Longrie moves approval of 13, 14; Hjelle seconds. All vote aye.

Cave on #16: Reminds audience that this Sat. 10-noon is “protecting children from sexual offenders” hosted by Wetterling Foundation at community center. All vote aye.

Award of Bids

Priory Trail construction. Nothing notable to me in discussion.

Unfinished Business

Gladstone & TIF: Mr. Faust reports that if the city makes finding that buildings on cabin site are “substandard,” then the plot can be eligible for TIF for redevelopment.

Presenter (I believe it is city's bond counsel, Mary Ippel of Briggs and Morgan), says it has been proposed that a TIF district could be declared on the Maplewood tourist cabin site. In order to establish a TIF district it's necessary to have inspections, determine structure of substandard buildings, have public hearings, etc. Developer wants to demolish before the TIF process. Statute says if a building is demolished it is no longer able to qualify as substandard; but the law allows the city to declare it substandard before demolition. Some limits – after the finding by the city council, there are 3 years; then one of 3 things: (1) city demolishes the city (not happening here); (2) city finances the demolition of the buildings (possibly through a pay as you go tax increment procedure); or (3) the demolition was done by a developer under a development agreement.

Longrie asks if something has to be in process for the resolution to be done now? For option (3) we would need to have an agreement prior to the demolition (but not prior to the finding of “substandard” happening this evening). Seems that we don't have to choose between paying money or making developing agreement right now.

Juenemann asks to clarify that this does not obligate us to create a TIF; presenter agrees and emphasizes that this keeps the door open for TIF. Juenemann wants to clarify to the public that this does not create the TIF – just keeps it possible.

Rossbach makes motion for finding that the buildings on the cabin site are “substandard,” Hjelle and Juenemann race to beat each other to second it. Check the official minutes to see who won.

Longrie is torn – it keeps it options open, but she worries that it's a slippery slope toward actual TIF, which she seems opposed to. I think the vote was 4-1 to vote the cabins “substandard,” with Mayor Longrie opposing.

Xcel Franchise Tax Rates: Faust says Xcel is willing to allow an increase that would generate about $390k less than city had requested. Faust presents revised ordinance.

Collette Earache? (sorry, couldn't catch the name) from Xcel Energy does presentation, available for questions. Xcel energy does not support franchise fees, because they believe it is a tax placed on essential services for residents and businesses. But of course they don't get their way, so they work with city staffs to negotiate fee rates. Currently collecting something around $180k annually for city under agreement from 2004; Maplewood wants to increase to about $1.1 million. “We believe a fee of that magnitude upon our customers is excessive.” Logic used a couple of years ago, she thinks, should be rational today. Says they're willing to see an across the board increase of about 400%. “In the current fee structure, more than half the fees being collected in city paid by businesses (they are about 8% of the customer base [in terms of the number of meters], but 50% of the fees).”

“If the city of Maplewood does not accept the fee schedule we are proposing today,” Xcel is willing to negotiate with city staff further.

Q from Juenemann, to Faust: When did you contact Xcel first? Faust: Aug. 22^nd advised them. J: Response before today? Faust: Constant communication, but not response specific to rates until today. Apparently internal issues at Xcel (staff turnover, maybe technical issues?), which Juenemann thinks are “a crock.”

Longrie says other cities have the same fee rates that Maplewood is asking for; why does Xcel not want to give them to Maplewood? Xcel asks for specifics in terms of other cities, but Longrie doesn't have info handy.

Xcel says that local governments started hiking Xcel fee rates at the same time that there were big cuts in local government aid recently.

Faust: located chart with city comparisons. Raw data provided by Xcel, with combination of fee schedule and percentage-based fees. Faust extracted, put it in a spreadsheet, and sorted. Says that they average they calculated was $2 per house per home. Faust says problem in his POV is that residential customers are paying a higher share than commercial. 2 years ago when current rate was established, amount was relatively small, and Xcel made it 50 cents/month for homes (the minimum rate that Xcel was willing to charge to anybody), and then the balance of what was needed was collected from non-residential customers (rates set on them to make up the total $175k needed in total).

But now, says Faust, the amount of revenue is much larger, so he thinks that the rates need to be equitable, not following the pattern that was established two years ago (which really hinged on the billing issue of Xcel).

Cave: Happy that Xcel is willing to negotiate is her “only comment.”

Juenemann: Comments, sorry I didn't get it down.

Copeland: 14,786 residential meters in Maplewood, only use about 23% of the kW running through all meters. Small commercial/industrial customers, large com/ind, in three different classes account for 76%+ of energy flowing through meters. “To levy on the basis of number of meters seems to beg the question.” Thinks it would be fair to have $2 for residential, points out that St Paul got a $1.50 increase plus some kind of 2% annual surcharge OK'd by Xcel.

Longrie said something at length, but I was busy trying to plug in a power cord for my laptop.

Rossbach: No secret he thinks this is a crappy idea. Starting to come around when the revenue seemed like it would be targeted to specific purpose (and if it could be, he might be willing to go along to create unity), but the “other purposes” line in the ordinance seems like “and other duties as assigned” in a job description.

Juenemann: Wonders what “other city operating expenses” can be expanded to mean. Copeland: Obviously it can mean a lot of things. He goes on, but I space out, listening to the music of someone's cell phone or pager or alarm or something.

Copeland says a workshop is coming up where there can be more discussion with Xcel.

Cave doesn't think city should be “too boxed in,” in terms of the use of funds. Hjelle comment: “Two things: We decide where the money gets spent, so the wording is frankly irrelevant,” and he trusts his own decisions over spending money. “More importantly, ... we've done this in a pretty thoughtful manner . . .” — thinks this is better than property tax increases for the residents. Then wonders who makes decisions on this at Xcel, and how fast can they do it? Given that there is a time crunch.

A: final fee schedule needs to be approved by city staff, reviewed by MN jurisdictional VP at Xcel, who presenter reports to.

Hjelle: What do we need to do?

Kantrud: Need to approve some language; can't approve fee schedule second reading tonight, because of previous points. No point in debating fees, because the Xcel rep here tonight doesn't have power to negotiate.

Rep: Need 60 day advance implementation in order to set up fee. If negotiation goes beyond end of month, it won't be possible to do implement it by Jan 1st. Mgmt told her that if city wants fees higher than what they are OK with (per their offer tonight), they insist that city provide written notice that Xcel will be able to provide to all of their customers who will be affected by the fee change.

Rossbach: Agrees with Hjelle, “we're not the ones we have to worry about, it's the future elected officials” (a bit tongue in cheek). Rossbach suggests language be changed from “other city operating expenses” to “other city energy expenses,” as a way to allow flexibility while still directing the funds toward some specific city needs. Juenemann agrees; Longrie suggests that various purposes that might come up in the future (weatherization, conservation programs) that she is interested in could thus be covered by the broader language.

Hjelle fakes us out – seems to want to comment, then says “no, that's fine.”

Juenemann moves the change in section 9.1 to “other city energy-related expenses.” Diana Longrie seconds and reiterates exactly the change in language. Votes: all ayes.

Faust: Second ordinance — recommends same language change; moved, seconded, all vote aye.

Kantrud: Before you move on, recommends that you exclude from second reading the rates of both ordinances since they are in the ordinances as written, and authorize staff to negotiate with Xcel. Juenemann had made that motion for first ordinance, does it again for second ordinance. All vote aye.

Audit Contract: Sorry, I spaced out while writing someone an e-mail. Did hear Rossbach say something about the council being unanimous in the past. Hjelle motions, Juenemann seconds, I got distracted again but I think it was all ayes.

Jensen Estates Improvement, Trail Connection to Currie Street: Something about an easement.

Rossbach wants position taken by council that whenever road/trails go in the trail connections are put in, to avoid these problems where houses are built and then owners are upset about the trail connections being made later on the easements that exist on their property but are originally undeveloped.

Developer present for questions. Short summary: Life is hard.

Longrie wants to know if the trail is still going straight, or if it might meander through the trees. Cave also wanted to ask about saving the trees, but says that Longrie already asked it.

Hjelle says “it's about ethics.” Suddenly I feel like I'm in the opening scene of Miller's Crossing.

Someone makes a motion, everyone votes aye.

Code Revisions Alcoholic Beverages – Second Reading. Rossbach moves it, Juenemann and Hjelle race to second it. Kathy wants to point out she's bummed about a distance-from schools thing that was removed. Everyone votes aye, and sings the praises of the city clerk for putting together a very long and complicated ordinance.

New Business

TH 5 – 120 MnDOT Property, City Project 03-20, Task Force Report and Authorization to

Proceed with Study of Marshlands Proposal: This is that site where the school district wanted to put in a bus depot, and the city council recently voted against it.

Ahl provided a long introduction to the history of the area of land. Lots of presenters present for the topic, from MnDOT and others.

“I don't want to keep you any later” says one as he comes up to the podium -- “No, that's OK” says Longrie.

I know this is an important topic, but I've been typing for almost three hours here now, and pushing far into “hard to care” territory. Color me understanding of the brevity of the official minutes of these meetings.

A motion! A second! A new topic of discussion will be imminent! After the vote more than half the audience leaves, which bodes well for the possible brevity of the rest of the meeting.

Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05-16, Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract (Change Orders 9-11): Yes, you can tell that I cut and pasted the topics from the agenda PDF, which I was able to download through the spiffy wi-fi connection here.

Motion proposed, and passed, and thankfully a 10-minute break was called for. Whew!

Preliminary Plat - Legacy Town houses (County Road D – Kennard Street to Hazelwood): The council had rejected an earlier proposal from a developer, so they have come back with a revised proposal. The revised proposal from the developer has less housing units than the city was insisting on before, so it seems likely that the staff recommendation for approval will go through.

Use Deed Request (Southeast corner of English Street and County Road B): Tax forfeiture issue. At issue is a tiny plot of land – city could purchase it, control it by use deed, or request that county hold off the auction for 6 months to give staff and council time to evaluate needs/purposes for the property in question. Staff thinks we may have a use for the plot, and we should adopt a resolution requesting county withhold parcel from sale/auction for six months for studying it and putting together necessary materials for the course finally chosen. The problem with the land is that it can't really be built on, so people just let the taxes go until the county seizes it; then it gets auctioned to someone else who then realizes it can't be built on, etc. Council goes with staff rec.

South Maplewood Development Moratorium Ordinance (First Reading): It's 10:45 PM, people are talking, but I'm checking my mailbox on World of Warcraft. Call me Short Attention Span Boy, I guess.

Rossbach comments: 19 properties are impacted by the moratorium, seems unfair to keep them from using their properties. Why not include properties that seem similar on far east side of city, north of Carver? “They have the same situation we're talking about in the south, the confusion between the comp plan and the zoning map. And if we are going to do a moratorium, one of our bullet points...should be the financial impact on the city of different development scenarios.”

Longrie says planning commission recommended south of Carver avenue; but maybe we should consider the principle's application on farm-zoned land elsewhere as well. “We know that they will not remain zoned farm, because our comprehensive plan says that.”

Rossbach: “We used to think it was an advantage to have flexibility . . . to be market driven . . . For us to try to assert what we think is appropriate on the area, I just see as wrong.”

Apparently there have been some archaeological discoveries in Fish Creek? Rossbach seems grumpy about the impact of archaeological preservation on development.

Inexplicably, sneezing makes Rebecca Cave smile.

A developer comes forward, with land in south Maplewood. Longrie says that the process will allow for variances, and he has to get zoning and other approvals from the council anyway.

Votes: 3-2 split (Longrie/Cave/Hjelle aye, Rossbach/Juenemann nay). It's 4-1 on a vote over a date for a public hearing. “Appropriate place to talk about exemptions is at the public hearing,” says Longrie.

Longrie moves to extend the meeting past “curfew” to finish the final three items, as it's already well past 11 PM. All but Juenemann vote aye to continue down the finish.

CarMaxx/Mogren Property Improvements, Beam to County Road D, City Project 06-17 — Approval to Explore Financial Support for Improvements through Tax Abatement: Withdrawn from agenda.

Council Presentations

None.

Administrative Presentations

City Attorney Report: Follow-up of Matters Presented to City Council by Nancy Lazaryan on

October 9, 2006: The Kayser family has been a regular presence at city council meetings (I literally think I've seen at least one of their clan at every meeting I've attended, and usually one or more has made a visitor presentation), pressing their claim that Applewood Park was wrongfully taken from them. If you're wondering what this is all about, it's worth looking at this section of the city council packet (warning: big 20+ MB PDF).

Longrie asks what a “quiet title action” is (the item brought up by the Kaysers earlier in the meeting). Kantrud mentions that papers were served in the hallway outside the council chambers earlier in the meeting, after the Kaysers spoke in the visitors' presentations. (The Kaysers had complained that the suit was not valid because they had not been served.) Sounds like a quiet title basically is meant to bring a suit about everyone who might have a claim on the property (such as three generations of the Kayser family) and resolve it once and for all. Hjelle asks if the council should decline to address the subject at future meetings, now that it's a matter of litigation, and Kantrud advises that he would prefer indeed that they not answer questions about it. Juenemann raises the issue of how much of every meeting in the visitor presentations (15 to 45 minutes every meeting, asserts Juenemann) is spent on this matter, and how much it inhibits the rest of the city's business, and thus keeps meetings running as long as this one has.

Kantrud opines that it would be appropriate for the mayor to say that there will not be testimony on any basis about these matters, given that they are in litigation and the city council and staff won't be able respond to things.

City Attorney Report: Mobile Home Park Closure Requirements Under Minnesota Statutes: Rossbach moves on to a question about this (since Kantrud had suggested he can just take questions together about both), which brings some minor fussing from Hjelle who momentarily thinks protocol is being violated, but everyone talks him down quickly.

Hjelle wants to point out that the mobile park residents did not own, but rented the property that their homes were on.

I got distracted and stopped taking notes.

Addition of Community Solutions Fund to Employee’s Annual Giving Options: Rossbach thinks this seems like an employee thing, not a council thing. Copeland says he wanted to give the council a chance to reflect or weigh in on it rather than doing it himself. Discussion ensues about what sorts of things come before the council or not, like dental plans.

Rossbach moves we accept the new plan, Hjelle seconds. Juenemann asks how it came to Copeland; he cites Energy Sense Coalition and someone named Pam Marshall recommending it. Votes all in favor.

ADJOURNMENT

Yay!! Time to go home!