View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

January 10, 2011


Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals

1.         Roll Call

Chair Roe called to order the Roseville City Council, convening as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for January: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.   Councilmember Johnson was not present at tonight’s meeting due to illness. 


Chair Roe briefly reviewed the process during the initial portion of the meeting as the City Council met as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, at which he would serve as the Chair and Councilmembers would serve as Members of the Board.


A.           Receive Appeal from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood Residents regarding rejection of petition requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the land use guidance for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8; and referring the appeal to the Planning Commission

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the Request for Board of Adjustments and Appeals Action dated January 10, 2011, and as amended at 4:00 p.m. on January 7, 2011, provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the background of the petition originally filed with the Community Development Department by Ms. Rita Mix representing Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents on November 16, 2010, requesting that the City Council “amend the Roseville Comprehensive Plan to recommend “MDR (Medium Density Residential) with future zoning to be of a density no greater than R-6 for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.”  On December 8, 2010, Community Development Director Trudgeon forwarded to Ms. Mix, as the petitioners’ representative a memorandum from the City Attorney stating that the petition should be rejected on procedural grounds since neither state statute nor City Code allowed for abutting property owners to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff included the petition as part of the case material presented to the City Council on December 13, 2010 where the City Council considered adoption of a new zoning map.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that on December 20, 2010, an Appeal of City Council Decisions was received by City Manager Bill Malinen from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood Residents appealing decisions of the Roseville City Council regarding zoning of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 and Petition of Surrounding Property Owners (Attachment A) outlining the basis of the appeal.  The City Attorney’s responses for recommendation to the City to reject the appeal were outlined in two memorandums from their office dated January 5, 2011 and provided in the agenda packet materials attached to the staff report, identified as Attachments B and C). 


At the request of Chair Roe, City Attorney Charles Bartholdi verbally reviewed background of laws related to the appeal process and the recommendation of his office; and clarifying that the law in pace at the time of the decision by the decision-making body was applicable, even though in this regard there was no difference in the old and new City Codes.  Mr. Bartholdi reviewed the process for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to refer this appeal to the Planning Commission for their review and report on the Appeal prior to any decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, in accordance with Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462.354, Subd. 2.


Regarding the next two (2) appeals to be heard by the Board, Mr. Bartholdi advised that City Council decisions were handled differently between the old and new City Codes; and that under the new Code, no City Council action was appealable to the Board; while under the old Code, certain actions were appealable, specific to approval or denial of applications under the Zoning Code.  Mr. Bartholdi noted that the remaining two appeals were related to land use decisions of the City Council, not initiated by applications, but initiated by the City Council itself on behalf of the City of Roseville and were therefore not appealable under the old zoning code or the new zoning code.


Mr. Trudgeon clarified that City Attorney Bartholdi’s analysis addressed all three (3) appeals.


Chair Roe briefly reviewed the timing of the appeal and whether the proper procedure was followed.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the appeal had been received and staff response provided in an appropriate timeframe, based on ten (10) business days, not ten (10) calendar days.  Mr. Bartholdi further noted that staff’s reply was to one (1) party, not all the petitioners, since addresses were unavailable to staff, as Ms. Mix was serving as the representative.


Member McGehee reviewed an additional portion of State Statute, Chapter 462.357, sub. 6, addressing appeals; and requested additional information on the remedies available to citizens under the new City Code.


Mr. Trudgeon and City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed the processes available, including a petition to rezone the property versus their previous petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; application by the neighbors for rezoning; lobbying of City Councilmembers to initiate rezoning; or judicial action under Minnesota State Statute 462.361.


          Chair Roe opened the meeting to public comment specific to this issue and clarified the requested action before the Board and respectfully requested speakers focus on that issue, noting that additional opportunities would be provided at the Planning Commission and City Council level for public comment related to the appeal itself.


          No one appeared to speak for or against.  For the record, a bench handout consisting of an e-mail from Mr. Trudgeon to Ms. Mix dated January 10, 2011 and in response to her e-mail and document entitled, “Statement for appeal by Old Highway 8 Neighborhood,” dated January 9, 2011; attached hereto and made a part hereof.


          Pust moved, McGehee seconded, to refer the appeal of staff’s administrative decision to reject a petition requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on properties located at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 to the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission meeting for their review and recommendation.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.


          At the request of Members, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the issue would be scheduled and noticed for the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission; and that their recommendation would then be scheduled at one of the City Council’s February of 2011 regular meetings.


          Chair Roe sought clarification on how and to whom notices would be provided.


          City Attorney Bartholdi advised that only notices to the property owner(s) and applicant(s) were required; however, he noted that it would be worthwhile to ask that names and addresses of all petitioners be provided to staff; and recommended that staff re-notice the next meeting versus continuing this meeting.


          Chair Roe requested that additional information from all petitioners be provided to staff.


B.           Appeal from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents regarding property zoning decisions made by the City Council on December 13, 2010

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the background of the City Council’s adoption of a new Zoning Map as part of the overall Zoning Code Update to bring the City’s Zoning Code into compliance with the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan; and subsequent appeal of that decision by the Woods Edge Homeowners Association and surrounding Old Highway 8 neighborhood residents regarding the decision to rezone 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 from R-1, Single Family Residential District to HDR-1, High Density Residential District.


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the basis of the appeal; review of the appeal by City staff and the City Attorney; and their determination that there was no provision under the new City Code to allow for residents to appeal a decision made by the City Council to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.  Mr. Trudgeon noted staff’s response to Ms. Mix by letter dated January 5, 2010 (Attachment D) and recourse available to the appellants to seek judicial review of the City Council action pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 462.361.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that no action by the Board was recommended at this time, and that this case was presented for informational purposes only.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if an appeal was received regarding this above-mentioned administrative ruling, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals would need to look at the administrative ruling and determine whether staff’s determination was correct under Chapter 1009.08 of City Code.


Member McGehee asked if it was possible for the City Council to take action itself without appeal from the public.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that there were procedures in place should a member of the City Council come forward to initiate placing such a matter on a City Council agenda.


Member Willmus clarified that this would be done after the City Council reconvened as the City Council.


Chair Roe concurred, noting that this would be addressed under the Rules of Procedure adopted by the City Council.


Chair Roe opened the meeting to public comment specific to this issue.


Public Comment

Karen Hagen, 2485 County Road C-2 West

Ms. Hagen requested that the Board reconsider, noting that while many residents of the neighborhood would prefer not to continue attending public meetings regarding this issue, they were committed and asked that the Board take into consideration that evident commitment, despite staff’s recommendation.  Ms. Hagen asked that the Board carefully review this neighborhood and whether the decisions made to-date are in the best interest of the neighborhood and its residents.


Joe Giannetti, 3209 Old Highway 8

Mr. Giannetti expressed his confusion and sought clarification as to why the residents couldn’t appeal this zoning decision.


Chair Roe clarified for Mr. Giannetti the current appeal and alternative re-zoning processes for residents and/or the City Council related to this zoning.


Member Pust apologized that the process sounded somewhat circular, but clarified that the Board did not have legal authority to grant this appeal.


Chair Roe noted that the appeal as stated was a request to undue something; however, noted that the residents could request to rezone the parcels if it was a majority decision of the neighborhood.


Member McGehee expressed her disappointment that letters sent to people did not lay out options and clearly explain problems, and just to be the recipient of a letter from their City government that the appeal was insufficient and incorrect.  Member McGehee advised that she had previously spoken to City Manager Malinen about this issue, and for the residents, briefly reviewed the process available to the residents to proceed.  Member McGehee noted that the residents had already presented a petition with 69% of the surrounding neighborhood property owners signing, when only 50% was needed; and rewording their appeal would make it possible for the Board to rule.  Member McGehee opined that it was unfortunate that, in order for the Board to change the process to over-ruling a staff process, it needed to make a determination as the City Council rather than the Board of “Adjustments and Appeal.


Chair Roe reviewed the process available for the neighborhood in submitting an application for rezoning, holding an open house prior to submission of the application to the Planning Commission, receipt of the application by staff, scheduling and noticing the public hearing at the Planning Commission level, the Planning Commissions’ recommendation to the City Council, and the final decision by the City Council.  Chair Roe advised that the other option would be for the City Council to initiate rezoning.


Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8

Ms. Mix sought clarification on the waiting period between petitions.


City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that there was a one-year period if an application is denied; however, he noted that there was no application filed to-date since the City Council initiated the rezoning of the property, so no application had yet been filed and the one-year period was not applicable. 


Ms. Mix reviewed the testimony submitted regarding the wording of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning of properties to be consistent, during which time the neighborhood had become aware of the intent to rezone the parcels at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8; and subsequent understandings of the neighbors and discussions with staff.  Ms. Mix expressed frustration in having to return to the Planning Commission when they had originally supported the request of the neighborhood to rezone the property to MDR, Medium Density Residential, rather than the City Council decision to rezone the property to HDR, High Density Residential.


Chair Roe advised that the Planning Commission would take under consideration whatever the applicant requested, and make their recommendation to the City Council based on the application itself.


Ms. Mix further questioned the timing and need for an open house.


Chair Roe clarified that the open house was part of the application process prior to submission of the application and its being heard by the Planning Commission.


Member Pust assured Ms. Mix that they had done nothing wrong in the process, and clarified the appeal process under a new law, following the previous decision of the City Council.


Member Willmus clarified that, if the neighbors so chose to do so, they could initiate rezoning of the properties at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.


Member McGehee opined that, if the group decided to proceed with an application for rezoning, that the City Manager be directed to have staff provide clear steps for the process to avoid similar confusion.


City Manager Malinen assured the Board and public that staff is available to assist, as it served with any and all applications.


Member McGehee opined that she wanted to see every step put in writing.


Brian Buck, 3609 33rd Avenue NE, St. Anthony Village

Mr. Buck questioned if the neighborhood needed to be concerned, if it pursued rezoning, that the correct land use designation was applicable.


Chair Roe noted that the zoning did need to comply with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the two needed to conform; with the Zoning change approval or denial based on simple majority vote, but any Comprehensive Plan Amendment needing super majority vote.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the property owners at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 may have concerns and challenge any determinations and require additional resolution.

Chair Roe suggested, and Mr. Trudgeon concurred, that if so determined, the City Council may wish to initiate that the Planning Commission consider their recommendation related to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concurrent with the neighborhood’s request for rezoning of the two (2) subject parcels.


At the request of Member Pust, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the only people having the potential to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for land use designation are the property owner or the City Council; but that the neighbors could request rezoning, noting that the zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designation must conform.


Based on those circumstances, Mr. Buck advocated the Board/City Council to bring forward a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, noting the complex issues presented in October of 2010 when the City Council was considering changes.  Mr. Buck opined that MDR seemed like a fair compromise for existing adjacent residential properties, as well as the property owner(s) of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.  Mr. Buck expressed concern with the timing and potential sale and/or project on the subject parcels moving ahead prior to resolution of this concern.


City Manager Malinen suggested that, if and when staff received an application for rezoning, staff could bring a recommendation forward for City Council consideration related to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.


Member McGehee questioned density of R-6, with Chair Roe advising that this was no longer a land use designation or zoning district.


Member McGehee suggested another compromise to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the subject properties to allow any future development to come before the City Council for additional conditions; noting that under the new zoning rules, if a development adheres to standards, it was most likely that neither the Planning Commission or City Council would hear the case or have any impact on the development.  Member McGehee opined that if a PUD were approved even under current Comprehensive Plan land use designation and HDR zoning guiding the property to twelve (12) units per acre, a realistic project could transition well with existing developments and improve upon green space.



Chair Roe noted that, in order to consider instituting the PUD process, discussion and consideration would need to be taken up at an appropriate time as the City Council.


C.            Appeal from Har Mar Mall area residents regarding property zoning decision made by the City Council on December 13, 2010

Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed this request for appeal, similar to the previous case, and as detailed in the staff report dated January 10, 2011; the Appeal of Rezoning of Har Mar Mall Parking Lot received by staff on December 23, 2010 from Neil Nelson, 142 Ryan Avenue, and J. O. Thompson, 2008 Asbury Street N (Attachment A); and staff’s response dated January 5, 2010, outlining the administrative decision of staff after consultation with the City Attorney (Attachment C).  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the neighborhood’s recourse would be similar to those addressed in the previous case.


At the request of Members Willmus and McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the open house and public hearing mailed and published notices prior to approval by the City Council; and the timing and type of notice provided.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this was not an anomaly property, even though discussed at the same time as anomaly properties throughout the City and part of the rezoning process to bring the City’s Zoning Code into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan update.


At the request of Member McGehee, City Attorney Bartholdi confirmed that there was case law related to notice requirements for specific parcels and community-wide rezoning.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that the mailing of notices was an extra communication tool used by staff, but not required by law for city-wide rezoning.


Public Comment

          For the record, two bench handouts were provided as part of this discussion, consisting of an e-mail dated January 10, 2011, from Richard and Sandra Smith, 1371 Ryan Avenue W, and an e-mail dated January 9, 2011 from Heidi & Neil Nelson, 1442 Ryan Avenue W, both requesting reconsideration of the rezoning of the southern portion of Har Mar parking lot; and attached hereto and made a part hereof.


J. O. Thompson, 2008 Asbury Street

          Mr. Thompson opined that this property had been zoned R-1 for approximately 50-51 years; and further opined that the original rationale in zoning it R-1 was that it was property suitable for residential use.  Mr. Thompson advised that this changed when the Har Mar Mall owners prevailed on a past City Council to change that situation; and ramifications for the residential properties on the southern edge of the Mall being attacked in subsequent years from various commercial uses.  Mr. Thompson alleged that the Planning Commission had arbitrarily changed the overall area plan and map; with multiple actions, and requiring ongoing advocacy of surrounding residential properties to repeatedly defend the area.  Mr. Thompson opined that the Planning Commission never seemed to do anything very constructive or supportive for residential neighborhoods, but only supported commercial ventures.  Mr. Thompson expressed confusion as to how this problem had been created; opined that the hearings had not been advertised correctly, and continued to be disconcerting for residential taxpayers to not have their voices heard, and only those of commercial taxpayers addressed.  Mr. Thompson further opined that the residential taxpayers are who had made Roseville what it was today, and questioned why the appeal could not proceed.


          Member Pust reviewed the appeal process, and how the neighborhood could bring forward an application for rezoning, with staff providing assistance; but recognizing the lack of legal authority of the Board in considering the appeal as presented.


          Chair Roe encouraged neighbors, similar to the previous case, to lobby Councilmembers to pursue an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concurrent with any application for rezoning that they brought forward.


          Discussion ensued among several Board members and the City Attorney clarifying the appeal process; with only administrative appeals, not legislative appeals appealable to the Board; and action available to the City Council when they reconvened as such.


Ward Schwie, 1383 Ryan

Mr. Schwie expressed continued confusion, opining that there should have been public notice to change the circumference around the Mall; and expressed concern that a petition effort would succeed; and questioned how the neighbors could appeal to the City Council.


Chair Roe clarified that the rezoning could not be appealed, but a petition to affect rezoning could be provided by the neighbors to change the rezoning adopted on December 13, 2010 by the City Council to Community Business, upon signatures received by a minimum of 50% of the neighbors.  Chair Roe reiterated the process for such a petition process to the Planning Commission, with the assistance of staff.


Mr. Schwie expressed concern that the Har Mar neighborhood would be adversely affected by a potential “Apache Plaza” type development, and the neighborhood‘s assurance that the R-1 zoning protected them from such a plight and provided a calming effect and retained Har Mar Mall as a good neighbor.  Mr. Schwie expressed little confidence in the expanded buffer zone to protect residents.


Mr. Schwie further expressed frustration in ongoing dump truck activity moving snow all night; and trucks parking in the Mall parking lot and running all night.


Member Pust noted those are complainable issues.


Mr. Schwie advised that neighbors continually called the Police Department, but sleep was still lost, and the problems continued to repeat.


At the request of Member Pust, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would get in contact with Har Mar Mall ownership to determine the source and enforcement of the problems brought forward by Mr. Schwie.  Member Pust noted that the City Council had recently enacted an ordinance that property owners pay for additional patrol services, and opined that Har Mar Mall should be made clearly aware of that. 


Chair Roe concurred; and thanked all for coming tonight and for their comments.


Member Pust moved, and Member Willmus moved to adjourn the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 7:18 p.m.; and Mayor Roe reconvened in regular City Council session.


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council in regular session at approximately 7:20 pm.  (Voting and Seating Order for January: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.   Councilmember Johnson was not present at tonight’s meeting due to illness.

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee moved to take up the matters related to Har Mar and Old Highway 8 at tonight’s meeting to outline proper procedure at the Planning Commission level; based on the massive confusion of those concerned citizens, not through any fault of their own.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second.


Councilmember Pust noted, for record, that if the issue was to be brought up the entire City Council should be present for the discussions; particularly based on the need for a super majority vote.


Mayor Roe concurred; noting that it also provided additional notice of that upcoming discussion at the City Council level.


Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Items 7.d and 7.f respectively entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Meritex to Allow Outdoor Storage as an INTERIM USE at 2295 Walnut Street;” and “Adopt 2011 City Council Rules of Procedure.”


Councilmember McGehee requested removal of consent Item 7.a entitled, “Approve Payments.”


Mayor Roe requested removal of Consent Item 7.b entitled, “Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000.”


Mayor Roe suggested removing Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Appoint City Council Member to Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization Ten-Year Watershed Management Plan;” to determine if Councilmember McGehee had agreed to be the City Council’s designee for that appointment.  After clarification by City Manager Malinen and Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe retained Item 7.f on the Consent Agenda, with Councilmember McGehee’s name inserted as the designee for appointment.


By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.    

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report


Councilmember Pust, in her role as President of the North Suburban Community Foundation provided copies to members of the Council of the “Report on Audit of Financial Statements” dated June 30, 2010.


          Mayor Roe announced an upcoming Open House of the Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) on Wednesday, January 12, 2011, as the Organization began development of their Third Generation Ten Year Water Management Plan.  Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the GLWMO and their role in managing water flowing into Snail Lake, Lake Owasso and Lake Wabasso; with additional information available on the GLWMO website or through a link on the City of Roseville’s website.


Mayor Roe announced the upcoming Roseville Restaurant Week, along with the Roseville Jazz Blast, sponsored in part by the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA), with additional information available at the RVA website or through a link on the City of Roseville’s website.


In recognition of those injured or killed over the weekend in Tucson, AZ, Mayor Roe called for a moment of silence.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

            a.         Proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring January 17, 2011 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, a proclamation declaring January 17, 2011 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of January 3, 2011 Meeting

Willmus moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 3, 2011 meeting as amended.



Corrections had been previously made by Councilmember Willmus and Mayor Roe and incorporated into the draft of meeting minutes as presented for tonight’s meeting.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


c.            Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of White Bear Lake for Telephone System Support

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of White Bear Lake and the City of Roseville for the purposes of the City of Roseville providing telephone systems support (Attachment A).

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


f.             Appoint City Council Member to Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization’s Ten-Year Watershed Management Plan Process

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Councilmember Tammy McGehee to serve as City of Roseville City Council Liaison to the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization’s Ten (10)-Year Watershed Management Plan process.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.            Approve Payments

Councilmember McGehee noted that several times at past meetings, Councilmembers had requested a different and more informative format for the Check Register; however, the format of tonight’s Check Register remained the same.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her frustration and confusion in attempting to decipher what was being paid and their allocation in the approved budget; and provided several examples: rental of three (3) Bobcats, charges from the company handling confiscated vehicles for the Police Department, and identification of the Veit Company.

City Manager Malinen advised that staff was aware of the previous requests of and the difficulties being experienced by Councilmembers and the public in deciphering the Check Register.  Mr. Malinen noted that the City had undertaken a significant software change, and was continuing to work with the vendor to revise the report; and apologized for the delay in achieving those revisions.  Mr. Malinen encouraged Councilmembers or members of the public to contact him directly for explanation of any payments made or any other questions. 


For those items City Manager Malinen was unable to identify at this time, he advised that he would review and contact Councilmembers with a more detailed description.


McGehee moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments







Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item.


Mayor Roe questioned if this purchase was part of a proposal or bid process.


City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that this was the lowest proposal staff had obtained from three (3) quotes received; and recommended moving forward at this time as a significant cost increase was anticipated in the near future for this type of material.


Mayor Roe suggested, and City Manager Malinen duly noted that, in the future, a brief memorandum accompany such requests providing basic details allowing better decision-making by the City Council.


Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:







Crafco Inc.

Crack sealing material





Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Meritex to Allow Outdoor Storage as an INTEIM USE at 2295 Walnut Street (former Consent Item d)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item, noting that the rubble was part of a demolished building, and that staff continued to work with the property owner; and that this request was moving forward by unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission, thus staff’s inclusion of it on the Consent Agenda.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission was that the INTERIM USE run no longer than July of 2010; and questioned why that condition had now been changed to October of 2010.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that staff’s original recommendation was for the INTERIM USE to expire October 31, 2011; however, some members of the Planning Commission expressed their desire to hear directly from the applicant the timeframe being required to remove the remaining rubble; and since the applicant was not present at the meeting, they chose to send a direct message to the applicant by shortening the time period.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City Council had the discretion to reduce the permit period as well.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, from staff’s perspective, their recommendation for approval to expire at the end of October 31, 2011 was simply to allow the applicant the full construction season, rather than choosing July or August for expiration, and requiring the applicant to return for additional extensions, similar to what had occurred with Reservoir Woods’ INTERIM USE application.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the applicant’s original request was for the end of August of 2011; and opined that he concurred with the July expiration as recommended by the Planning Commission, rather than the October date; as well as supporting an increased fine structure of $500 per day rather than that of $100 per day.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10871 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage of Demolition Rubble, at 2295 Walnut Street as an INTERIM USE in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Chapter 1013.09 (PR10-029);” amended to increase the fine from $100 to $500 per day, and that the approval shall expire at the end of July of 2011, rather than October 31, 2011 (both under Condition C).


Community Development Director Trudgeon noted that the applicant was unable to attend tonight’s meeting; confirming for Councilmembers that they were noticed of tonight’s meeting.


Councilmember Pust suggested that staff provide the applicant, in writing, the discussion and consequences of tonight’s meeting.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that, subject to the 60-day review rule, the City Council should provide findings for the changes in fine and expiration for the INTERIM USE.


Councilmember Willmus advised that those findings should be in accordance with those items mentioned by the Planning Commission and their recommendations.


Councilmember McGehee questioned staff on the size of the remaining rubble pile.


Community Development Director Trudgeon did not have a firm tonnage amount; however, he advised that upon staff’s last review in June of 2010 the pile had been substantially larger, and estimated that approximately one-half of the rubble pile had been removed to-date. 


Councilmember Pust opined that the remaining pile remained very visible.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she had received complaints regarding dust from the rubble pile; and questioned if the material was large component rubble, or if there was some dust, particularly during summer months with additional wind.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if the applicant could make an attempt to cover the pile to eliminate or reduce dust.


Community Development Director Trudgeon noted that the material was Class 7 gravel, and probably had some dust; and advised that the applicant was motivated to get rid of the pile sooner than later.


City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that the applicant could wet it down; with Councilmember McGehee seeking to amend the motion to require that the applicant wet the pile down.


City Engineer Bloom clarified that the applicant was already under an existing erosion control condition on site; with the City requiring them to wet the pile down.  Ms. Bloom advised that, if the City Council had additional concerns, they could include an additional condition in their motion; however, she noted that staff continued their weekly inspection of the site to ensure erosion control ordinance regulations were being met.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe advised staff and City Attorney Bartholdi to provide findings to the applicant as previously stated by the Planning Commission to address amendments to the requested action.


d.            Adopt 2011 City Council Rules of Procedure (former Consent Item 7.e)

Councilmember Willmus recalled that there were to be additional discussions at an upcoming meeting related to Rule 9 and simple minority versus majority voting to suspend rules.


City Manager Malinen recalled that staff was going to further research that particular application of simple minority versus super majority votes and any implications not evidenced at this time; and bring that information forward to the City Council at a meeting in the near future.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of amended City Council Rules and Procedures for 2011.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

9.         General Ordinances for Adoption

10.      Presentations

11.      Public Hearings

a.            Public Improvement Hearing for the Reconstruction of Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard

Mayor Roe and City Manager Malinen reviewed the Agenda for Public Improvement hearing for Dale Street Reconstruction (Attachment A).  City Manager Malinen advised that there had been no written public comment received by staff to-date.


City Engineer Debra Bloom provided specific information for the project, including existing conditions, proposed construction, special conditions, schedule, cost estimates, and proposed financing sources.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the four-step planning process with the neighborhood since receipt of a petition for pathways was received by the City Council in 2009; and the road reconstruction project moved up from 2012 to 2011 from projected scheduling in the City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP), based on the petition for pathways, existing pavement conditions, recurring water main breaks in the area, and other drainage issues. 


Ms. Bloom provided detailed review of the various components and options of this reconstruction project, including pathway, street from County Road C to Iona Lane, and Iona Lane to South Owasso Boulevard, traffic management options to address major concerns of residents, drainage of the roadway and some surrounding properties with specific drainage issues (628 Terrace Drive and along 608 Terrace Court, 2815/2823 Dale Street, and& 629 Terrace Drive), public utilities, residential driveways, sanitary and water services, private underground and/or overhead utilities, and unique considerations with the overall project.


Ms. Bloom reviewed various traffic management options, and advised that staff was recommending including several speed tables to reduce speed, based on application and results apparent by use in the City of St. Paul (Otis Street); and reviewed the areas proposed for sewer lining and/or replacement based on recent completion of televising of the sanitary sewer lines in that area. 


Ms. Bloom addressed considerations and cost estimates provided by Xcel Energy to underground their lines, including Comcast, Qwest, and electric service lines, and options for paying the estimated $170,000 cost through the Community Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS) similar to that on Rice Street.  Ms. Bloom noted that additional pricing would need to be completed by Xcel prior to proceeding, and if approved by the City Council, estimated by Xcel at approximately $2,500 for additional design work to determine a monthly customer charge, and to refine their estimate and identify easements.  Ms. Bloom advised that, in her unofficial survey of affected residents, approximately 75% of them did NOT support undergrounding if it was to be assessed; while approximately half of those surveyed would support undergrounding if it was done community-wide as a CRFS.


Ms. Bloom summarized those costs detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated January 10, 2011; with the engineer’s estimate for total assessable costs assessable, in accordance with the City’s Assessment Policy), at $755,689.19.  Ms. Bloom reviewed various unique considerations related to this project: Ramsey Square Condominiums; Westwood Village II Townhomes; Owasso Hollow Townhomes; vacant land; City storm pond; and a vacant parcel north of 2823 Dale Street (currently owned by the George Reiling Trust).


Ms. Bloom advised that staff was recommending removal of the vacant parcel previously identified from the assessment roll, noting that with the significant easement for the power line, only 757 square foot of the lot was not covered by the easement, and given City Code requirements for setbacks and the easement, she questioned the ability to build a house on the site, and thus recommended its removal from the assessment roll.  Ms. Bloom questioned if the property owner would appeal any assessment, estimated between $3 – 4,000, and whether the City could prove any actual benefit to the parcel that would substantiate such an assessment.


Ms. Bloom reviewed the proposed assessment map and the City’s Assessment Policy, advising that the townhomes having access on Woodhill and MacKubin would not be assessed as they had no access to Dale Street; and that remaining properties would have an estimated assessment of $48.66 per foot based on a standard lot width of 85 feet and assessment average of $4,136.10.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the timing for the project and subsequent assessments and assessment deferral process; and funding for the project.  Ms. Bloom noted that if the City Council approved the project, staff would work on final plans and specifications and return to the City Council for approval to go to bid.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included location of proposed speed tables and potential noise concerns as cars drove over them, and potential disruption to the neighborhood; speed reductions achieved over three years of operation by the City of St. Paul, based on comment by their Engineer; no impediments to snow removal or drainage from the speed tables; and sunset provisions for city-wide CRFS for undergrounding utilities over a three year window, and how to address consistent criteria for determining undergrounding.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he was not generally supportive of undergrounding utilities.


Further discussion included the City’s Assessment Policy assessing property owners for 25% of the cost of road construction for a 32’ wide, 7-ton road, even if built to higher specifications; the City’s road rating index and Pavement Management Plan (PMP): condition of turnback roads and recourse for the City to address those turnback road conditions; negotiation by staff on maintenance of turnback roads prior to accepting them and options to accept or not accept them; and types of curbing, including ribbon curbing to minimize stormwater runoff.


Ms. Bloom assured Councilmembers and the public that staff considered many options when reviewing various road projects based on the specific area and unique situations of that particular section.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the concept of ribbon curbing, noting that it was another tool to consider, and further noting that there was only a small portion that would have ribbon curbing, with staff not recommending it for Dale Street based on the grading of the road and erosion concerns in the design of ribbon curbs.


Further discussion included staff’s recommended width for boulevard to facilitate trees and grass, and to provide additional protection for pedestrians from the roadway; and previous City policy (prior to 2001) for assessing portions of the cost for pathways or trails whether requested through petition or initiated through other avenues.


City Manager Malinen questioned potential policy implications for speed tables, similar to undergrounding of electric lines that may need to e addressed by the City Council as future requests are received.  Mr. Malinen questioned if the speed limit in this area had always been 38 mph.


Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that the estimated cost of each speed table was approximately $3,500, and indicated a larger policy discussion for traffic management as well as other options available.  Ms. Bloom noted that staff  consistently told residents that if staff could find an engineered solution to address their areas of concern, they would bring it to the attention of the City Council.  Ms. Bloom advised that the speed along Dale Street ranged from 30-35 mph, and opined that the area was a transition zone, and those signs currently installed had originated when it was a county road.  Ms. Bloom advised that there were many people not heeding the signs.


Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at 8:34 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the reconstruction of Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard.


Public Comment

                   Maureen Murphy, 2700 Dale Street (Ramsey Square resident)

Ms. Murphy advised that her unit faced Dale Street; and suggested that Councilmembers check the area at night.  Ms. Murphy opined that there were no lights there, and while she had no problem paying an assessment, she wanted the project to include lighting.  Ms. Murphy, as a twenty-seven year resident, opined that it made more sense to put the sidewalk on the west, rather than east side.  Ms. Murphy further questioned what would happen to the trees on their property.  Ms. Murphy noted that approximately 70% of the residents in the area were over 65 years old, and suggested an assessment could prove a hardship for them.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom responded to Ms. Murphy’s concerns, noting that there were four (4) street lights on Dale Street, and while there had been some discussion of additional lighting, the City’s current policy was that lights were only added to existing overhead poles and not less than  700 feet between, and that 100% of the property owners within 150’ of the proposed light need to support that lighting.  Ms Bloom noted that there was a $12/light monthly charge for the City; but that lighting could be installed at any time, not just during reconstruction.


Ms. Murphy addressed security concerns at Ramsey Square properties, noting there were lots of problems with people crossing their property, specifically teenagers and dogs; vandalism and break-ins at garages; and expressed concern with the sidewalk on their side of the street creating more trouble in the future.


Ms. Bloom advised that the majority of the trees on the property were Ash trees, and when staff had met with the Ramsey Square Board, they had advised the Board that there was no intention to remove any trees in that location; and advised that the roadway was much further away from the trees than originally thought.


Jean Hadlick, 2287 Dale Street

Ms. Hadlick advised that she and her husband had led the petition for the sidewalk with 80% approval of petition by residents; and expressed her support for the proposed project.  Ms. Hadlick spoke in further support of the speed tables, opining that speeds in the area far exceeded 38 mph; and that any additional noise would be balanced by the improved safety by reducing speed and providing further protection to the many young children in the area.  Ms. Hadlick asked that the City Council look at the broad perspective for Roseville undergrounding utilities, opining that Roseville was far behind metropolitan communities in doing so; and spoke in support of the City Council prioritizing undergrounding utilities, not just on Dale Street, but throughout the City, and expressed sport for paying additional taxes or sharing costs to achieve this priority goal.  Ms. Hadlick expressed interest in seeing Roseville come up to speed in this area, and perhaps shift spending from parks to fix sidewalks, make street repairs, and bury utilities.


Tom Hadlick, 2287 Dale Street

Mr. Hadlick concurred with Jean’s comments; and opined that this was a great project to move forward.  Mr. Hadlick advised that with the many children crossing the street at Iona and Dale for the school bus stop, they had clocked speeds at 3:00 p.m. at 75 mph; and advocated additional protection for those children, opining that speed tables were a good start.  Mr. Hadlick noted the flashing yellow crosswalk light near the arboretum and suggested a similar amenity at Iona and Dale.  Mr. Hadlick spoke in support of shoulders to reduce speed; and while supportive of additional trees, questioned if they would remain uniform and conforming if the overhead utility lines remained, noting that the utility lines crossed from the west to east sides of the street at Iona.


                   Linda Allman, Ramsey Square Resident

Ms. Allman noted that Roseville may be behind the times, but reiterated the comments of Ms. Murphy in the age of a majority of the residents at Ramsey Square; and opined that many of those residents felt left out, in addition to elderly residents in other areas of Roseville.  Ms. Allman opined that the Ramsey Square residents had not been asked to sign the petition for a sidewalk or even to consider it.  Ms. Allman provided her perspective on the proposed location of the sidewalk, opining that it seemed more prudent to install it on the west side to connect with the sidewalk on the south side of County Road C.  Ms. Allman referenced the survey done by staff by computer, noting that many elderly people didn’t have access to a computer, and opined that surveys should have been mailed out instead.


Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court; Owasso Hollow townhome Association

Mr. Toogood expressed appreciation and compliments to Roseville City staff, and specifically Ms. Bloom.  Mr. Toogood advised that he had attended every session and opined that Ms. Bloom did an excellent job of listening, asking the right questions, and being open to all; and complimented her and the good information process.  Mr. Toogood spoke in support of the sidewalk on the east side, considering the number of seniors living on the east side, and their access to the park.  Mr. Toogood opined that he’d rather see seniors crossing at Dale Street at an intersection having some traffic controls.  Mr. Toogood emphasized his strong support for the results of the process; and noted he was one of the louder voices to underground utilities, opining that this reconstruction project provided a unique opportunity.  While understanding the cost issues, Mr. Toogood remained in support of the undergrounding.


Judd Whiting, 628 Terrace Drive – corner of Terrace and Dale Street

Mr. Whiting thanked Ms. Bloom for the entire process; and opined that the proposed street construction was fabulous and would be a great change from current.  While not supportive of having the pathway on his side of the street, Mr. Whiting spoke in support of it, while also recognizing the security and safety concerns expressed by other speakers.


Mr. Whiting spoke to undergrounding and questioned the luxury of having the entire City of Roseville pay for that privilege over and above the cost of this project, noting the existence of surcharges already on utility bills for one project.  Mr. Whiting spoke in opposition to raising taxes or adding another surcharge to pay for something not necessary and having functioned well over his twenty-one years as a resident.


Mr. Whiting spoke to speed, and agreed that there was an issue, and admitted he was also guilty of speeding in that area.  However, he spoke in opposition to having to drive over speed tables in a residential neighborhood as a way to get drivers to obey the law, and expressed preference for having the street choked and additional trees planted instead.


Brad Skow, 635 Iona Lane

Mr. Skow addressed the staff lifecycle cost analysis on pathway materials to consider concrete or asphalt, and questioned whether a similar analysis had been done for the road materials.


Ms. Bloom responded that the City did not currently have a design perspective for concrete pavement, nor did they have much experience with concrete.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the projected life span for pavement, based on periodic maintenance.  Ms. Bloom noted that problems developed when contractors needed to access utilities under the street, creating problems in those areas patched; and noted that concrete patches were significantly more cost prohibitive for residents, as well as access issues with concrete installation versus bituminous; another reason staff has continued to recommend asphalt roads.  Ms. Bloom noted that staff was always open to other options as technologies developed, and as directed by the City Council to look at other materials.


Mr. Skow suggested staff may consider other options to address vehicle speed and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.


Ms. Bloom advised that traffic management options was another broader policy discussion that could be approached by the City Council; and further advised that staff brought forward various options for City Council consideration, as well as vetting those options with the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission for address speed issues and other traffic management


Dave Bogee, 2783 Dale Street

Mr. Bogee spoke in strong support of something to manage speed in the area.  Mr. Bogee advised that he had a home business, and often observed City dump trucks and other tandem vehicles exceeding the speed limit.  Mr. Bogee advised that he had reported this concern, but it continued.  Mr. Bogee noted the excessive noise when the vehicles hit the existing cracks and blemished roadway, and anticipated even more noise upon installation of the speed tables, particularly with semis.


Ms. Bloom advised that the larger vehicles actually drove over the speed tables easier due to their larger wheel base.


Ms. Hadlick

Ms. Hadlick suggested a sign announcing the speed tables, to which Ms. Bloom responded that such signage was a requirement.


Mr. Whiting, 628 Terrace Drive

Mr. Whiting expressed concern that once someone hit the speed tables at an excessive speed, they would be more inclined to find an alternate route, and that the rout may be Terrace, increasing traffic and safety issues on Terrace, similar to that experienced with people cutting down County Road C to Owasso Hills.


Roger Toogood

Mr. Toogood opined that the issue was not isolated to Dale Street, but was a major issue on every street in Roseville and in every community; and further opined that it wasn’t realistic to attempt to control speed on Dale Street.  Mr. Toogood opined that there was no consistency in the community on speed limits, adding to the confusion and ignoring the signs, adding to basic human nature to speed.


Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 9:07 pm.

12.      Business Items (Action Items)


a.    Consider the Reconstruction of Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard

Ms. Bloom advised that staff could research options and come back in the future with recommendations for speed tables or other options for future installation on existing pavement during or after the proposed reconstruction project.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bloom again reviewed the construction and concept of speed tables, further addressing drainage issues and the flat space on top for vehicles to transition.  Councilmember Pust questioned how they affected bicycle traffic.


Ms. Bloom advised that she had ridden by bicycle over the Otis ramp, with no issues at average speed.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the cost of adding a flasher at the crosswalk where children caught the school bus, with Ms. Bloom responding that they averaged $12 – 15,000 depending on the type chosen.  Ms. Bloom advised that staff had not recommended installing a flasher at that particular crosswalk, but could do so at the direction of the City Council, noting that State Aid funds may apply.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom responded that the cost to grind off a speed table if determined detrimental and/or ineffective would be minimal.


Councilmember Willmus questioned how staff evaluated placement of sidewalks.


Ms. Bloom reviewed those considerations, including existing pathways, driveway crossings, where the majority of the population is located, and other safety considerations.


In further addressing flashing lights at crosswalks, Ms. Bloom noted that realistic observations noted that vehicles didn’t always stop; and she expressed a preference to have the sidewalk cross at Dale Street due to the 4-way stop signs in place.


In addressing the missing or inoperable light in front of Ramsey Square, Ms. Bloom advised that the light was not on public right-of-way, but was private; and further noted that if residents wanted an additional light installed, they needed to formulate a petition.


Councilmember Pust noted the need to develop a policy to move toward undergrounding of utilities now that Rice Street had been done through a CRFS, and some interest in doing so on Dale Street.  However, Councilmember Pust noted the need to determine if there was a consensus to develop criteria to determine if and when to do the undergrounding and whether the City wanted to pursue that aesthetic investment.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of developing a policy for when undergrounding was indicated.  Mayor Roe noted that one of the incentives for Rice Street was the cost-sharing with the City of Little Canada, reducing the CRFS for Roseville residents. 


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom noted that Xcel designers indicated that the undergrounding could be accomplished before or after the project, as they intended to use directional boring rather than open trenching.  Ms. Bloom further advised that Xcel noted the need to relocate several poles, and they would deduct removing those 3-4 poles rather than relocating them, creating an additional cost to the City from the estimated $170,000 for undergrounding, estimated at approximately $1,000 per pole.


Councilmember Pust noted that she didn’t want to bury  utilities only where there were cost-share opportunities with neighboring communities, while the remainder of Roseville remained the same as it did fifty year ago.


Further discussion included power poles in back yards; feeder lines similar to Dale Street; undergrounding for streetscape and environmental reasons; recurring power failures with overhead lines; reluctance of utilities to co-locate in a single trench; rationale for utilities not being located in single conduits due to interference issues of various services; and benefits to each party in co-locating service.


Ms. Bloom noted the need for broader policy and rights-of-way discussion at the City Council level.


City Manager Malinen suggested staff provide an analysis of implications of undergrounding throughout the City beyond this specific project; noting that the City didn’t have the financial capacity to achieve this goal for the entire city long-term.


Councilmembers concurred that this needed to be a future policy discussion; with Mayor Roe suggesting that the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Committee be asked for their input as well.


Mayor Roe requested that staff prepare the plans and specifications for the basic project; with speed tables broken out as option for further discussion when considering bid award.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10872 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe thanked the public for their comments.


Councilmember Pust congratulated those petition for the sidewalks, and encouraged them to serve as a great democracy in action.



b.    Consider Appointing a Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) Board Member

City Engineer Deb Bloom briefly reviewed the background of the GLWMO as a joint powers organization managing water resources in the northeastern portion of Roseville and southern Shoreview.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the rotation outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), and the unanticipated two (2) applications received for the one (1) board vacancy for a Roseville resident.  After review of both very qualified applicants, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was recommending appointment of Mr. Jonathan Miller to serve, unless the City Council preferred to interview both candidates before making an appointment.


Discussion included the appointment and interview process; frequency of GLWMO meetings usually quarterly, but currently monthly until completion of the Third Generation Water Management Plan is completed at the end of 2011; and future timing of applications with other advisory commissions if possible.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Jonathan Miller to the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) Board for a three (3)-year term to expire on December 31, 2013.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.    Consider Authorizing the Budget and a Survey for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke; Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang; and Parks and Recreation Chair Jim Stark were present.


Mr. Brokke reviewed the background of the Master Plan process as detailed in the RCA dated January 10, 2011; and the firms contacted and two proposals received.  Mr. Brokke reviewed the proposed three-month timeframe for the survey, with questions yet to be established and guided by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Master Plan Guiding Team.


Mayor Roe noted the breakdown of the proposed budget for implementation purposes (Attachment A) included in the agenda packet, opining that it was helpful.  Mayor Roe questioned who of the Council would be participating in the organization team.


Mr. Brokke responded that Councilmember Willmus had been identified, based on his past involvement; however, he welcomed additional involvement of any Councilmembers.


Councilmember Willmus expressed some concern with how the funds were being allocated, and provided as a bench handout, a memorandum from Finance Director Chris Miller dated January 6, 2011, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of using the Communications Fund versus taking allocated monies from Park Improvement Plan (PIP) funds.  Councilmember Willmus suggested consideration be given to fully funding the survey through the Communications Fund, currently at 94% funding and significantly exceeding the target range of 20%.


Councilmember McGehee concurred; opining that she was not interested in taking money from the Parks and Recreation Budget.  Councilmember McGehee questioned the budget amount of $24,500 for marketing, and whether that was anticipating marketing for a referendum.  Councilmember McGehee noted previous movement for a referendum and anticipated that the Master Plan process was building toward that again.


Mr. Brokke advised that the funds were proposed to provide community information and involvement.  Mr. Brokke reviewed the Master Plan process as community value-based, and anticipated that the survey would validate what had been done to-date; and the purpose of the community outreach budget was to inform citizens of what was being done and seek their support for how to proceed.


Discussion ensued related to whether or not positive results were achieved by the survey and ramifications of those results; and assumptions on the statistical validity of the survey no matter its results.


Councilmember Pust noted her well-established reputation for being opposed to surveys; however, if being pursued, spoke in support of it being paid for from Communication Funds, not the PIP.  Councilmember Pust spoke in support of using Survey Monkey and designing it exclusive to the City of Roseville.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, approving the budget and authorizing a budget of $50,000 for the Master Plan Implementation process with ALL funds to be taken from Communications Reserve Fund


Councilmembers Pust and McGehee spoke in support of the motion; but were not supportive of any further action at this time.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Councilmember Pust suggested that further action on this item and the proposed motion as presented by staff be tabled until the full City Council is available.


Willmus moved, Roe seconded, TABLING discussion on the proposal of Leisure Vision to conduct a statistically-valid survey including the benchmark option to the next regular City Council meeting.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.    Discuss the Request for a City Code Variance by Grumpy’s Bar & Grill to allow a non-Roseville-based organization to conduct lawful gambling activities

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the RCA dated January 10, 2011 for potential consideration of changing City Code, Chapter 304, to accommodate organizations other than Roseville-based, but conducting lawful gambling activities within the City limits.  A representative of Grumpy’s Bar & Grill and a representative of the Blaine Lion’s Club, the organization interested in pull tabs at Grumpy’s.  A letter of request form Grumpy’s had been included as part of the RCA.


Mayor Roe clarified that this was for discussion purposes only tonight, and no action was requested, but to seek Councilmember input on any interest in making revisions to the City Code.


Discussion included rationale for restricting gambling activities to Roseville-based businesses, a common restriction for cities in the metropolitan area; benefits to the community from profits; and the percentage of those profits.


Blaine Lion’s Club Representative

The Lion’s Club representative reviewed the international organization and their profits not exclusive to individual cities but used internationally for organizations and individuals based on requests received and their accordance with the Lion’s organization’s mission; with a minimum of 10% of their net proceeds going to charitable causes.


As President of the North Suburban Community Foundation, Councilmember Pust expressed concern in how a separate operation would be addressed for charitable grants and how to decide where funds were distributed.


Mr. Miller addressed additional anomalies of the current code beyond that addressed by Councilmember Pust in requiring that 10% of all gambling proceeds got a designated fund, rather exclusive compared with other communities; and specifying that Bingo Hall operations be required to hire a CPA to review their books, but not imposing similar requirements for pull tab operations.


Councilmember Pust noted that based on these anomalies and further research on the 10% state law issue, there may need to be a further review of this code, given the lack of additional review and discussion since its inception.


Mayor Roe addressed another issue brought to his attention by Councilmember Johnson in Section 304.02 in limiting organizations to work with only one venue for their charitable gambling.

Further discussion included the number of establishments running pull tabs in Roseville estimated at five; various venues served by contributions consisting mostly of youth athletic organizations; use of remaining profits used for administrative costs of the gambling organization; provision for having a presence in the community for three years and how to ensure a mechanism the funds remain in Roseville; and recent state legislative changes abolishing the two-year lease requirements for lessees with their lessors.


City Manager Malinen suggested that other organizations be contacted for their input and to alert them that this issue was under discussion and would be returning to the City Council at a future date.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the timing as it related to Grumpy’s and their ongoing business operations.


Robert Petersen, Grumpy’s Bar & Grill

Mr. Peterson advised that it was getting quite desperate due to the loss of charitable gambling and customers utilizing those activities.


Pust moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting beyond curfew to complete discussion of this item.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Consensus appeared to be a review of existing City Code, Chapter 304, for the issues previously identified, and to talk to existing organizations and charitable gambling institutions to receive their input and observations.


Guidance seems to be to review ordinance issues; talk to existing organizations or charitable gambling institutions


The Blaine Lion’s Club representative indicated that they had been operating at one venue in Blaine for almost 34 years, and had eight (8) paid staff currently, and would need to hire additional staff if the City Council approved this request of Grumpy’s Bar & Grill.  An unidentified speaker in the audience, and apparently part of the Blaine Lion’s Club, advised that their organization contributed 35% back to charitable causes, and 65% was retained for administrative and overhead costs, in accordance with limits established by the Gambling Control Board.


By consensus, Mayor Roe advised that the City would review its ordinance in the near future, and asked that Mr. Petersen and the Lion’s Club representative make their contact information available to staff for follow-up.

14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember McGehee noted her desire to consider the process for moving forward amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan in anticipation and in conjunction with further petition by neighboring property owners adjacent to 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8, and the Har Mar neighborhood.


Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember McGehee work with the Mayor and City Manager Malinen to determine how best to proceed. 

16.      Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:08 pm.