Maplewood City Council, Dec. 11th, 2006

Totally Unofficial Notes by JN

A. CALL TO ORDER

Meeting started late (around 7:20) because previous special closed meeting about litigation went long.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

C. ROLL CALL

D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Cave adds council retreat to council presentations. Longrie adds topic of Bob Cardinal letter. Agenda unanimously approved.

E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Apart from a typo correction by Cave on page 15 of the minutes of the 11/27 council meeting, all approved unanimously without any other changes.

F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS

Robert Fowler, a lawyer with an office in Little Canada, formerly a Maplewood resident recently departed. Represents Deputy Chief John Bannick, who is being reorganized out of having a job. Apparently it was the intent not only to eliminate the position but to end the employment of the person holding the position. Fowler used to work as prosecutor on behalf of the city, and often works with or on behalf of police officers.

Longrie interrupts to say that the council does not like to talk about employee/personnel issues at council meetings.

Fowler says he was not aware of that policy, and says he'll try to speak in generalities. Says city doesn't have authority to terminate police officers through the budget process – not only according to Maplewood ordinance, but according to state law, the police civil service commission has to be involved. Thinks new employee policies council is wanting to pass will not hold up under the law. Says only two ways to get around the police civil service commission are by going directly to the voters to eliminate the commission, or by a majority of the council. Suggests that if Maplewood does go ahead to try and fire this officer, they can expect to face a lawsuit.

Longrie calls “one minute,” wanting to end this faster.

Longrie says they don't have exchange or dialogue in visitor presentations (though this doesn't match my recollection of previous visitor presentations, which have often included back and forth between the council and presenters).

Nancy Lazaryan steps forth to discuss her ongoing issues.

Bill Kayser has more to say about same, with various minutiae about ongoing litigation with city.

Dave Schilling. Usually Mr. Schilling steps up to complain about the taxes in Maplewood, but in this case he wants to talk about Bob Cardinal's letter to the county attorney. Mr. Schilling observes that Mr. Cardinal lost the election in 2005. Also, Mr. Schilling thinks Mr. Fursman, the former city manager, was “ineffective.” Then he brings it back to taxes, and his recurrent theme of the “big leak” of money going out of Maplewood. He cites Copeland's letter about the level of salaries of city managers, which Copeland suggested were higher than the metro average. Mr. Schilling believes city employees supported Fursman because he was the “golden goose” who gave them whatever they wanted, just by raising taxes.

John Nephew (that's me) got up to point out two things. (1) in previous meetings I have observed back-and-forth (I cited an exchange with Bob Zick at the October 23^rd meeting, and the presentation and back and forth with Charles Bethel about employee negotiations at the Nov. 13^th meeting) between mayor/council/staff and presenters during Visitor Presentations, contrary to what the mayor had just told Mr. Fowler. I suggested they might wish to clarify their policy and apply it consistently, if indeed it prohibits any such back-and-forth. (2) I observed that Mr. Copeland's letter, referenced by Schilling, was misleading since it presented half of the group in question (confidential and supervisory employees), and all of them were above average for compensation; and half of a group being above average does not strike me as unusual, in spite of the inference Mr. Copeland wanted readers to draw.

A woman whose name I missed (sorry, I was walking back to my seat) wanted to bring up things missing from the budget. “I hate to see all these cutbacks. It's going to cost us in the long run.” Sorry to see the bad things happening to the “great people” who have worked for the city.

Mindy Macronel said she had to call the city last Thursday in order to finally get her promised copy of the city budget, and regrets that she won't have any recommendations because she hasn't had time to read it.

Al Galbraith, member of the Historic Preservation Committee, is concerned that the general citizenry of Maplewood has not heard the positive aspects of the council and their agenda. Thinks all of the coverage has been negative due to naysayers who do not realize that change is coming and the “good old boy” days are over. Thinks the “silent majority” must come forward to help the new government, as he is eager to do.

Shirley Krause reports that she is a newcomer to local politics, though she has lived in south Maplewood for 17 years. Thinks it was time for some changes in this town. Says “these taxes are killing me.” Thinks a lot of it is on the county level, and they've gotten out of hand. She reports that an unnamed attorney in Mankato thinks that some of the salaries paid to some city staff are outrageous. She is happy to have a change in the city council, and she t hinks a shake-up on the tax business is needed.

G. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS

1. Resolution of Appreciation — Jim Kaczrowski

Mayor reads resolution praising this member of the Planning Commission. Everyone votes aye.

2. Steve Dobihal — Eagle Scout Project

Ms. Cave introduces Mr. Dobihal and his family. She praises him as an example of hard work and dedication, and a role model to his peers.

Mr. Dobihal described the Eagle Project he recently completed at the Maplewood Nature Center. He installed the twelve checkpoints along a trail needed to complete a self-guided tour at the Nature Center. He graciously thanked people who were helpful at the project, including Nature Center staff and fellow scouts and scout leaders.

A great many people in Boy Scout uniforms took advantage of the opportunity to escape at this point, demonstrating their well honed survival instincts.

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Just one hearing item, but it's a big one.

1. Proposed 2007 Property Tax Levy and Adoption of the 2007 Budget

a. Adoption of Resolution Setting the 2007 Tax Levy

Mayor hands the meeting over to Mr. Copeland, who has a PowerPoint presentation. Tonight the council needs to adopt final property tax levy and budget.

In September, the council adopted a maximum tax rate, a maximum levy, which is what appeared in the truth in taxation notices received by citizens. In May, council directed staff to work with no increase in the tax rate. However, for the average home the taxes are increasing 7.6% due to the appreciation in average home values. For the average (now $220,100) home, this increase amounts to $53. (I'm not sure, in reviewing my notes, if this average is median or mean, but I would suppose it must be median since the levy increase is a different figure.)

In terms of budget reductions, Copeland identified the elimination of human resources, assistant city manager, deputy fire chief, deputy police chief, and parks & rec director. In terms of additions, they are adding in June two new patrol officers; plus one officer with the Metro Gang Strike Force and one with the East Metro Narcotics Task Force officer (these latter two are apparently paid for in significant part by state grants). Also, 911 dispatching services are being transferred to Ramsey County in June 2007. Should there be delay, Chief Thomalla tells Mr. Copeland that Ramsey County would be paying for the cost of staffing over the delay.

Fire services: Hiring a new firefighter/paramedic; also funding 18 new pay-per-call firefighters. Promoting a staff member to EMS Director, and making the Fire Marshall into a dual-role Fire Marshall and Assistant Fire Chief.

(At this point, I've decided I'm tired of taking notes that are just a summary of the budget documents that you can find in the meeting packet on the city website.)

Copeland returns in summary to the original screen about the tax increases, and observes that they are after all going with the maximum possible levy, rather than a lower increase as they'd previously hoped, before the Xcel tax increase was tabled.

Offhand comment from Copeland about “reserves for litigation,” which I didn't follow.

Jueneman raises points about the police (noting the elimination of the deputy chief, offsetting in part the increase in patrol officers etc.) and the the fire/EMS staff (the person promoted was apparently part of a plan put into place by a previous council when this individual was originally hired some years ago).

She also observes that it's always been the hope that the community center would be self-sufficient, so this isn't a new conversation on that topic. Also observes that it can be made to look much better or worse, depending on how things are shifted on paper. Also wishes to credit Bruce Andersen, the departing director of community development, for initiating the work on getting more banquet bookings with multiple facilitors, etc. Also talks about rec program, and needing someone to lead that with a director being reorganized out of existence.

Jueneman asks if we have anything budgeted for redevelopment in the coming year. Copeland indicates that its not really anything significant, and they are looking to the private sector for leadership in that area. Sees the situation in Maplewood as being different from Minneapolis/St Paul, which have a lot more to worry about in terms of razing dilapidated buildings, aggressively seeking redevelopers, etc. Jueneman observes that redevelopment in any city is a painful and long process, and thanks the staff for working for a very long time on the grant process for Gladstone that seems finally to be bearing fruit. In other areas she also wishes to point out the long-term planning in different areas that has led to some good things in the budget proposal. Finally, she cautions that we are “aging out” of some buildings, on the matter of “deferred maintenance.” Some of this is natural in public sector business, or even an individual's house – sometimes you wish you could get new windows and a new roof at the same time, but you can't. Choices not to do some things in the past were made as a matter of having to set priorities at the time; and now again, as buildings age and technology changes, this council has to make choices that will have an impact years in the future for future councils to deal with. Agrees that a fair number of things need to be fixed. Lastly, she has a real problem with some of the eliminations, which she is worried will cost a lot more in the long term than we seem to be saving in this budget.

Rossbach: Points out discrepancy between packet and updated information given out at meeting and on slide presentation. Copeland clarifies that the new information at the meeting is accurate and reflected in a revised resolution for the meeting, and repeats earlier information that we are going with the maximum levy. So this is a total increase of 11.4% in dollars from property taxes, due to changes in property assessments. Rossbach asks what the increase in total levy for 2006 was over 2005, in comparison. Gayle Bauman, the city finance person, reports that 5% was the levy increase of 2006 over 2005.

Longrie asks, if we didn't set aside money for community center deferred maintenance, what would be the impact on the bottom line? Ms. Bauman reports that it would be a 7.4% increase over 2006 then.

Cave says she is more concerned about city hall and police department (both the locker room building and hiring more patrol officers), over the community center deferred maintenance, in terms of spending priorities. Copeland voices some concern about how sustainable this kind of increase in housing values can be – thinks there will be tighter budget situations in the future, which is why he favors investing more in maintenance now rather than longer-term spending commitments like additional patrol officers.

Hjelle says he thought the RATE went up 5%, not the valuations; Ms. Bauman reports that the total levy rose 5%.

Open to comment from public. I got distracted looking up Erik Hjelle's taxes.

First speaker (missed the name, sorry): Would like to see reorganization and budgetary resolutions and debate split into two separate topics.

Peter Fischer: Willing to pay a bit more to maintain quality services and programs in Maplewood.

Cave asks Mr. Fischer: About parks and rec, says we lost a position filled by a college intern. What do you think about positions not being filled when they are necessities?

Fischer responds that he also sees positions being eliminated in the community center, parks & rec director; is saying that we should look at max tax levy limit so that we don't burn people out.

Hjelle has question: You work at a large athletic facility. Asking about air handling unit in community center. Copeland says they don't know when it will break down. Waiting for bad event to happen, to schedule replacement/rebuilding, whatever. Hjelle says, it is a 6-9 month lead time? Fischer says yes, there are usually some indications, and it doesn't all fail at the same time. He wants to emphasize that kind of maintenance ($5k here, $10k there, rather than $200k to replace an entire unit) is something he'd like to see discussed.

John Nephew (me) got up to make a point, talking about Erik Hjelle's tax assessments and rates for city taxes. He had asserted his recollection that the city had increased its rate by 5% last year, but according to the Ramsey County property tax records I located online, the amount of city taxes on his home increased by a slightly lower percentage than the percentage increase in its taxable assessed value. (Checking my family's own property tax history I found the same thing.) In other words, like they will under this budget, his past taxes increased due to home value appreciation, not city tax rate increases. I suggested that in the same way that he misperceives that the past city council had hiked his tax rates, the council should expect that citizens will feel the same but even more about their taxes in the coming year, given that the total levy increase will be more than twice as large.

I missed some subsequent discussion as I was returning to my seat.

Carolyn Peterson thinks “the reorganization plan is an unknown to most of us, we don't really understand.” There's no way to know exactly what it will do until it's in place. Says activities and services we enjoy in Maplewood are a huge part of our quality of life in Maplewood, and is concerned that they will disappear, particularly with reorganization of parks and recreation.

Public hearing closed.

Jueneman wanted to return to the issue of deferred maintenance. Wants to know if some of the items on the list of things that can be further deferred. Discussion ensues about exercise areas, basketball court floor and its water damage, etc. How can we prioritize to do what's absolutely necessary and try and put off some more?

Rossbach: Says we don't have a clue of what the repair necessary is for the basketball floor, since it might be a total replacement of the floor. Thinks we should look at borrowing money when the time comes that we must do something about it; but if it's minor then we can just do it out of operating funds. On the big air unit at the pool, he suggests we buy and store a new unit, so we'll have it ready to install when it becomes necessary. Similarly goes down the wish list on the community center and identifies things he thinks don't need to be done immediately (repainting in areas only visible from above, for example, which he thinks can simply be delayed), or really do need to be done.

Asks for clarification on air unit: Apparently it's $200k cost, but would be $245k total over five years if it is financed with borrowing, as is planned.

On the topic of south leg of Maplewood and complaints of a lack of city services there, Rossbach mentions a list of things that Maplewood does do in the south leg, from road maintenance to code enforcement. There's no service, says Rossbach, that the city provides that is not available to the south leg.

Rossbach thinks it is silly to try and deal with so much in one year, and dump it all on the property taxes, in one year. Thinks they should plan the repairs and follow the plan.

Continuing, he says, “I don't like an 11.4% levy increase.” He observes that we have lost a lot of expert staff, under whom in the past we had a much smaller levy increase than we have now with “no expertise” and a “much more 'economical' staff.” Doesn't like that we have eliminated HR director and department. Says things going on now point out how important it is to have an HR department, where people can go in confidence to air their grievances.

As a sidebar, he reports that the city manager is rewriting the policy manual and changing many, many things, as alluded to by “that lawyer guy” (in visitor presentations). Grievance filing changes are in th emanual, making civil service commissions and laws secondary to the policy manual. “I've only seen it so far for about 4 minutes,” so he hasn't had a chance to go through all of it, but he voices concern that it is being changed in a way not good for city employees.

Rossbach is furthermore concerned about “adding another layer of management into government.” He notes that the city attorney in past meeting said Mr. Copeland didn't feel “comfortable” dealing with the recently unionized city department heads, and Rossbach thinks this is a poor reason to introduce a new layer of bureaucracy to buffer him. Regrets the loss of deputy fire chief, who is already gone to a new job now; upset about removal of deputy police chief. “We're wasting our personnel.” We have let go community center manager and events/banquet coordinator. We have new positions being formed over there, which look like they handle much of the same duties, but it's a different title – and again, Rossbach thinks the long-term employees are the ones who should be put in there. Observes that one of these employees has worked for the city since the age of 12. “It's stupid management to do that,” to let these people go.

Coming into the meeting, Mr. Rossbach felt that he could vote for an 8.7% levy increase (which was earlier the plan), but not for the budget, which he thinks is going to exacerbate an already dreadful morale problem in the city. But now, with 11.4% as the proposed levy increase, he doesn't feel he can vote for either one of them. He pines for the old days of cameraderie and teamwork in city hall. “A lot of people are afraid.” Afraid enough that the people not in unions, unionized, because they were afraid they'd lose their jobs; and one way or another, many of them have.

Cave on deferred maintenance: Would agree with most of what Rossbach said about community center. Doesn't feel comfortable with purchasing and not installing it now (since the current one may work for a year or longer, and that just means the new one would be that much longer out of warranty). Also concerned about $34k cost of electric sign repair. Copeland clarifies that it's in fact a new sign, not a repair. Thinks if we do some modification on deferred maintenance, we can bring down the 11.4% figure.

Also wonders if locker room estimate is conservative. Copeland says yes. Doesn't think we can put off window caulking, but does think parking lot pole painting can be deferred. Also suggests delaying lighting retrofit in public works building.

Longrie asks: Is $200k for air unit really part of the levy tonight? Copeland clarifies that it is not going to affect the levy tonight (since it's already planned to be done with financing, not cash out of pocket). Longrie suggests looking at the maintenance as a total, decreasing it, and then responding over the year to needs for maintenance according to the expertise of staff.

Copeland suggests that we could cut the basketball court from the budget. Some other items he responds to specifically, and suggests that some really need to be replaced, and other things that might be reexamined (such as perhaps some conservation rebate on the lighting upgrade).

Hjelle favors removing basketball court, exterior metal painting, security system upgrade. About $164k, total. Discussion of sign replacement. Doesn't like the cost, but thinks that in terms of marketing goals for the community center, he reluctantly supports it. Longrie says she would go along with those three.

With discussion of lighting upgrade, Hjelle feels that to be consistent on environmental issues we should really go ahead with it; there's a projected 5-year recoup of costs with the new and more efficient lights.

Jueneman returns to sign question. “Totally understand it's a marketing issues,” but now with personnel cuts we're going to have staffing issues in the center. Hjelle really favors the sign. “Signs don't make a community center,” opines Rossbach.

Seems like a consensus on the cuts is emerging.

Hjelle wants to respond to Rossbach. On city policy handbook, says there is confusion going back to the spring over what version actually was out there, who changed it and who authorized it, among the versions floating around. City employees are still dealing with a November 2001 version of the city handbook. As far as layering management, thinks we had a group of managers who have “removed themselves from the management position,” by forming a bargaining unit. From a structural standpoint, can't think of something more confusing than having every other group in a department part of an organization. Sees a problem with the same person representing, say, a fireman and fire chief in a grievance. Says deputy fire chief couldn't go into new position because he wasn't a paramedic. Complains about 7-8 minute emergency service response times in south Maplewood. Says people feel threatened and form unions, and that's happened before so it's not just this council causing it. “Bottom line,” Hjelle doesn't think Rossbach has a fair understanding of what happens in south Maplewood.

Rossbach has three quick comments. 1) city has often taken firefighters and trained them to be paramedics; 2) Hjelle has made comments that he can refer people to realtors if they don't like it in Maplewood, so, “if you don't like it, why don't you move out?” Cave calls for the boys to calm down a bit.

Jueneman wants to agree somewhat with Mr. Rossbach. Asked question at previous meeting, and would like answer. Bethel (employment attorney handling negotiations for cities) answers in the affirmative, that forming a bargaining unit does not impact their status as managers. Jueneman says that them forming a unit has no impact on the operating of the city. So she again questions the point of establishing another layer of management just to not be in a union. Says that this basic structure was not broken, and we shouldn't be trying to fix it. Does not understand basic contention that is driving a lot of this, “that if you were here before, you are bad or stupid or want more than you're worth, or all three perhaps.” Thinks staff do their darnedest to do what she's asking them to do, which is to provide people who live here with a very good place to be, and we're driving away the talented, experienced, expert staff that make it possible. She goes on with a mix of scolding and appealing to the better angels of her fellow councillors' natures.

In terms of the new blended/merged departments, where are we going to find these individuals who can do “85 different things at once and be good at all of them,” Jueneman wonders.

Longrie responds. “You have said...how various things that are coming to pass...are actually things that are in the works.” So some of the things that are in this year and are “ripe” have been in process for some time. Example: EMS thing. What conclusions can we draw from recent formation of collective bargaining unit? Longrie thinks that more than likely talk about forming the unit formed before Mr. Fursman ever left. Jueneman and Rossbach say no, it's not true. Longrie thinks managerial duties belong to people in management, not in a collective bargaining unit or union. Ergo, Maplewood now has only one person in management (the City Manager); she thinks there needs to be a management team, not have all the management by one person.

Lawyer says state law allows city “inherent managerial right” to make decisions about employees and whatnot. Jueneman repeats her point, that the job function of the department would be the same, so it doesn't make sense to insert a new layer of management.

Cave asks about earlier proposed cuts on deferred maintenance, and their impact on levy. Assistant Finance Director Gayle Bauman responds that there would be a 10.2% levy increase instead of 11.4%.

Hjelle asks Copeland where new uber-managers would come from. Copeland says some might be promoted from within the city staff. Hjelle asks for clarification, and Copeland says not all would be, but certainly some can come from within. Hjelle then asks, by approving this budget, are we approving these changes today? Copeland says that it's subject to change later, of course. Hjelle says, about the three new managers, would there be flexibility to make changes and not hire them? Copeland says they wouldn't be hired all at once. Hjelle: So really, discussion about structural changes and reorganization is something that can be ongoing, as the changes start to be enacted. Copeland: Very flexible. Hjelle: So tonight we need to decide on what we're going to spend on the budget, what will be the levy, and we can work on the other changes down the line. So tonight, this has been a very good discussion, this is not a final thing, this is a matter of deciding what the budget and levy are going to be, and some of these issues are still going to be in play. Hiring from within can maintain institutional memory. Thinks we should move forward on budget issue and levy, and realize that things are fluid as we move on.

Jueneman: What possible gain is there in the struture, of removing deputy police chief position, and putting another layer atop police/fire chiefs? Hjelle and Jueneman discuss role of chiefs vis a vis budget planning.

(The question I'd like to ask: Would the new layer of managers be eligible to join the confidential & supervisory bargaining unit, or form another such unit? If they did, what would the council do?)

Rossbach: There's no way people can manage such diverse departments.

More debate about whether we now have managers or not. It seems to be a semantic game – Longrie argues that managers can't be in unions, so we now have no managers since they formed a bargaining unit, QED.

Will gets snippy with Diana's cross-examination, and declares that the changes are “morally and ethically wrong,” ... “creating a power structure around the manager position and lessening the ability of the employees to do anything.”

Longrie says she hasn't seen a copy of the manual, and it hasn't come up in a workshop yet.

Longrie thinks the manual is irrelevant to tax levy, but Mr. Rossbach says it's not irrelevant to the budget. Longrie asks city attorney Kantrud about whether, as Hjelle suggests, council could vote on tax levy but not the structure of the city. Kantrud says council is obligated to vote tonight on the levy under state law, but doesn't need to decide on restructuring now.

Jueneman: says that approving the budget would approve all the cuts that are in it, part of funding the budget. Raises issues in specific about the police department structure.

(Why doesn't someone propose: (a) de-fund the proposed new layer of management; (b) only add one new police officer out of city funds, rather than two, both to save money this year and to be cautious about committing to more long-term payroll in the face of declining property value increases, given the interest rate and housing market environment we're facing in the coming few years? Seems that would slash a lot, and would allow the council to actually lower the tax rate from previous years, as well as hold down the rate of increase.)

Copeland responds about current structure of police department.

I could wait no longer, and had to go to the restroom and get something to drink. While I was away Cave apparently made a motion – possibly to approve the levy but not the budget. But now they are debating the deputy chief position again.

Motion to accept levy: 3-2 vote (Jueneman/Rossbach dissenting). Not sure if this is the levy as proposed, or if it's reduced by the maintenance cuts that were discussed, but I suspect the latter.

b. Adoption of 2007 Ambulance Rates

c. Resolution Adopting the 2007 Budget

I stepped out for a break and missed some discussion. I return to find Longrie and Jueneman talking, I assume, about the the deputy police chief. Longrie seems to be saying it's out of order to talk about a specific individual.

Diana calls for votes. 3-2 vote, as one might expect, to approve the budget, I assume.

Meeting adjurned for continuation on Thursday at 5, moved by Rossbach. (At this point most of the audience gets up and leaves.) Apparently Cave and Longrie can't make it Thursday, however. Cave doesn't want to delay rest of meeting; after Rossbach's motion dies for lack of a second, she motions to continue meeting until completion. 3-2 vote (R, J as nays). Recess instead for “10 minutes.”

I. CONSENT AGENDA

Jueneman has questions on 1, 5. Rossbach has questions on 5 too. Longrie has question on 6.

1. Approval of Claims

Jueneman wants itemization of Bethel bill. Hjelle asks that it simply be included in their packets in the future. Copeland says “may as well.” Jueneman moves, and it passes.

2. Assessments for False Alarm Bills

3. Assessments for Ambulance Bills

4. Home Occupation License Review — Grupa (1994 Duluth Street)

These three were moved and unanimously approved.

5. Conditional Use Permit Review — Woodhill (Dahl Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue)

Wants to know if the status of this review is altered by a death noted in the newspaper (and also brought up by someone in visitor presentations). Kantrud says it came as news to him. Impact is not entirely clear. Jueneman thinks we should table it a week to find out if the death affects the matter. Longrie seconds.

Rossbach's question is about wetland restoration in this CUP. Jueneman says the question should be raised for the next meeting when the business comes up again. Public Works Director Ahl takes notes in preparation for when it comes back up.

Back to the motion to table: all vote aye.

6. County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61), City Project 02-07, and County Road D Extension (West of TH 61), City Project 02-08: Approve Resolution for State Aid Variance

Longrie's question: What happens if we don't get the variance? Ahl: We can't award project until we have state aid approval in our plans. Between opening bids and awards by the council, we got approval; the state changed approval along the way, so we weren't actually supposed to open the bids yet. So we know in advance we already have the variance, the bonds have been approved by the state and approved, but it turns out this resolution needs to be done to release the bond funds.

Jueneman moves staff rec, Hjelle seconds, all vote aye.

J. AWARD OF BIDS

None.

K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None.

L. NEW BUSINESS

1. Alley Vacation - Driscoll (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street)

An alley in the Gladstone neighborhood. Has been on paper for maybe 80 or 100 years, and has never been improved. A couple of neighbors that they do sometimes use the north end for access, so they asked that not all of it be vacated. Ms. Driscoll agreed, so everything seems copacetic.

Longrie question: Regarding utilities, it sounds like there are utilities running along the back. Does city have to retain utility easements? Staff: There are some Xcel utilities there, and staff recommends keeping draining and something else easement, so that is included in the resolution language. Longrie: If council is planning to leave a portion of the alley access still in place, will we develop a new legal description of that or mark it on a plat map or how will we document it? Staff: In the resolution, we say it will affect the following properties, and give addresses and ID notices. The county then updates the legal descriptions and ID numbers of each of the affected properties, but it won't change the unaffected properties on the north.

Jueneman: #2 on the resolution, doesn't it need to be altered then to retain utility easement? It says city does not use it for public purposes or utility services. Staff clarifies things.

A neighbor (?) stepped up to say “no problem,” as far as his view of this request. Ms. Driscoll offered to answer any questions (there were none). Jueneman motions the staff recommendation, Hjelle seconds, all vote aye.

2. Walgreens (Northeast Corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues)

a. Lot Division

b. Land Use Plan Amendment (LBC to BC)

c. Zoning Map Change (LBC to BC)

d. Design Review

Walgreen wants to build a store in the Maplewood Mall area on a vacant lot on Beam and White Bear.

It's past midnight. They're talking about zoning and sidewalks. I'm just playing a video game and trying not to fall asleep sitting here, since it's sooooo close to the end...

After all the voting, the last of the Walgreens posse departs, and leaves only me in the audience.

M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS

Cave on Council Retreat: Suggests having a team-building event in January, setting some policies, talking about fiscal disparities, a rental property control ordinance, maybe Gladstone Phase II. Wants to remind fellow council members that work here is for the people of Maplewood, and to hold back on the personal attacks, and counsel each person here to try to work together as a team.

Rossbach suggests waiting a little longer (for planning a retreat I assume, but maybe he was talking about holding back on personal attacks).

Longrie on Bob Cardinal Letter: The mayor has gotten a number of calls on this topic. She explains that Bob Cardinal is a good friend of hers, who encouraged her to get on a city board, run for city council, and even introduced her to Kathy Jueneman. So people have called up, because Mr. Cardinal is her friend, to ask what's up. Says that Katy Zillmer of the Lillie Papers was kind enough to fax her a copy of the letter, since she had not gotten a copy. Having read it, Ms. Longrie thinks that Bob Cardinal didn't write it, looking at the grammar, writing style, syntax, and some of the facts that are in it. “I really, in my heart of hearts, don't think that Bob Cardinal actually wrote this,” and she wants to go on the record saying that.

N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS

Nothing.

O. ADJOURNMENT

The time is 12:35 AM, and I get to go home to bed!