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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 23, 2011


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for May: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.


2.            Approve Agenda

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Anne Collopy, 3155 Old Highway 8

Ms. Collopy noted that she was speaking as a Roseville resident, not in her role as a member of the City’s Ethics Commission.  Ms. Collopy advised that she had recently completed “Roseville University;” and referenced a conversation with her neighbor questioning why there were eight (8) tabs in the Roseville U notebook, but only seven (7) sessions.  Ms. Collopy suggested, as she thought about that extra tab, that next year’s sessions include one with the chairs or members of each of the City Council’s Advisory Commissions about their specific functions; as a way to educate residents about those Commissions and to alert them to possible areas of service of which they may have an interest.


On an unrelated note, Ms. Collopy advised that since she lived only three (3) blocks from Saint Anthony Community Center, actually geographically across the street from her, she attended their exercise class for “old ladies;” entitled, “Over 50 and Fit.”  In reviewing the City of Roseville’s Parks and Recreation class offerings, she noted that their class was year-round, but that Saint Anthony held theirs quarterly, with a shorter session during the summer months; and charged a much higher fee for their sessions than that of Roseville’s fee of $16 for the entire year.  Ms. Collopy suggested that the City of Roseville consider increasing their fees to bring in extra revenue.


Ms. Collopy further noted the multiple recycling bins at the Saint Anthony City Hall, including bins for cell phones, batteries, and other recycling items, and suggested that Roseville City Hall consider similar offerings.

Councilmember Pust thanked Ms. Collopy for all of her great suggestions; echoed by Mayor Roe.


4.         Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced upcoming meetings/events and how to obtain additional information.  Meetings included:

§  June 2, 2011 at 7:00 pm – Yellow Ribbon Community Organization – second organizational meeting at the Roseville Skating Center for any interested volunteers.  Mayor Roe noted that the first meeting held on May 10, 2011, had been cut short due to severe weather warnings.

§  Monday, May 30, 2011 at 10:00 am – Roseville’s Commemoration of Memorial Day at Roselawn Cemetery (Victoria Street and Larpenteur Avenue) at Soldier’s Rest to commemorate those who have served or are serving in the military.


5.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.         Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients

Mayor Roe read a proclamation, statement of appreciation and recognition of Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients: Wendy Hatch; Juliana Monson; and Abigail Valero. 


Ms. Valero was present; and Mayor Roe provided a summary of Abigail’s award and her interest in diversity that led her to create a Cinco de Mayo Celebration by working with her school administrators and other students at Cretin-Derham Hall to plan a Cinco de Mayo celebration exploring the Mexican culture including demonstrations of traditional dances; and advocated for an out-of-uniform day for students to celebrate the Mexican holiday by wearing red, green and white


Pust moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming May 23, 2011 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville and urging all citizens to recognize the accomplishments of earning their Girl Scout Gold Awards.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.         Accept and Recognize General Donations to the City of Roseville

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke thanked Ms. Collopy for her suggestions regarding the “Fifty and Fit” senior exercise program; noting that the City’s fee schedule was based on actual expenses, but recognized that it was a good program.


Mr. Brokke recognized numerous donors and their donations to the City of Roseville Parks and Recreation programs and services; and read the list of donors and their donated item or service; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 23, 2011.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing acceptance and recognition of numerous donations as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 23, 2011.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe thanked everyone for their support of and donations to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, its services and programs.


c.         Accept and Recognize Donation for the Carter Geyen Memorial at Bruce

Russell Park

Mr. Brokke recognized a donation memorializing Carter Geyen, a youngster who suffered a tragic fatal accident in Bruce Russell Park in August of 2010; and the proposed project consisting of an interactive sand play feature, concrete walkway, bench and drinking fountain to enhance existing playground equipment.  Mr. Brokke advised that future maintenance costs would be borne by the City of Roseville, with a neighborhood/community meeting held earlier in May of 2011, where neighbors voiced their support of the proposed memorial, with estimated improvement costs between $12,000 to $15,000 to be paid for by donated funds, other than city funds.


Mr. Brokke noted that the sand play was a favorite activity of Carter’s; and had been custom-designed for this park.


Mayor Roe noted that it was a unique feature in the Roseville park system as well.


Councilmember Johnson noted that Carter was a special little guy, and offered his and Councilmember Pust to co-author this motion; noting that this is where Carter’s life ended tragically, and he could think of no more meaningful place or activity to memorialize Carter.


Councilmembers Pust and Johnson co-moved, McGehee seconded, authorization to accept the donation and recognizing the Carter Geyen Memorial project as presented, and as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011; with thanks to the family and those contributing their time, funding, and efforts for this project.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of May 16, 2011  Meeting      

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 16, 2011 meeting as amended.



Page 9, Lines 18 - 21 (Johnson)

Revise to read as follows: “Councilmember Johnson noted the changes proposed in amending the current ordinance (Attachment B), with the exception of one error on page 2, second section, where the suspension period for the first violation [for sale of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual] should be one (1) day, not zero (0) days as written.”


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; 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.                     


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments







                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

Johnson­­­ moved, Pust seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those applicants as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


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

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






Info Tech



Replace Tap Backup device




                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Accept SNAG (Starting New at Golf) Grant from the National Recreation and Parks Association

Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation to staff for obtaining this grant that should promote golfing among youngsters.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorization and acceptance of the SNAG grant from the National Recreation and Parks Association in the amount of $9,000 in youth golf equipment and $3,000 in cash to promote and provide a youth golf program within the Parks and Recreation Department.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.         Adopt a Resolution Amending the City of Roseville Code of Ethics relating to Training

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10905 (Attachment B) entitled, A Resolution Amending the Code of Ethics for Public Officials in the City of Roseville (Resolution No. 10408).”


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


f.             Receive City Attorney Performance Evaluation Report

Councilmember Johnson clarified with City Manager Malinen that this was a summary report; with City Manager Malinen responding affirmatively that the report was a summary of the oral conversations between City Attorney Bartholdi and himself, and that no formal report was made.


Mayor Roe noted that this annual review was part of the three (3)-year contract with the City’s Civil and Prosecuting Attorney.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, accepting the City Manager’s report on the regular performance evaluation of the City’s civil and prosecuting City Attorney.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Consider Adopting an Ordinance Amending Title 7, Chapter 706, Forestation Control

Mr. Brokke noted that this ordinance had been vetted by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission (the City Tree Board), the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission, and all relevant City Departments; all of whom recommended approval.  Mr. Brokke advised that input had been received from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Department of Natural Resources as well.  Mr. Brokke noted that the purpose for the revisions was in part based on requirements of the Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness Grant received by the City in 2010.


Mr. Brokke presented several additional language revisions to avoid confusion and provide additional clarity, and reviewed those items with the City Council, providing rationale for the recommended revisions. 


City Attorney Bartholdi noted several typographical errors for correction as well.


Discussion among staff, City Attorney Bartholdi and Councilmembers included potential addition of “sewer” lines to page 5, line 211/212; identification and registration of tree care firms to protect the public while allowing for neighbors helping neighbors at their discretion, and how to apply criteria in those tree care firms needing to register with the City (page 6, lines 232/233) with the fee already in the City’s existing fee structure; need to define “public nuisance” as referenced within the ordinance (Section 706.10) for consistency and clarity; and whether references in the utility section (page 5) should define water and sewer lines that may restrict areas for vegetation growth on private property and be based on their potential interference with specific utilities, and at a minimum should be defined as “sanitary” sewer to avoid confusion with storm sewers.


Further discussion included preservation or restoration of “it” (the plant – page 3, Section 706, line 119) or to protect the public from damage or injury; striking the word, “person,” (page 6, Section 706.11) to determine and specify those qualified “for hire” rather than individuals doing tree service for hire in the community who are not registered and not operating a business, but simply neighbors helping neighbors; and on what criteria the government was basing their determination or distinction of who needed or did not need to register to ensure they were licensed and bonded in order to protect the public.

Additional discussion included tree removal versus hauling brush and shrubs and when and if a bonded person was needed; with the consensus for the requirement to apply to anyone doing work for hire in the community, whether a sole proprietor or a firm, with City Attorney Bartholdi suggesting that the term “for hire,” may be the key to resolving the criteria issue; and recognizing that it was onerous of the City to stipulate that individuals performing neighborly work be required to obtain a license from the City, while being protective of property owners needing protections from firms not having their best interests in mind.


After further discussion, and Mr. Brokke’s assurances that as long as the document was in process, it would not impact the grant requirements, it was the consensus that further revisions be made, as discussed or as indicated in the next review, and that the proposed ordinance amendment be brought back before the City Council for their review and consideration at a future meeting. 


13.         Presentations


a.            Quarterly HRA Report

HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon and HRA Chair Dean Maschka provided the quarterly HRA report – reminder of RHRA Strategic Plan based on “a hand up, not a hand out.”  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the HRA’s 2011 Work Plan, and one of its charges to work with Roseville homeowners finding themselves with foreclosure issues, noting the HRA’s recent presentation and partnership with the Rondo Land Trust to provide such assistance; and continuation of the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) in 2011, currently underway with good comments to-date; as well as continuing to support the “Living Smarter” campaign. 


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon noted the inception of single-family rental walk by’s, not inspections, as part of the NEP last year, as well as owner-occupied single-family homes.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon addressed if and when the City would begin to inspect commercial properties; advising that staff was currently quantifying dollar and staff costs for such an endeavor, and how to set it up and the duration of the program.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was currently gathering information on estimated manpower hours that would be required and other considerations for further discussion and consideration and future City Council discussions.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that preliminarily, the City Council may want to consider whether the HRA, City Council or Community Development be the driving force.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, to-date, the HRA has not broached the commercial property aspect, given their focus on housing issues.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that given the HRA’s experience to-date with the NEP, it was in a position to leverage knowledge and staff to keep costs reasonable.

Mr. Trudgeon provided an update on residential foreclosures trends, with twenty-nine (29) so far in 2011, trending higher than 2010, which trended higher than 2009, with those trends representative of other communities as well.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the data was incomplete and may not tell the full story of those homes able to redeem their properties, since the data was based on sheriff’s sales only.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff continued to see code enforcement issues with foreclosed properties; however, he noted progress was being made in staff connecting with area banks in finding the right contact people to make decisions on those foreclosed properties.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding possible clusters indicated on the maps displayed or whether foreclosures were broadly spread throughout the community, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was still studying any neighborhoods that may be trending toward foreclosures, but to-date there appeared to be a wide range of market values for foreclosures.  Mr. Trudgeon provided a map displaying foreclosures from 2008 – 2011 indicating some cluster areas of concern; noting that foreclosures seemed to be more prevalent on busy county roads; but he was unsure if that indicated more turnover, or if previously owner-occupied single-family homes were being rented out more frequently in those areas.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff did not have a full scale set of resources to sort out these issues; and thus partnerships with the Rondo Land Trust and other groups was advisable to meet these issues head on and get to people and their needs early on in the process, rather than after they were well into the foreclosure process; and guide people to resources and agencies for assistance rather than the City becoming involved, which also serve to protect their privacy.


Mr. Trudgeon provided foreclosures from 2008 to 2011, and of the City’s 15,398 housing units: in 2008, it had 44 foreclosures (3%); in 2009 there were 58 foreclosures (4%); and in 2010 there were 73 foreclosures (5%); along with comparisons to Roseville’s neighboring communities.


Mr. Trudgeon, in conclusion, noted the ongoing mission and efforts of the “Living Smarter” marketing campaign, and its website at, that was being continually refreshed.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the presentation and interview of the HRA’s Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey on KSTP Channel 5 with Joy Lim Nakrin on May 22, 2011, where she discussed the City’s “Living Smarter” campaign.


Councilmember Johnson advised that he saw the spot, and it represented a marketing incentive he was happy to see from the group, and looked forward to more exposure for Roseville in the future; opining that the spot was well-received in his home and with his family.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed Land Trust Agreements, with the Trust retaining a 99-year ground lease and the homeowner retaining 25% of the profits upon sale and the Trust retaining 75% to keep the home affordable for future owners.


Councilmember Johnson noted that he found that presentation to the HRA very interesting.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Trudgeon and HRA Chair Maschka for their presentation and continued good work for the community.


b.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan Presentation

Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and Citizen Organizing Team (COT) Chair Jason Etten introduced and Parks and Recreation Commission member and Citizen Co-Lead for the Community Organizations and Facilities Work Group No. 9, Ms. Gale Pederson, to provide a brief update specific to her Work Group.


Ms. Pederson opined that the Roseville park system was the envy of many other communities, successful in part due to the number of community groups and individuals volunteering within that system.  Ms. Pederson acknowledged that many of those organizations had their own agendas, but noted that it had become obvious to her as the work group of now up to twenty-five (25) members continued to meet, that they were willing to look at the park and recreation systems as a whole for the benefit of the entire community.


Chair Etten referenced a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, that provided Community Update #2 (May/June edition) on the Path to Implementation, summarizing the May 11 Community Meeting reviewing the raw preliminary data from the Parks and Recreation scientific study; encouraging citizen participation in various work groups; and announcing upcoming constellation tours and events related to the Implementation Plan.  Mr. Etten advised that full survey data is due on June 10, 2011; with the full presentation scheduled for the June 20, 2011 City Council meeting. Mr. Etten noted preliminary survey results indicated a strong interest for pathways; indoor recreation and exercise activities; and anticipated the future cross-tabulation of various activities put together with other findings of the Master Plan process to-date.  Chair Etten noted that the online survey, independently tabulated from the scientific survey results, had provided an additional 140 surveys.


Chair Etten noted that the key mission for work groups would be to identify specific projects within the Master Plan and funding mechanisms for combining future projects and needs.  Chair Etten advised that July 28, 2011 was the next community-wide meeting with the implementation team to preliminarily consider specific project ideas; with the next step later this summer to determine possible pursuit of potential abatement bonds or a bond referendum, for future City Council discussions, noting that if the City was to pursue a referendum, Ramsey County needed to know by August 27, 2011 for a 2011 fall levy referendum.


Discussion among presenters and the City Council included notices for park constellation meetings; specific improvements not being considered for each park as part of the discussion with area residents attending constellation tours, as the data was still too new and not having been vetted by the City Council yet, as well as not having a full understanding on the amount of money and kinds of improvements to pursue; but information more available later in the summer for those types of discussions.


Chair Etten advised that it was the goal of the Implementation groups to be as open as possible and get input from citizens; with Councilmember Johnson opining that this was a golden opportunity to touch base with more residents and have them take stake in the process, with it helpful to the groups’ goals in the process to provide information specific to certain parks at the earliest convenience.


Chair Etten advised that the groups would put as much time as possible in getting the information together, by meeting with decision-makers to determine actual potential realities. 


Further discussion included proposed presentation of raw data from the random statistical survey, the online survey, and the surveys performed early in the Master Plan process at various neighborhood meetings.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Etten and Ms. Pederson for their presentations.


As Finance Chair of the Rosefest Parade, Ms. Pederson noted buttons, at $3.00 each, were available as a means to help finance the parade and other Rosefest events; and were available for sale at various locations and through multiple locations, as well as available at tonight’s meeting.  Ms. Pederson thanked people in advance for their support of the parade.


14.         Public Hearings


a.            Public Hearing for Outback Steakhouse of Florida LLC’s application for On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the RCA dated May 23, 2011 specific to this request for transfer of this on-sale and Sunday Liquor License due to a transfer of majority ownership, and in accordance with City Ordinance.


The applicant was not present.

Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 pm for the purpose of hearing public comment on the application from Outback Steakhouse of Florida LLC’s for an On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License; with no one appearing for or against.


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Application from Outback Steakhouse of Florida LLC’s for On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the application by Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC and their request for an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License, for their franchise located at 2181 Snelling Avenue N.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Park Dedication Process

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon introduced the discussion of the City’s current park dedication process as previously requested by Councilmember Willmus, as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that he and Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke cooperatively reviewed the process, and sought input from the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission; and determined the need for improvements in the process, particularly under the new Park Master Plan and future subdivisions.


The supporting documents of the RCA included a sample preliminary and final plat application and review process timeline, similar to open house requirements prior to submitting many land use applications, for submission to the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to applications being submitted to the Planning Division and implementation of the 60-day land use review process.


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included application of park dedication requirements for minor subdivisions of one (1) acre or more.


Councilmember Willmus thanked staff for reviewing this issue and recommending proposed changes in the process to get application materials upfront to developers; noting the benefits of the process moving forward.


Mr. Trudgeon recognized the work of Mr. Brokke; and acknowledged that the crushing weight of multiple subdivisions coming before staff all at once had caused a lapse in reviewing potential park dedications processes during that time.

Councilmember Johnson opined that this was a great change in the process; and echoed Councilmember Willmus’ appreciation for staff’s review and recommendation, noting that it was a fluid process and was constantly being tweaked and updated.


Mayor Roe thanked staff for their work, and great job with recommended process revisions.


b.            Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)

Community Development Director Trudgeon introduced the discussion of the City’s newly-adopted ADU process as previously requested by Councilmember Willmus, and as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011; with two (2) applications received to-date since implementation of the code.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were two (2) errors on the RCA; that items d and e should have been deleted from the text as indicated in the proposed amendment; and noted that the actual revised criteria had been provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, highlighting specific standards and criteria (Section D).  Mr. Trudgeon noted another bench handout had been provided, Ordinance No. 1361 as currently in force; also attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Trudgeon provided comparison information on ADU’s for the Cities of Bloomington and Shoreview; and following review of that comparison information, noted that staff was suggesting amendment of the City’s code regarding ADU’s as detailed on pages 3 and 4 of the RCA.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that a major policy discussion by the City Council was whether ADU’s should only be allowed when attached to the principal building or if ADU’s should also be permitted in detached structures.


Councilmember Willmus noted that his concerns with ADU’s under the Conditional Use (CU) process had been that the City would have been powerless to revisit issues or enforce conditions if ongoing problems or changes or ownership created additional concerns.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of staff’s recommended amendments, particularly the need for reapplication for the ADU license at the point of sale, and several other amendments taken from the other comparable samples that hadn’t been considered initially.


Councilmember McGehee noted, and staff confirmed, the recommended revisions indicated that one unit could be rented, but not both structures on the property.  Councilmember McGehee questioned potential impacts for contiguous neighbors with the thirty foot (30’) minimal height and setback requirements for accessory structures, and her preference that an ADU be attached rather than separate if a thirty foot high structure was that close to the lot line.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned if the renewal license was an annual process; and what recourse the City had if an ADU was found to be a problematic rental.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that there had been no firm determination at this point on whether to have the license renewed annually, and expressed his lack of support for an annual renewal, opining that there would most likely be no annual change in the license situation, other than the City collecting an additional fee.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City’s recourse for problem rentals included the City’s nuisance code, and property registration as a rental unit with current regulations being that rental registrations could be pulled so they were no longer authorized to rent out the structure.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if the thirty foot (30’) height provision was put in place to address the second story of garage units being used as ADU’s; and questioned whether unattached structures would be restricted based on square footage requirements for the lot, since they would need to be constructed in an unusual nature.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that consideration be given to unattached ADU’s at a separate height level, such as a normal one-story building, and keep language as proposed for attached units.  Councilmember Johnson noted that staff had grappled with most of the issues he had considered, and thanked them for being on the right track.


Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there would still be setback issues with a second floor over a garage.


Mayor Roe suggested that the challenge was for ADU’s for garages, since a garage as an accessory use can have less of a setback than another structure; and recommended that requirements be for any ADU, attached or detached, to meet residence setbacks; but questioned how to handle subsequent variance requests.  Mayor Roe noted that living quarters and their respective setbacks and proximity to neighboring properties may need to adhere to setback requirements for a residence.


Councilmember Pust expressed her appreciation for removing ADU’s from the CU process, opining that this process was better.  Councilmember Pust noted that, in requiring licenses for ADU’s, the City was taking a step toward rental licensure not currently done, and questioned the City Council on their willingness to move in that direction, in licensing all rental units.  Councilmember Pust noted that 3-4 years had elapsed since the original discussion of rental licensing; and noted that at the HRA level, discussions had been held on how to have more enforcement and may indicate further discussions and consideration.


Councilmember Pust questioned staff on several items, including where the maximum 600’ came from and square footage requirements found in the other two city’s examples; off-street parking requirements for ADU’s; and current off-street parking requirements causing residents to pave over more of their yards, questioning if those 1970 requirements still made sense in today’s world.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was no scientific rationale to the 600 square foot provisions; and provided staff’s rationale for the parking requirement in adding more people to facilitate at least two (2) inside and two (2) outside and off-street parking areas, as stated in current code, suggesting that the City Council may want to make an exception on parking for ADU’s.


Mayor Roe echoed the parking comments of Councilmember Pust; and questioned an ADU rental being “licensed” or “permitted” and the implications of both, and defining them for those not supporting rental licensing.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred that licensing opened up a whole other discussion.


Mayor Roe questioned how this process was different than a CU process, other than it going with the property ownership.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the approvals would be done administratively rather than coming before the City Council for approval.


Mayor Roe noted that he had requested staff to include the City’s rental registration license ordinance as a bench handout for review of how those problem properties were handled; noting that the history of rental properties indicated more performance issues, and for the purpose of providing a context of what the City had available for regulation of rentals, and to avoid overlapping administratively.  Mayor Roe noted that other cities had requirements in their code for recording permits with the Ramsey County Recorder, and questioned if that was something staff wanted to consider.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that he wanted to consult with the City Attorney before recommending recording ADU’s, as that put a restrictive covenant against the property, and he wanted to review the advantages and disadvantages of such a requirement.


Mayor Roe questioned why neighbors across the street were not included in notice provisions.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was most concerned with adjacent properties and modeled language from the Administrative Deviation code; but offered to review language further if the City Council wanted to include the neighbor directly across the street from a proposed ADU.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Johnson suggested reviewing notice requirements to included neighbors across the street to provide more transparency.


Councilmember McGehee noted that both ADU’s passed to-date were garage units, recalling that one was attached and one detached; and questioned the orientation of the structures on the property and proximity to adjacent properties.


Mr. Trudgeon and Mayor Roe recalled that both ADU’s were attached.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of remaining flexible in regulating rehabilitation of existing structures or new construction; and defining the purpose of allowing ADU’s, whether to provide infill development or to accommodate property owners who have adult children or aging parents needing housing nearby.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the original intent of allowing ADU’s in Roseville  was to address the needs of elderly parents or returning adult children; noting that providing alternative housing was not typically considered, as there were more affordable traditional family settings in apartment buildings.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he did not anticipate a number of applications coming forward; however, it may serve as an option to accommodate aging baby boomers and indicated that a good measure of its success will be if the City could accommodate residents and remain fresh with housing trends.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that demographers were pushing ADU’s as an alternate housing option, and opined that it could be a good option as long as there were good procedures and checks/balances in place.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the City was not short of affordable apartment housing in Roseville at this time; and further opined that if ADU’s became common in LDR zoned areas, they would significantly change those neighborhoods; and such ramifications should be kept in mind as the City moved forward, and require additional input should they prove more popular than staff anticipated.


Mayor Roe noted that City Code could always be revised for what was or was not permitted, as had been done in the past.


Mr. Trudgeon sought a directive on Council preferences for attached or detached structures.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of both with tighter regulations.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of attached ADU’s.


Mayor Roe suggested keeping them as currently stated, subject to final approval; noting that this would change the charts of uses permitted in LDR-1 zoning, but would not allow ADU’s in other districts where currently permitted or not; and would remove CU’s from that section as well, with inclusion of the new ADU provisions.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would proceed to draft language in ordinance form for City Council review again prior to taking it before a public hearing at the Planning Commission level.


Mayor Roe supported staff’s recommendation, noting that the Planning Commission may prefer that process as well, based on their recent comments at the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:14 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:20 pm.


c.            Discuss Petition to Research Street Closure Options for Wheeler Street at County Road D

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed the petition received from residents of the Shorewood Neighborhood to study permanent closure of the north end of Wheeler Street, as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011.  Mr. Schwartz advised that, in staff’s review, there appeared to be 36 of the 43 homes fronting on subject streets represented on the petition.  Mr. Schwartz noted the petition’s minimum request to temporarily close Wheeler at County Road D to through traffic during construction of the Presbyterian Homes project scheduled to start this spring.  Mr. Schwartz noted that a number of neighbors were in attendance at tonight’s meeting.


Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was recommending no action be taken until the previously City Council-requested Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy could be developed, as part of the City Council Work Plan for 2011/2012, and issues that could benefit from this type of policy, and other options, were studied.  Mr. Schwartz advised that such a policy would guide and lay out procedures for traffic management on residential streets throughout the City.


Mr. Schwartz advised that the City’s Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission would be significantly involved in this policy development and recommendation; estimated to take approximately six (6) months to research, develop and review the policy with the City Council.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this policy would pertain to other neighborhood traffic concerns recently received and discussed with the City Council from Josephine Road residents and the Dale Street reconstruction project that included discussion of traffic calming measures such as speed tables.


Mayor Roe asked Public Works staff for their recommendation on the requested temporary closure during construction at the Arden Hills Presbyterian Homes project.

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had no recommendation, noting that they would monitor the situation; however, he noted that Arden Hills had taken the City of Roseville’s previous written comments seriously when conditions were identified in that letter written last year to ensure construction traffic did not use local residential streets.


Councilmember McGehee suggested a temporary closure during construction would alleviate use by construction workers, even if not heavy construction equipment use.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her excitement about a Traffic Management Plan for the entire City, and opined that temporary closure would be an interesting exercise to provide a potential option and feel for permanent closure and its varying impacts and repercussions.


Mr. Schwartz advised that, in his national research on Traffic Management Policies, interim closure was part of some of those studies; and opined that it would certainly add to the discussion to determine impacts to the road if permanent closure was considered by the City Council.


Councilmember Johnson noted Condition #2 as detailed in the RCA for review of traffic one year after project completion and any excess over 20% of projected costs requiring additional traffic management implementation.


Mayor Roe requested that staff review traffic counts, along with those of Arden Hills, to determine current use of the County Road D entrance.


Public Comments

Steve Anderson, 1768 Shorewood Curve, Shorewood Neighborhood Representative

Mr. Anderson advised that past projects had changed traffic flow into their neighborhood.  Mr. Anderson advised of the neighborhoods meetings to-date with the City of Arden Hills and Roseville staff and individuals on the Arden Hills City Council, with no resolution for avoiding access onto Wheeler from the proposed project, causing the neighborhood petition requesting closure of Wheeler at County Road D.  Mr. Anderson reviewed results of research and short and long-term traffic flows and increased traffic volume to-date onto Fairview Avenue and shortcuts taken onto Wheeler, based on Northwestern College expansion, and the added concern of the future development of the Twin Lakes area, and lack of pedestrian amenities to ensure the safety of pedestrians.  Mr. Anderson noted that two (2) special needs children lived on Wheeler at this time as well.


Mr. Anderson noted that there were already some trucks accessing the project site, with workers on site working on drainage issues near the soccer fields, and further increasing safety concerns, especially for children.  Mr. Anderson asked that the City Council evaluate short-and long-term options to address safety and protect property values in the neighborhood.


Julie Watkin, 3076 Shorewood Lane

Ms. Watkin noted that, as a frequent walker in this formerly quiet neighborhood, she was concerned with the speed of vehicles, and opined that blocking off Wheeler seemed to be a reasonable option on a trial basis.  Ms. Watkin opined that Presbyterian Homes had been “sneaky” in putting forward their proposal; and noted that she had already observed the first piece of heavy construction equipment brought onto the soccer fields several days ago and again removed by flatbed trailer on Shorewood Lane; and further opined that this would only be the beginning of a three (3) year construction project and its related activities.  While blocking Wheeler would be an inconvenience for those living on Shorewood Lane, Ms. Watkin advised it was necessary to protect the safety and property value of their neighborhood.


John Bell, 3065 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Bell advised that his property was one of nine (9) homes along Shorewood Lane where the backs of their houses were on Wheeler and frontages on Shorewood Lane.  Mr. Bell concurred with the previous speakers; and provided anecdotal comments related to the tremendous increase in young families with children in the neighborhood without the benefit of sidewalks requiring people to walk on the streets.  Mr. Bell addressed significant traffic increases realized by the neighborhood over the last few years and changes in traffic flow. Based on the large structure proposed by Presbyterian Homes, Mr. Bell opined that the neighborhood would be even more dramatically impacted with additional employees and construction traffic.


Bernadine Syverson, 3087 Shorewood Lane

Ms. Syverson noted that, while not being available to sign the petition, she and her husband were supportive of it.  Ms. Syverson noted that she was one of several elderly women walking daily on Wheeler and Shorewood Lane, and twice that very morning they were forced to jump up on the curb to avoid fast vehicles coming down Wheeler, which was not uncommon.  Ms. Syverson noted it was not uncommon to encounter buses, cars, and delivery trucks for Presbyterian Homes, even though Presbyterian Homes assured all that they used Fairview Avenue for their deliveries, they also used Wheeler as well.  Ms. Syverson requested that the City Council address the safety concerns for those elderly residents and area children.


Mayor Roe thanked the public for their comments; and questioned staff on mitigation efforts reviewed to-date for the Fairview/Lydia intersection and future Twin Lakes redevelopment in an effort to alleviate stacking.


Mr. Schwartz advised that there were ongoing issues at Fairview and County Road D as well as at Fairview and Lydia that could be addressed through turn lane improvements or other traffic control measures beyond the current four-way stop sign.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of the petition from the Shorewood Neighborhood (Attachment A), received May 9, 2011, and as presented at tonight’s meeting; directing City staff to evaluate short- and long-term closure or partial closure alternatives and their impacts to this neighborhood after development of a neighborhood traffic management policy later this year; and report back to the City Council. 


Mr. Schwartz sought clarification that the City Council was supportive of the development of a Traffic Management Policy that would guide this study.


Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had already established that they were supportive of development of such a policy, and that this traffic concern would be part of that study.


Mayor Roe clarified with Mr. Schwartz that, in terms of proposed improvements, a public improvement contract would be drafted between the City of Arden Hills and the developer; and suggested that Mr. Schwartz and his staff work with the City of Arden Hills to get terms included in that contract that would address no construction traffic accessing the construction site from Wheeler.


Councilmember Pust expressed her appreciation for including the condition that Arden Hills prove the 20% projected increase from projected to actual use at a later date as well.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Discuss an Ordinance Banning Tar Driveway Sealers

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed the background on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) as per the RCA dated May 23, 2011; status of legislation on a state-wide ban on coal tar-based sealant products; and recommendation by the City’s legislative delegation for local governments to adopt legislation on their own.  Mr. Schwartz introduced Randy Neprash, former PWET Commissioner and Professional Engineer with Bonestroo, as well as the sole staff member of the MN Cities Stormwater Coalition of stormwater professionals working together for clean water, to speak on this subject.


Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Mr. Neprash provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of his presentation related to coal tar-based seal coating materials and their impacts to cities and stormwater ponds and ultimately into urban lake sediment; and a recent fact sheet publication of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) dated February 2011; which he proceeded to review related to the requested ordinance regulating the use of coal tar based sealers.

Councilmember Johnson questioned alternatives for people with asphalt driveways.


Mr. Schwartz advised that most hardware stores and big box retailers had stopped selling the coal tar-based products, and those asphalt-based products were not demonstrating issues similar to coal tar-based products; noting that coal tar-based products were still available to vendors going door-to-door selling driveway seal coating services.


Mr. Neprash advised that independent vendors could easily move from coal tar-based to asphalt-based applications, using their same equipment, with minimal and basically one-time cleaning and retrofitting of their equipment.


Councilmember Johnson questioned how, if the City adopted this philosophy to no longer allow this product, how would it be policed and enforced without major cost to the City.


Mr. Schwartz advised that would be a problem, with no resources available to patrol neighborhoods and take samples.  Mr. Schwartz suggested that education was the City’s best tool at this time to alert people to the City’s ban on these types of product and their rationale for that ban to address water quality issues.  Mr. Schwartz expressed hope that homeowners would ask questions of independent vendors and get documentation from them stating their products were not coal tar-based and therefore legal for use in Roseville.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if the products would then be illegal for sale in Roseville.


Mr. Neprash assured Councilmembers that Roseville was not the only City to adopt such an ordinance; and as more cities adopted such legislation, it would become wider known and standard practice among vendors.


Councilmember Pust questioned if existing coal tar-based coatings should be removed before applying an asphalt-based coating.  Councilmember Pust questioned the connection between the dust coming off the coal tar-based coating into the home and exposure to children; and whether even if you never seal coated a driveway again, would that dust exposure continue.


Mr. Neprash advised that he had not heard such a recommendation for removal from his various sources. 


Mr. Schwartz advised that these products had a relatively short life cycle: 2-4 years.


Councilmember Pust moved, and Councilmember Johnson seconded adoption of an ordinance banning coal tar-based products.


Ms. Schwartz clarified tonight’s purpose in simply introducing the ordinance to the City Council; and proposed that staff return on June 13, 2011 with a final draft for adoption, along with an ordinance summary for publication.


Councilmember Pust opined “it’s bad, let’s get rid of it.”


Councilmember McGehee questioned if you currently had a coal tar-based product on your driveway and put asphalt-based product over it, would it adhere or flake off more quickly.


Mr. Schwartz advised that there is information on products that would help to encapsulate the coal tar-based product; and suggested that staff include that information as part of their public education materials.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if independent vendors going door-to-door to residences or businesses were licensed in Roseville.


Mayor Roe clarified those vendors as applicators of driveway sealants.


Mr. Schwartz responded negatively.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if it was prudent to talk to the Community Development Department about future licensure of them as businesses.


Mayor Roe suggested those vendors as potential licensees as well as tree trimmers as discussed earlier tonight.


Councilmember McGehee noted the need to provide educational information for the public if this ordinance was adopted, providing ways for them to alleviate a situation they’ve inadvertently developed.


Mr. Neprash recommended that the City consult with area watershed districts to seek their cooperation in educating the public, and perhaps considering some funding assistance.


Mr. Schwartz advised that out of three (3) stormwater ponds recently excavated, two (2) of those had been contaminated.  Mr. Schwartz noted that it was fortunate for the City, cost-wise, that the one that was not contaminated was a Roseville project, and the other ones were watershed projects.


Mayor Roe questioned if those ponds dredged of the contaminated material were required to be hauled to a special landfill with additional costs incurred; to which Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively.


Councilmember Willmus thanked staff and the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission for their work on this issue and their recommendation to the City Council.


Mayor Roe clarified that there was no formal action being taken tonight; and that the ordinance would return to the City Council on June 13, 2011.


e.            Discuss Wildlife Management

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly reviewed deer spotting statistics from 2004 – 2011 as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011; and summarized apparent consistent deer populations in the northeast section of Roseville by Lake Owasso and Little Lake Josephine; Midland Hills, and Reservoir Woods.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the number spotted and assumptions on others in the area, with no specific formula in place; recent staff level conversations with Ramsey County and adjacent cities for controlling, not eliminating, the deer population through bow hunting or sharp shooting; other wildlife issues or public concerns beyond deer (coyote sightings); and varying with planting seasons and times of the year.


Further discussion included steps taken by other cities, including Little Canada authorizing hunts on private property; Ramsey County and Shoreview steps; program costs for deer removal and/or processing; services provided for hunts by the Minnesota Bow Hunters Association and Area Sharpshooters Association; processes for sectioning off those areas to secure them, with sharp shooting being the preferred method; DNR authorization for any hunts; movement of the wildlife through the area, across jurisdictions; and how to address those on private versus public property.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t’ see this issue rising to a significant level to be a major problem, if small clusters of deer were moving through; and further opined that there were many deer deterrents available for residents to use.  Given the potential expense to the City, Councilmember McGehee opined that this didn’t’ seem like a critical issue at this time.


Councilmember Johnson noted that another issue was that residents were unable to use typical types of deterrents, such as electric fences, based on staff’s interpretation of City Code; and questioned why since they had a very low charge.


Mayor Roe suggested that the issue may be the height of the fence required to keep deer out.


Councilmember Johnson noted that an electric fence required a shorter height requirement to work; and noted that there were probably an equal number of residents feeding the deer to keep them in the area.


Mayor Roe noted that the City of Little Canada had adopted an ordinance banning deer feeding; and that the City of Shoreview was considering a ban on feeding wild turkeys.


Councilmember Johnson noted the concern was to find a solution for neighbors to protect their plantings; and questioned if there were ways to mitigate the deer population.


As a resident of and on behalf of the neighborhood seeking mitigation, Councilmember Pust noted that it was a problem, and not just a vegetation problem, but also a safety issue with deer crossing streets.  Councilmember Pust questioned law enforcement statistics on how many dead deer they picked up; opining that this was a safety issue needing resolution in the near future.


Mayor Roe suggested coordination by Roseville staff with adjacent counties, cities and agencies to mitigate the deer population cooperatively.


Councilmember Willmus noted that it was a property damage issue and concern with deer running onto major roadways, such as County Road C, and suggested more aggressive measures were needed in the near future, of which he was supportive of looking at. 


Further discussion included staff seeking additional statistics from the DNR on deer/vehicle accidents; and who was responsible for removing dead animals.


Police Chief Rick Mathwig advised that Ramsey County issued deer tags for dead deer in the area; and someone hitting one with their vehicle could request a tag, which the City’s Police Department could issue and which could be taken to a butcher shop.  However, Chief Mathwig advised that the City did not keep records of tags given out, and records were only available from the Department’s own internal reporting system if they had to dispatch for a deer pickup, estimated that it only happened 2-3 times annually.


At the request of Councilmember Pust on what happened if someone left the deer where it had been hit, Chief Mathwig advised that it depended on the jurisdiction, state, county or city, and offered to attempt to obtain additional data.


Mr. Brokke advised that if left, a DNR-licensed person needed to pick the deer up; and offered to attempt to obtain information from the DNR as well.  Mr. Brokke noted that he would gather more information and seek assistance from other communities for presentation to the City Council.


Mayor Roe noted that no formal action would be taken at this time.


f.             Discuss Budget Program Ranking Results

Finance Director Chris Miller provided budget program prioritization results as detailed in the RCA dated May 23, 2011 (Attachments A and B), including rankings derived from the recent citizen survey.


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included how the citizen survey results were matched to City Council and staff rankings in an abstract nature without program/service cost information; how that information and ranking lined up with previous rankings and areas of comparables and/or differentiation; interpretation of rankings for some items created by composites of individual Councilmembers and staff; and next step in determining the level of service once the ranking has been completed, hopefully in the very near future.


Mayor Roe concurred that determining a level of service was the next step; however, he cautioned that development of performance measurements were still needed from staff as a vital part of ongoing budget discussions, and would relate to every single item listed in adjusting resources to get to those levels of service.


Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council needed to quit spending so much time on numerical rankings, and get to line item rankings.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that this would be the next step.


City Manager Malinen advised that this was included to provide City Councilmembers with citizen survey rankings.


Mayor Roe advised that staff would provide the City Council with a proposed budget on July 11, based on the ranking information provided by the City Council between now and then; and advising if some of those items on the bottom of the list were mandatory and unable to be eliminated or reduced.  If so, Mayor Roe noted that something higher on the list would then need reduced or eliminated accordingly; after which the City Council and community would have time to react and respond; with the ultimate decision at the City Council level.


When staff completed that exercise, Councilmember Willmus strongly recommended that the citizen composite be removed; and questioned if there were merit in removing staff rankings as well for the next part of the discussion.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification from Mr. Miller on 2012 levy package decisions; with Mayor Roe advising that that was the next item for discussion.


Councilmember McGehee sought to understand the $643,000 addressed in the staff memo on setting a Preliminary 2012 Property Tax Levy, those representing a normal increase or other situations; and questioned why there would be any issue in staff providing a budget that simply had no increases over 2011.


Mayor Roe clarified that it was already available, represented by the 2011 budget.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of sticking with the 2011 budget with no extras.


Mayor Roe clarified that addressing some of the contractual obligations identified by staff would require something else to be cut.


Mayor Roe noted that this item was for discussion purposes only; with no formal action required.


g.            Discuss Setting the 2012/2013 Preliminary Tax Levy

Two (2) bench handouts were provided: an amended RCA entitled, “Discuss Setting a Preliminary 2012 Property Tax Levy” (Item 13.g); and a copy of a portion of the Cobalt Community Research citizen survey (Draft 6), both attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Miller advised that the amended RCA eliminated the proposed resolution originally attached; as a decision had been made to exclude it to avoid confusion and to postpone setting a preliminary levy until the CIP results were received.  Mr. Miller advised that staff was seeking verbal direction from the City Council on how they wished to proceed toward a City-recommended budget for adoption of a preliminary levy in September.


Discussion included the process according to the previously-adopted budget schedule, with the City Council completing their tasks prior to staff performing their responses, based on the information included in the decision packages outlined in the RCA; and flexibility of the calendar needed for more timely decision-making.


Mayor Roe noted that the City Council majority needed to set a preliminary levy, from zero on up, to which staff would develop a budget based on that directive; with consensus decisions made in the proposed budget to get to that target.  Mayor Roe advised that this step was to provide staff with guidance; and requested discussion tonight on those decision packages as the process moved forward in setting a preliminary levy.


Further discussion included the percentage of COLA at 1% based on negotiated contracts of peer communities competing for staff talent; a 5% employer share of any increased health care costs; the $400,000 decision package related to vehicle and equipment replacement funding as it related to current CIP discussions on specific items needed for 2012; and removal of that $400,000 from current discussions, leaving $243,000, representing just under a 4% increase.


Additional discussion included next steps in identifying a preliminary levy after CIP results are presented by the subcommittee; the biennial budget process, with Mr. Miller recommending concentration by the City Council on 2012, then on 2013 budgeting, noting that the budget brought forward by staff in July would be a biennial budget; extension of CIP recommendations over a 2 – 20 year cycle, and impacting the 2012 and 2013 budgets; and inflationary impacts.


After further discussion, Mayor Roe determined that it was fair to task staff to consider decision packages for 2012 and 2013 and provide as much information at the June 13, 2011 City Council meeting as possible on impacts to either, both or neither of those years.


17.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


Councilmembers Willmus and Johnson thanked City Manager Malinen and staff for getting the meeting packet on the website on Thursday evenings.


Mayor Roe announced the upcoming Open House presentation for the Regulating Map and Plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area in the Willow Room at City Hall on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 6:30 pm.


18.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember McGehee reiterated her request for a long-range planning about the City’s future tax base, similar to the process used for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, to find revenue sources and solutions to avoid cutting services and/or programs, or raising taxes.  Councilmember McGehee also reiterated the need to provide a future Roseville with living wage jobs.  Councilmember McGehee sought a free-form discussion between Councilmembers and staff.


Mayor Roe suggested that, in order to accommodate that on a future meeting agenda, Councilmember McGehee frame up some of the issues for discussion, such as a series of questions to facilitate a free form, but guided, discussion, for submission to City Manager Malinen.


16.      Adjourn

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:59 pm.