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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

September 26, 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 September: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe).   City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.


2.            Approve Agenda

City Manager Malinen noted that staff had removed Business Action Items 12.d and 12.f respectively entitled, “Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2071 Fry Street;” and “Request to Issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for an Unresolved Violation of Roseville’s City Code at 1756 Chatsworth Street,” from tonight’s agenda. [Councilmember Pust requested Item 7.f, Approve 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Contributions, be removed from the Consent Agenda]


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

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


a.            Gregg Larson,  Arden Hills resident and former Arden Hills City Council Member)

Mr. Larson requested Roseville City Council support to adopt a resolution, similar to that adopted recently by the City of Mounds View and seven (7) other north suburban communities, in opposition to Ramsey County Commissioners attempt to impose a sales tax levy for Ramsey County residents.  Mr. Larson opined that if the Vikings enterprise was a statewide resource, any funding should be statewide and not imposed on residents and business owners of Ramsey County, including those of the Roseville community.  Mr. Larson opined that such an attempt represented bad public policy; and provided statistical data based on his research; and comments of state legislative representatives and the governor. Mr. Larson further opined that only a portion of the story was being given by proponents of stadium, including bonding information and total debt service for the stadium that was being presented by Ramsey County Commissioner Bennett.  Mr. Larson stated that this would be a huge cost to taxpayers during the worst recession since the great depression further decreasing real incomes, with 25% of the children currently born in Ramsey County being born into poverty; and questioned whether a stadium was the best use of public monies when other more vital items should be a priority.  Mr. Larson requested that the City of Roseville join other north suburban communities in voicing their opinion that this was a bad idea.


5.            Council Communications, Reports and Announcements


6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications

Mayor Roe, on behalf of the City Council, staff, and the community he served, expressed deepest sympathy to the family of City Information Technology (IT) Department employee Ken Solberg who died of a sudden heart attack on September 18, 2011.  Mayor Roe read a tribute from IT Director Terre Heiser, sharing in Ken’s loss and recognizing his many contributions to the City and the IT Department.


Mayor Roe recognized the very impressive award of a Regional Emmy by City Employee Tim Pratt for his writing and production of “Boxes, Bottles and Banana Peels: A Guide to School Recycling” in cooperation with Parkview Center School, C-TV, and the City of Roseville in the educational series. 


Mr. Pratt displayed the Emmy trophy and summarized the purpose of the program in recognizing the recycling program at Parkview Center School and to encourage other schools to participate in recycling food waste to hogs in Isanti County.  Mr. Pratt noted that Parkview was the second school in Roseville to have such program; and proudly announced that the program had prompted students at Emmet D. Williams School to approach their principal for such a program, which would be implemented this fall. 


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Pratt acknowledged that the program was available on line at the City’s website, including the background story about nominations; or on YouTube at the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences/2010-2011 Regional Emmy Awards/Education/Schools/Program/Special/Series.  Mr. Pratt recognized the contributions of former C-TV employee Ben Hanson, as well as the school’s help with the production.


Mayor Roe announced the Fall Harvest Meet & Greet scheduled on October 2, 2011 from 2:00 – 5:00 p.m. at the Roseville Armory (211 N McCarrons Boulevard), for an afternoon barbeque for community members, military service members, veterans and their families.


Councilmember Pust noted that the Roseville Fire Department had graciously agreed to have a fire truck available for children of servicemen and women could “check it out;” and encouraged community participation.


Councilmember Pust advised that, due to current work commitments, she (as the alternate delegate) and Councilmember Johnson (as the Council-appointed delegate) had switched representation for the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG); and announced that their January meeting would serve as a public discussion about the Vikings stadium proposal in Arden Hills.  Councilmember Pust noted that this would follow  completion of the study commissioned by Governor Dayton and conducted by the metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Sports Commission; and provide a county-wide discussion about the pros and cons of the proposal.


Councilmember McGehee moved from the bench to the presentation table; and expressed her dissatisfaction with the quality of information being provided to the City Council for their decision-making on the proposed Fire Department’s one-station concept, as well as the location.  Councilmember McGehee displayed a copy of the DRAFT 2002 study and summarized the scenarios considered in that report, suggesting that three (3) stations would provide maximum coverage for the City, but no less than two (2), based on the existing tank farms, industrial and retail business on the City’s west side.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the 2002 study did not endorse location of a station on the City Hall campus, but suggested a location further west in the community to provide adequate coverage to the west side of the City.  Councilmember McGehee  noted that another significant consideration should be the number of non-sprinklers apartment units in the City; and noted that the City had just authorized another 120 units in the Sienna Green project without sprinklers; and opined that the City needed to keep that in mind with future developments and attempt to remedy that safety concern.  Councilmember McGehee opined that an over-arching issue was that the 2002 study was done by a third party and had provided an independent report.  Since staffing had changed since that report, Councilmember McGehee opined that a similar third party review should be done; further opining that this was a critical issue of public safety with apartments and the tank farm on the west side of Roseville; and again citing the strong recommendation of the 2002 study that a fire station not be located on the City Hall campus.  Councilmember McGehee opined that reconsideration should be given to previous City Council action; that a third party review be completed; and opined that abandoning Station No. 3 was not prudent; in addition to 30% of Roseville residents living in apartments, most of which are not modern or sprinklered.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that she felt that incomplete information had been provided to-date about the mold in the buildings, with the majority of it apparently on the exterior rather than the interior of the building; and note the third party report on the mold dated November 17, 2006 that indicated that Fire Station No. 1 could be rehabbed, rather than demolished.


Councilmember Johnson asked if Councilmember McGhee had been in Station No. 1; with Councilmember McGehee responding affirmatively.


Councilmember McGehee referenced a Needs Assessment from the City of St. Louis Park working on a similar project, and provided their preliminary project costs and comparatives as an example for renovation versus reconstruction.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the projected $8 million project for one fire station was a lot of money; and further opined that the City Council owed it to their citizens to have good information on which to base their decision-making; and opined that sufficient information had not been provided about the location of the station taking into consideration how to maximize protection for the City.


Councilmember Johnson questioned whether or not Councilmember McGehee had supported the proposed project and stated that it was a great project in the recent past.


Councilmember McGehee advised that at that time she had not had time to do sufficient research; and that her concerns had been prompted by the proposal for bonding without a voter referendum.


Councilmember Johnson advised that he had served on the Fire Station Task Force, attending approximately one (1) year’s worth of meetings; and questioned if Councilmember McGehee was suggesting that the opinion of the Task Force and research of its members didn’t count.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the current department business model and staffing was different now than in 2001/2002 when the original study was done and completed; as well as changes in how the department serviced the community.


Mayor Roe advised that it was his recollection that the newer study completed, in addition to the 2006 mold study, and analysis of all stations by an architectural firm had provided an update on the mold status and condition of each of the existing stations, as part of the recommendation of the Study Task Force.


Fire Chief Tim O’Neill

Chief O’Neill spoke to the age of the 2001 report of fire stations and the location study; noting that it was now a decade old; and further noted that it had been commissioned and the study done prior to staffing and other changes over the last decade.  Chief O’Neill opined that that the number of stations wasn’t significant compared to staffing and response times for medical and/or fire emergencies, as well as the training of the responders.  Chief O’Neill advised that the question was whether the Department could cover the entire city from one station.  Chief O’Neill noted that the 2001 study had been completed, with the recommendation for a three (3) station concept when the department was still a volunteer department with staff coming to a station from home, and that at that time the department had an 8-15 minute response time; compared to the current average response time of a little over three (3) minutes; allowing the department to protect the community above and beyond what multiple stations could accomplish.


On the issue of mold, Chief O’Neill noted that the mold study from 2006 was now over five (5) years old; and additional mold growth had been found again in Station No. 1, even after short-term mold abatement efforts had been undertaken following the mold report.  Chief O’Neill opined that consideration had been given in the Task Force recommendation to the City Council on whether additional monies should be spent, or would be effective, for the short-term or if a long-term solution was a better investment for public monies. 


Chief O’Neill advised that the City Council had determined and directed that a long term solution be sought; and briefly referenced the many options provided from the most recent study; however, he noted that there had been no resulting action taken since that 2008/09 study.  Upon his appointment as Fire Chief, Chief O’Neill advised that one of his first goals was to complete a five (5) year strategic plan, with concentration on facilities.  Chief O’Neill opined that the first two (2) third party studies didn’t provide the information and give consideration to all the factors that a Task Force familiar with the City’s Fire Department and the Roseville community could accomplish.


Chief O’Neill noted that the City Council had authorized organization of a Building Facility Needs Committee, made of current firefighters, fire administration staff, retired firefighters and community members as well as Councilmember Johnson as the Council Liaison.  Chief O’Neill advised that the Committee had spent approximately nine (9) months reviewing factors and facility needs for now and twenty (20) years into the future; how to accomplish that service most economically; and how service would look in the future.  Chief O’Neill advised that a report from the Committee had been provided to the City Council in March of 2011; at which time the City Council adopted the recommended plan; and noted the different steps followed, based on that direction, in the ensuing months. 


Chief O’Neill provided updated pictures of the mold situation, water levels and damage in the lower level, and structure failures in Station No. 1; opining that short-term fixes were not prudent for this building built in the 1930’s.  Chief O’Neill noted that the buildings had been reviewed recently by engineers and architects, as part of the Committee’s due diligence, who had all recommended that the City not even attempt to remodel or remediate the existing buildings; and that the most economical way to provide service for the entire community was with one (1) station and staffing based on the current business model.


Mayor Roe noted that capital improvement needs for the existing stations, not inclusive of mold mitigation, added up to over $2-3 million to address roofs, HVAC, and other issues, and exclusive of ADA, OSHA compliance such as exhaust mitigation for fire apparatus; opining that those factors had influenced his decision-making process.


Councilmember Willmus thanked Chief O’Neill for his informative rebuttal of Councilmember McGehee’s comments; and opined that even if the City was to rehabilitate the existing buildings, they would not fit the current business model and the needs of the community going forward.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his every confidence that Chief O’Neill and the Committee had the best interest of the community in mind as it related to the service and safety of Roseville citizens, as well as recommending the most fiscally sound option as well.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he fully supported the Department going forward; and in no way concurred with the comments made by Councilmember McGehee tonight.


Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had already voted on the issue at a previous meeting, with majority support; and opined that further discussion was not a productive use of time at this meeting.


6.         Approve Minutes

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.


a.            Approve Minutes of September 12, 2011  Meeting     

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the September 12, 2011 meeting as submitted.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Minutes of September 19, 2011  Meeting     

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2011 meeting as submitted.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Johnson.


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


63989– 64122





Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; Johnson; 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 follows:



         Type of License

Coleen and Company, 3092 Lexington Avenue

Massage Therapy


Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities

4325 East 66th Street; Inver Grove Heights, MN

Recycling Hauler

Solid Waste Hauler

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; McGehee; Johnson; 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:









Seasonal Labor 2011 Leaf Pickup Program





Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Adopt a Resolution Approving  Premise Permit for Roseville Youth Hockey Association to Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at Grumpy’s Bar and Grill

Councilmember Johnson sought clarification, and City Manager Malinen confirmed, that this request was a result of the recently-adopted and revised City Ordinance, allowing the Hockey Association to have two (2) Premise Permits in the community.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10933 entitled, “Resolution Approving a Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association;” to conduct lawful gambling activities at Grump & Grill.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Approve St. Rose of Lima One-Day Gambling License for Bingo and Raffles

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima Church to conduct raffles and bingo on November6, 2011 at St. Rose of Lima Parking Lot, located at 2072 Hamline Avenue N.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. for Vacation of a Public Street Easement at 2520 – 2375 Walnut Street

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10934 (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution Vacating  Portion of Highcrest Road and Terminal Road.”


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Adopt a Resolution Approving a Drive-Through Facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2435 – 2459 Rice Street

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10935 (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Drive-Through Facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2435 – 2459 Rice Street (PF11-021).”


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


i.             Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment of $,405.68 and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements Project (Phase 2)

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10936 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance; Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements Project (Phase 2);” accepting the work completed; starting the one-year warranty; and authorizing final payment of $4,405.68.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


j.     Appoint HRC Youth Commissioner

Councilmember Willmus questioned current City Ordinance not allowing for alternate commissioners to be appointed.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if this was applicable to alternates service as youth commissioners, since they had no vote.


Mayor Roe opined that since this appointment was related to a non-alternate, he didn’t think there would be any impact on the proposed motion.


City Manager Malinen noted that each commission had individual procedures, and advised that he would review them and talk to the Human Rights Commission related to the youth representative(s).


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, appointment of Marie Siliciano to serve as a Youth Commissioner on the Roseville Human Rights Commission (HRC) for a term that expires August 31, 2012.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


k.            Approve a Quit Claim Deed Conveying Property at 2990 Cleveland Avenue to the City of Roseville

          Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the Quit Claim Deed (Attachment B) conveying a three plus foot (3+’) Wide Piece of Land to the City of Roseville.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


f.             Approve 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Contributions

Councilmember Pust requested removal of this item from the Consent Agenda for the purpose of further discussion related to ongoing budget discussions.  While greatly appreciative of the projected savings in 2012 City Benefit costs, Councilmember Pust advised that she was not personally prepared to make a decision on the percentages offered by the City as an employer and employee out-of-pocket costs without more review in the marketplace of comparables.


Mayor Roe questioned staff on how a delay could impact the upcoming open enrollment period for staff.


Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon

Ms. Bacon advised that any lengthy delay could negatively impact that enrollment period; since she was implementing an on-line enrollment system this year; and needed to have that up and running with updated forms available online, as well as familiarizing staff with the online process by the end of October or beginning of November.  Ms. Bacon noted that she was scheduling initial meetings with staff on October 30 and October 31, 2011.  Ms. Bacon advised that she had prepared a study and analysis of comparable groups typically used each year by the City; and offered to share that information with the City Council at their discretion.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Pust in looking at this issue as part of the broader budget process going forward, noting that this was his original understanding; and advised that he was not prepared to take action tonight.


Discussion ensued on when to reschedule discussion, with the consensus to table this item until the October 10, 2011 regular City Council meeting; and questioning whether the comparable information available from Ms. Bacon would include the entire benefits package as a whole, not just the cafeteria side of the package; and asked that staff provide the additional comparative information to Councilmembers prior to that meeting.


Ms. Bacon responded that it would not be possible to include the entire benefits package as a whole.


Councilmember Pust reiterated her congratulation to the employee representative group for their reduction in cost; however, she noted that she was unwilling to sign off and have that entire reduction applied to the Wellness Program, when other budget needs may be of higher priority; opining that it was her understanding that further Council discussion had been intended.


Mayor Roe noted that the two options were for the City was potentially to look at an $18,000 savings in continuing the current benefit package; or reduction of the current employee benefit program.


City Manager Malinen clarified that the savings of $18,000  was in addition to the 5% increase that had been budgeted that would now not have to be expended.


Councilmember Pust noted that this information served to prove her point, opining that it had ramifications for City Council budget discussions.


Mayor Roe opined that a decision to move savings into the Wellness Program was not as critical as approving the employee health insurance package unless there were changes to that package itself.  Mayor Roe questioned if it was the concern with the package itself or the $18,000 and 5% approved in the Preliminary, not-to-exceed budget; or if the concern was a broader concern on the level of benefits provided to City employees.


Councilmember Pust opined that it depended on what market conditions indicated throughout the state and within the community, not simply one or the other; and further opined that she didn’t want staff to go out with actual dollar figures on each plan or tier without the City Council having had those discussions, thus potentially changing the benefit program after originally relying on the numbers presented during the open enrollment period.


Ms. Bacon clarified for the City Council that this proposal took 5% off the budget as a savings; and advised that it was not the intent to automatically roll that into the Wellness Program; but that the savings had been achieved through the Wellness Program initiatives by staff and through negotiations with employees in an effort to reduce costs currently being expended.  Ms. Bacon noted that there were no additional funds being requested for the Wellness Program; and that this would be a net savings to the City over current expenditures.


Councilmember Pust recognized that; however, she noted that it still represented an additional benefit to the employees, and while that may be great, the City Council’s budget considerations and discussions needed to take into consider the broader scope, such as whether or not a neighborhood hockey rink needed to be closed due to lack of funds; and whether savings from the employee benefit program needed to be reallocated accordingly.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bacon advised that depending on the amount of detail being requested by the City Council for additional information and comparables, and the time-consuming nature of a detailed benefit package comparison that would determine what additional information could be available for the City Council by their October 10, 2011 meeting.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the real discussion was related to an overall $100,000 savings based on staff initiatives on keeping themselves healthy; with the $18,000 saved through negotiations but retaining the same employee benefits as last year.


Mayor Roe clarified that staff had negotiated a lower cost with employees for the same coverage.


Ms. Bacon concurred, noting that coverage wouldn’t change benefits at all; but that the extra $10.00 per month would go into the benefit package; leaving the expenditure flat for the employee health insurance package.  If the City Council determined that the $18,000 should be allocated to other uses; Ms. Bacon advised that staff benefits would remain as is, with staff continuing to receive $25.00 monthly as their wellness incentive rather than the proposed $35.00.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the additional wellness incentive as a reward for employees working on improving their health and lifestyle choices.


Councilmember Johnson requested that the additional information from staff include ratios for single coverage, and family coverage in various tiers for the entire health insurance package and for comparables, not just the cafeteria portion, with the intent to determine if the City was within the ballpark with other communities in their overall employee benefit package.


Ms. Bacon responded that this would not be possible within this timeframe.  She also noted no other city has our exact package.


Pust moved, Willmus seconded, TABLING review of the 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Contributions as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated September 26, 2011, based on their respective contracts; and subject to review and approval by the City Attorney; until the October 10, 2011 City Council meeting.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; and Johnson.

Nays: McGehee and Roe.

Motion carried.


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Consider an Ordinance Updating Storm Water Drainage Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Mayor Roe noted the bench handouts related to this item, attached hereto and made a part hereof, that provided the redlined versions of the proposed ordinance, and the portion proposed to be moved from Chapter 1018 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to Section 803.04 of City Code, all related to erosion and sedimentation control.


City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the requested action, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA); and as recommended by the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission upon their review of the proposed ordinance over several meetings, and their revisions as represented by the redlined bench handouts referenced by Mayor Roe.


There were no City Council or public comments related to this issue.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1416 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 8, Adding Section 803.04 Erosion and Sedimentation Control; Deleting Chapter 1018; and Amending Title 10, Sections 1017.18 and 1017.25.”


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1416 (Attachment B) entitled, “Summary of Ordinance No. 1416; A Summary of an Ordinance Amending Title 8, Adding Section 803.04 Erosion and Sedimentation Control; Deleting Chapter 1018; and Amending Title 10, Sections 1017.18 and 1017.25.”

Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.


13.         Presentations


a.            Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom

Mayor Roe introduced and welcomed Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom.


Sheriff Bostrom thanked the City Council for the opportunity to address them; advising that it was his intent to make the rounds of Ramsey County communities at a minimum of once per year, and more frequently at the discretion of the respective City Councils.



As a resident of the Phalen area, Sheriff Bostrom provided his personal family history, work ethic and parental influence on a philosophy of commitment to service and family as his foundation and lessons learned and applied to his enforcement career history in law enforcement with the City of St. Paul and with Homeland Security, and his education and continuing education through the FBI National Academy. 


Sheriff Bostrom noted that it was a common statement that, “if Roseville is safe, the entire county is safe.”


Sheriff Bostrom reviewed current and future proposed status of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; and advised that he sought recommendations from the City Council on how to improve service in Ramsey County on the future of law enforcement in Ramsey County, and cooperatively in working with the public safety chiefs in the City of Roseville and with other jurisdictions, recognizing that one (1) agency couldn’t do it alone, as realized during the recently recognized September 11, 2011 ten (10) year remembrances.


Sheriff Bostrom advised that he ran for office at the recommendation of others based on his service delivery beliefs, and through development of an emergency operations plan that had convinced him that this was how good governance should look.  Sheriff Bostrom stated that he remained committed to apply those concepts and to focus the statutory requirements and mission of the Sheriff’s Office.  Sheriff Bostrom reviewed those statutory purposes of the office:

1)        To provide and manage detention services for all cities in Ramsey County;

2)        To manage the court system and civil process documents and deliveries;

3)        Manage 9-1-1 services for those not having their own dispatch services;

4)        Waterway management and law enforcement, including water rescues (Sheriff Bostrom clarified that this was not the wildlife side, handled by the DNR, but the people side);

5)        To provide regional public safety cooperatively with the seventeen (17) cities in Ramsey County, and bridge the gap within Ramsey County through cooperation with and support for investigations; and the challenges in keeping track of criminals throughout and within the system, and tying together services.


Sheriff Bostrom reviewed his philosophy for community policing principles and short-, mid- and long-term solutions; the mission to never compete but to cooperate with law enforcement partners; and to ensure that the department was mindful that it was taxpayer dollars being spent, and to keep those expenditures as transparent as possible and ensure that they met the greatest overall good.


Sheriff Bostrom reviewed the agencies intent to deliver on its promise to be a diverse agency within the department and among the community to reflect the community being served; and to recognize that the uniform should be leveraged to compel kids by recognizing positive behavior and provide support and mentoring for community youth activities.


Sheriff Bostrom expressed confidence that the agency was well on its way to achieve this mission through development of an operation manual for officers that hadn’t been revisited for sixteen (16) years, and now available electronically and providing best practices.  Sheriff Bostrom addressed new strategies for staffing of core functions first, cooperative training efforts with community policing staff; and used the example of a recent training opportunity with Roseville first responders and all suburban agencies for a practical application in how to address potential crises in a meeting scenario and weapon situation.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that such training raised the tide for first responders professionally, saved money for the individual agencies and departments by cost-sharing such training, as well as increasing the level of trust of all in working cooperatively during crisis situations.


Sheriff Bostrom concluded by stating that he was pleased to be serving as the Ramsey County Sheriff; noting that the agency was founded in 1849 when the state was still a territory; and that it had been the first law enforcement agency in the state; and continued to be strongly positioned now to be effective and efficient.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if the County did cooperative administrative Incident Command (ISO) or emergency management training, or if that was mandated throughout the department to respond to crises. Councilmember Johnson advised that, part of the training for a newly-elected City Councilmember was participation in the four (4) levels of ISO training; and opined that it was an amazing system that integrated all services from financial to front line officers.


Sheriff Bostrom advised that a cooperative training and testing was currently being planned by Sheriff Mathwig and other public safety personnel through the Ramsey County Emergency Management Office with troubleshooting and testing plans accomplished through periodic scenarios and communications plans and systems.


Mayor Roe asked if the Sheriff’s Department was coordinating with the County Attorney’s Office in its youth program intervention initiatives.


Sheriff Bostrom advised that his agency was very supportive of and shared Ramsey County Attorney Choi’s vision and mission; and recognized that they were not independent agencies, but that this involved the entire criminal justice system, and impacted other facets of public safety.  Sheriff Bostrom opined that if initial behavior was dealt with and youth could be redirected to avoid re-entering the system, it would require bringing in other stakeholders within the criminal justice system (e.g. judges, public defenders, prosecutors) to deal with the outcomes.


Mayor Roe thanked Sheriff Bostrom for his attendance, presentation and discussion.


b.            Public Tree Inventory Presentation

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided a brief presentation summarizing Public Tree Inventory data through a software program made available by funds as part of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) grant received by the City, now estimated to be over 95% completed.  Mr. Brokke noted that this information being presented, and detailed in the staff report dated September 26, 2011, provided only a snapshot of the information that would eventually be available.


Discussion included how the categories were labeled; definition of “DBH” as  diameter at breast height for tree sizes; service by the Parks and Recreation Commission serving as the Tree Board and their further review and compilation of a Master Public Tree Management Plan for City Council review at a later date; meaning of the colors displayed on Constellation Map M for a portion of the City and representing street lines and particular tree species; and how a diverse tree plan would be implemented city-wide, not by individual streets to address future diseases or infestations.


Mayor Roe clarified that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be developing a policy to bring forward to the City Council for review and approval based on industry standards; and would still be open for additional discussion at that time.


Further discussion included differentiating between varieties of tree species and sub-species; options based on location of power lines and varying conditions such as boulevard width, location or fences too close, with different recommendations for height and/or width based on those variables.


Councilmember Johnson commended staff and volunteers on their near completion of this daunting task and research.


Regarding that work, Councilmember Pust reviewed the two-year process and how the data was compiled, whether through use of volunteers or paid employees or contractors to record actual tree locations, species, and sizes.


Mr. Brokke advised that the program was initiated with volunteers; however, he noted that the data being gathered was found to be inconsistent and the equipment being used was problematic.  Mr. Brokke advised that the grant allowing for the software allowed the program to move forward, with original volunteers being hired to complete the task; with their wages being paid through grant funds and consisting of an approximate eighteen (18) month period from January of 2010 to May of 2011, with the actual inventory begun in the spring of 2010.


Councilmember Pust questioned how the department intended to keep the information updated; with Mr. Brokke responding that current City resources were very limited in the forestry area, with a part-time person currently working only 5-6 months annually; and advised that it was his hope that through work orders the information would be periodically updated, but recognized that it would be a challenge.


Councilmember Pust questioned if this periodic updating was included on someone’s job description; with Mr. Brokke responding that it was part of his job description, since by City ordinance, he was the City’s Forester.


Mayor Roe noted the need for staff and the City Council to keep that in mind for future budgets going forward; and advised that the next step was for this data to go to the Parks and Recreation Commission/Tree Board to compile the information and present a recommendation for a Master Plan for the City Council.


Councilmember Johnson advised that the map and detail was easier to read and understand on the City’s website via the Parks and Recreation link.


14.         Public Hearings


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Amendments to the Infrastructure Improvements for the Twin Lakes AUAR Area – Final Report

City Engineer Debra Bloom provided a summary of this request as detailed in the RCA dated September 26, 2011; and as the proposed methodology proposals had been discussed at a previous City Council meeting; with this subsequent information revised and provided as a way to finance infrastructure in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Ms. Bloom advised that the table (Attachment C) had been revised, as requested by the City Council, to include the Applewood Senior Housing Project (Block 11) that was now almost completed, with the developer required to complete public infrastructure entirely at their expense in the amount of $54,000.


There were no City Council or public comments related to this item.


Mayor Roe clarified that any 2011 amendments beyond 2010 were shown on the chart.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of 2011 amendments to the “Infrastructure Improvements for the Twin lakes AUAR Area – Final Report;” as detailed in the RCA dated September 26, 2011.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider an Ordinance Creating the Twin Lakes Overlay District

Mayor Roe noted that staff had presented this item for discussion at a previous meeting, and that now it was before the City Council for action. 


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly summarized the requested action, as detailed in the RCA dated September 26, 2011.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed the ordinance at their September meeting, and that their only revisions had been of a housekeeping nature and had been incorporated into the most recent draft being presented tonight.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Attorney had worked extensively on the ordinance, and that it had been designed with the purpose of helping the City implementation AUAR mitigation efforts by providing a framework to do so.


Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on provisions and the consequences if all the improvements were not made in previously-approved documents and as addressed within a development contract; and whether there was a remedy for those developers in the future.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that as development agreements came forward, everything was negotiable based on circumstances and identified improvements.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the improvements were identified and inevitable, even thought it wasn’t a certainty that they would happen within a certain time frame.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the identified intersections were busy today, and that all items were open for discussion, as normal, as part of any development agreement to determine if another solution was evident; however, he noted that unless an appropriate venue other than ordinance level was indicated, such as another date, triggering mechanism or city policy, the necessary improvements needed to be addressed to ensure development could move forward, based on the AUAR.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus from a planning perspective, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he was not at all opposed to the proposed ordinance provisions.


At the request of Councilmember Pust and the five (5) Planning Commission-suggested changes to lines 51-61 of the RCA (page 2), Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that all had been incorporated into the version of the ordinance being presented tonight.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed modified language referencing the Twin lakes Master Plan; with City Attorney Bartholdi advising that it was incorporated into Section 1022.04.E.


Public Comment

Tony Dorso, 2814 N Cleveland Avenue Property Owner

Mr. Dorso sought further clarification on Attachment C from the previous council agenda item, and the commercial and residential network trips specific to his parcel and how that related to the network trips shown on the map.


With concurrence and confirmation by City Engineer Bloom and Public Works Director Schwartz, Mr. Trudgeon clarified the portion being questioned by Mr. Dorso, Block 1.a with 98 baseline network trips; and Attachment C showing a net of that based on various development scenarios.


Mayor Roe reiterated that the 98 network trips in Attachment A were based on anything prior to 2006 and anything else happening; with credit provided for the baseline trips; and Attachment C based on various development scenarios as laid out and considered in the AUAR as a basis for potential development and other factors, and increasing as a result of development as conceived, with the maximum level of development that could be considered for mitigation on the overall site for this area, subtracting the 98 as a baseline from 1996.


Mr. Dorso noted that the proposed medical and residential development for his parcel was estimated to generate 1995 trips and 92 trips in the AUAR; and clarified that the 98 network trip baseline was predicated on the fact that in 2006, his property would generate 98 network trips.


Mayor Roe clarified that it took into consideration how a development could touch on various intersections in that area.


Mr. Dorso confirmed that if there was no credit allowed, the City would add 98 more trips.


Mayor Roe confirmed that assumption; noting that whatever development occurred it would have an impact that would be cost-associated with that development and according to this plan; and further clarified that while there may be fewer vehicle trips on the actual property, the calculation methodology indicated that  there would be 98 touches on various improvements in the area as a baseline.


City Engineer Debra Bloom concurred with Mayor Roe’s description, clarifying that the network trips were based on PM peak hour and worst case scenarios; confirming that the peak period was based on 10% of the overall 24-hour period, not a cumulative full day; and varied based on land use.

While respecting the City’s desire to get good development into Roseville, Mr. Dorso opined that the entire effort to develop the Twin Lakes area had been a prime example of government at its worst.  In his particular situation, Mr. Dorso noted that he paid $186,000 in annual property taxes for his parcel; reviewed the history of the City evicting his tenant and reimbursing the tenant for relocating, with the entire development then falling apart due to the City not him.  Mr. Dorso opined that that the development fee would not be sustained in court versus a traditional assessment method; and questioned if this actually had increased the value of his land, and opined that it had most likely decreased its value for development purposes.   


Based on his proposed development for a 144,000 square foot medical facility and remaining residential use, Mr. Dorso questioned the assumptions for internal trips; and his estimated $2 million in developer fees under this calculation method, when the property was only worth a maximum of $3 million in today’s market, with the development fee representing 66% of the value of his property; and his inability to even get a curb cut on the back of his property. 


Mr. Dorso also questioned the provision that he only had 180 days after adoption of this ordinance to hire a consultant, approved by the City, to assess the network trips if he contested the City’s consultant or engineer’s study; and questioned the cost to the City for such a study and how much more money he would have to spend to test that theory.


Mayor Roe offered to have staff provide that cost information to Mr. Dorso; however, he clarified that the study was for the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and would therefore be more than a parcel-specific study.


Mr. Dorso noted that he would be spending additional money in going through the City’s appeal process and then court; and questioned the legality of the City attempting to say that he couldn’t go to court until having completed the 180 day appeal process.  Mr. Dorso opined that it was questionable how he could successfully negotiate a voluntary agreement when he had no power to negotiate; and questioned the intent of this City Council and their successors in good faith negotiations for such an agreement.  Mr. Dorso opined that this was not a fair way for the City Council to treat people in its community; who were in a worse position than they were ten (10) years ago, with lost taxes, impeded development, and further deterioration of the area due to City actions, not those of property owners or developers in the Twin Lakes area.


In conclusion, Mr. Dorso asked that, if the City Council chose to use this process, that they do so taking into consideration the tremendous losses already having been suffered by property owners and/or developers in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Roe moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1417 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Establishing a Zoning Overlay District for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.”


Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion; and agreed with Mr. Dorso that this was a bad plan; opining that she had thought so all along; and further opining that it would not encourage development or get the City what it would like.


Councilmember Pust asked that the City Attorney address Mr. Dorso’s point regarding the appeal process and the City’s basis for the 180 day; and provide information on the accessibility of registered traffic engineers.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the provision to bring action is only with respect to base trips (Section 1022.03E) and contesting of those base trips, as is their right.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that there was nothing magical about the 180 day time frame; and discussions with staff had indicated that this was a reasonable time frame for such an appeal; and that it set up an administrative procedure if someone wanted to have reconsideration given to their base trips, by providing a method for them to do so.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that, as far as the cost of such a study, he would defer to staff.


Mayor Roe sought clarification in terms of the process to determine trips incurred by a particular development; and if that was something the developer would be doing.


City Attorney Bartholdi noted that, first, that is not part of the base trips in that particular situation; and that in working through City, they would retain a traffic engineer to determine if the City’s assumptions as to the number of network trips when the property is developed were correct, and if found different, a change would then be made on that basis.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that the intent was to confirm what a particular development will generate in network trips based on a particular, industry-wide and accepted methodology.


City Engineer Bloom, in addressing the cost, advised that any registered engineer would review the IT manual, the same manual the City had used; and  noted that the original study cost for the City for the overall area had been $50,000 approximately three (3) years ago; with subsequent updates priced at $5,000 for the overall area.  City Engineer reiterated that the assumptions were made to establish the baseline; and at the request of Mayor Roe, confirmed that part of the routine development costs for any new development and/or construction would require a traffic study for that parcel.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that the base line trips and the appeal process was what needed to be accompanied by a registered traffic engineer, obviously less expensive than cost for the City’s study of the entire area for the allocation calculations; and opined that the study of one particular lot through the IT manual would not be too elaborate or costly.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the baseline trips were set and that the six (6) month timeframe related to appealing those baseline trips would not change no matter what the development was or when development occurred.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bartholdi clarified that the appeal process provided a developer with an administrative remedy, and if not satisfied, a judicial remedy could be pursued.


Mayor Roe clarified that the as-developed network trips were related to any proposed development, and was a routine process in studying development; with the assumption that everything was on the table for discussion; and opined that the City may consider some type of accommodation as part of those specific discussions and negotiations.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Mayor Roe’s last statement; and the previous comment of Councilmember Willmus to staff, that negotiations are possible; and not set in stone; and opined that he was willing to move forward with that understanding.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1417 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 “Zoning Ordinance” Establishing Section 1022 Twin Lakes Overlay District of the City Code.”


Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


c.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2211 Irene Street

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family detached home, located at 2211 Irene Street, currently owned by Paul Landmann.  Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of violations, consisting of junk, debris and household items in open storage on the side of the garage (a violation of City Code Sections 407.02.D. and 407.02.H); and outside storage of commercial equipment and materials (violation of City Code Section 407.02.M.2); with abatement costs estimated to total $1,550.00.


Mr. Munson advised that two notices had been sent to the homeowner in July; however, as of today, even though some items had been addressed, others remained in violation.  Mr. Munson further advised that, when complaints were received by staff from neighbors that the grass was over eight (8) inches high in the backyard, the City had performed an accelerated abatement with a weed whip to cut down that brass.  Mr. Munson noted that, while some items would be classed as junk and/or debris, there was scaffolding along the building that had some value; and that the owner retained the right to claim that material and pay for any and all storage costs upon approval of the abatement, and at the owner’s discretion.  Mr. Munson opined that some of the materials could easily be stored in the garage by the property owner; however, the City was unable to locate the materials there and would be forced to dispose of it.


Mr. Munson noted that the property owner was present at tonight’s meeting.


Paul Landmann, Property Owner, 2211 Irene Street

Mr. Landmann advised that he had purchased the home in 2000, and had experienced no notices of violations until the last year, when he received  notice that the enclosed trailer parked next to his garage needed to be removed as it was illegal.  Mr. Landmann noted that this forced him to eventually sell the trailer, even though he used it to store materials used in his business. 


Mr. Landmann noted receipt of a subsequent notice related to gravel next to the home in violation of City Code, and when bringing to the attention of City staff other gravel driveways throughout the City, was told that those driveways had been grandfathered in.  Mr. Landmann addressed even more subsequent notices related to grass being too long in his backyard; a plastic dog kennel and garbage container next to the garage; and opined that he was extremely frustrated in apparently being singled out for nonstop harassment by City staff.  Mr. Landmann opined that is he had been able to keep the trailer on site, the materials would be stored in it, not in the yard.


Mr. Landmann expressed further frustration in the notices being applied to his garage door with duct tape while he was at work.  Mr. Landmann noted that Mr. Munson didn’t display any pictures of the front of his house; and opined that most of the material couldn’t even be seen from the front of his property.  Mr. Landmann reiterated that, until 2010, he had never had a problem, but now it seemed to be ongoing and multiple issues.  Mr. Landmann noted that his home had only a single car garage, and was located on a cul-de-sac; and when he originally purchased the home, he intended to add onto the garage; however, he had found out that the property line was not as large as he thought.  Mr. Landmann advised that, when all this harassment and ongoing citations continued, he decided to sell the home, as no longer had much interest in living in Roseville under those circumstances.  However, Mr. Landmann advised that, under current market conditions, he was unable to sell the home for the $170,000 he still owed on it and the only other option would be to let it go into foreclosure.  Mr. Landmann reiterated his frustration, as a taxpayer and someone who paid his bills, and questioned the benefit of owning a home; noting that it was located at the end of a dead-end street and was subject to consistent noise from Highway 36.  Mr. Landmann noted that the area on the other side of his fence had extensive vegetation growth that was creeping over his fence, while his minimal infractions continued to be highlighted.


Mayor Roe advised that, as an example related to garbage cans, there was an ordinance in place for a number of years that they needed to be stored indoors or behind an enclosure. 


Mayor Roe questioned staff if this was a neighbor-driven complaint; with Mr. Munson confirming that it was for the grass and junk/debris; but that the 2010 gravel driveway and trailer violations had been generated through the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP).


Discussion included classification, by Minnesota State Statute, of trailers based on the number of axles, whether it was a commercial trailer and whether it could be considered advertising if it was painted with the name of a company or firm; whether the City needed to reconsider trailers on residential lots when used for work-related use; and mailed and posted notice process used by staff for all properties found in violation of City Code.


Councilmember Johnson addressed Mr. Landmann directly, expressing appreciation for what he had done to come into compliance with the violations.  Councilmember Johnson recognized Mr. Landmann’s perception that he was being singled out; and asked that Mr. Landmann to take into consideration, from the City’s perspective, what had occurred during that time period.  Councilmember Johnson advised that the number of violations in residential areas had been repeatedly brought to his attention while campaigning for the City Council and door knocking; and the desire for residents wanting code enforcement throughout the community.  Councilmember Johnson advised that at the request of the City Council and in recognition of this request for consistent code enforcement, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) had initiated a Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP).  Prior to that concentrated effort, Councilmember Johnson advised Mr. Landmann that, while in violation of existing City Code, he had been falsely empowered to be in violation with little or no consequences.  However, with the implementation of the NEP, Councilmember Johnson advised that residents were notified that their neighborhood would be inspected through a walk-through by code enforcement staff, alerting residents to items needing fixed or abated.   Councilmember Johnson again commended Mr. Landmann on what he had already done; and noted that he and Councilmember McGehee had personally viewed his property; and recognized that he had a nice house compared to many of the properties in violation.  Recognizing that Mr. Landmann appeared to be a reasonable and intelligent person, Councilmember Johnson asked that Mr. Landmann continue in good faith to complete the one last step to get the property cleaned up and into compliance; rather than allowing the abatement process to continue; and reiterated his appreciation of what had been accomplished to-date.  Councilmember Johnson thanked Mr. Landmann for his patience in allowing him to expound on the history of City steps to address overall community concerns with code enforcement; and why it seemed to Mr. Landmann that it seemed to be coming down on him all of a sudden.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that the City Council consider deferring action if a motion was considered, allowing the property owner a second chance to correct violations prior to abatement proceedings.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee related to the trailer, Mr. Munson advised that he was unprepared to address that issue as the information was not readily available and not part of this abatement request.


Further discussion included stator requirements for trailers in residential neighborhoods and their respective size and location; Mr. Landmann’s admission that, prior to purchasing the trailer in 2004, he should have checked City ordinance, but had not since he observed others parked throughout the City; options for storage of commercial trailers and related costs for that storage; and vandalism concerns in parking a trailer off-site.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus on whether an additional thirty (30) days would allow Mr. Landmann time to clean up the property and bring it into compliance, Mr. Landmann admitted that it would only take approximately ½ hour to clean it up, but questioned if this would put an end to the weekly visits of the inspector that seemed petty.


Councilmember Johnson sought a firm commitment from Mr. Landmann; who committed to bringing the property into compliance.


Willmus moved authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2211 Irene Street, if not completed by the owner in thirty (30) days, by October 26, 2011, by hiring general contractors to remove and dispose of the junk and debris; and provide temporary storage of commercial equipment and materials; at an estimated cost of $1,550.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, TABLING the abatement action indefinitely.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe advised Mr. Landmann that the City expected his compliance or he would be forced to come back before the City Council as staff pursued abatement of the violations.


d.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2071 Fry Street

As previously noted, this item was removed from tonight’s agenda at the request of staff.


e.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2408 St. Albans

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family detached home, located at 2408 St. Albans, currently owned by William Meyers.  Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of violations, consisting of paint very deteriorated on portions of the home; and deteriorated and rotted soffits and window trim (violation of City Code, Sections 407.02J & K and 906.05.C); with abatement costs estimated to total $7,500.00.


Mr. Munson advised that this complaint had originated late last fall, but since it was too late in the season to paint, action had been delayed, asking that the property owner bring the violations into compliance this summer, and sent information on assistance programs to the property owner, who had assured staff that he would bring proceed.  Mr. Munson noted that, while some brush had been removed from the property, and the owner advised that a loan had been approved and new windows and siding ordered, with delivery anticipated by mid-September, work had yet to be initiated now ten (10) months after the initial notice, and no permits applied for, thus prompting staff to bring the case forward at this time.


Mr. Munson advised that the owner was not present at tonight’s meeting.


Discussion included staff’s discussion with the property owner over the phone, but not personally; and the intent of staff for this abatement process to serve as an incentive for the owner.


Pust moved,  Willmus seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2408 St. Albans, if significant work is not initiated by the owner and substantial progress made by October 15, 2011, by hiring general contractors to repair the soffits and window trim, and paint the entire structure; with abatement costs estimated to total $7,500.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Request to Issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for an Unresolved Violation of Roseville’s City Code at 1756 Chatsworth Street

As previously noted, this item was removed from tonight’s agenda at the request of staff.


Based on tonight’s discussion on various options and the pros and cons of each of those options; Mayor Roe sought City Council consensus on developing a voluntary process, upon recommendation from City staff regarding legal issues; and research and a report from staff on that concept.


Mr. Munson advised that, in his research of City Code, Section 407 could be used for this type of situation; however, he was seeking deferral at this time for further consultation with the City Attorney to ensure all notice requirements were in order.


Mayor Roe asked that staff, through the HRA, provide more information to the City Council on voluntary abatements.


g.            Consider a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Outlot A Created in the Recently-Approved Highcrest Park Addition Plat (PF11-020)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the requested action as detailed in the RCA dated September 26, 2011; noting that the Planning Commission had reviewed and held a Public Hearing at their September meeting for the preliminary plat, and subsequently the necessary steps had been completed to bring the Final Plat forward.  Mr. Paschke noted that this included earlier action at tonight’s meeting in City Council approval of the vacation, allowing recording of the plats with Ramsey Council.


Mr. Paschke noted that a revised resolution was provided as a bench handout,  attached hereto and made a part hereof; allowing for a new Condition A, and outlined in Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the RCA, at the recommendation of the City Attorney.  Mr. Paschke advised that a new Condition D speaking to the park dedication requirement had been included, following recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their August meeting, recommending payment in lieu of land, based on 5% of the fair market value as per code requirements.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the City Council had taken action on the Preliminary Plat already at a previous meeting; and that staff would also be bringing forward the Public Improvement Contract tied to and recorded with this plat for City Council action in the near future.


Councilmember Pust commended the City Attorney for his recommendations in adding Conditions A and D to the resolution to memorialize it in the recorded documents.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10937 (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of the Highcrest Park Third Addition (PF11-020;” with additional conditions as amended.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Councilmember Willmus asked staff, for future reference, to identify bench handouts with the item to which they refer.


h.            Consider Awarding Contract for Architectural Services for Fire Station

Fire Chief Tim O’Neill summarized the process and evaluation through best value practices of Requests for Proposals for architectural services, the five (5) finalists and subsequent interview process and scoring, as detailed in the RCA dated September 26, 2011.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the best value practice process used for this and how it compared to previous proposals for other projects, such as the geothermal project, as well as how it compared or did not compare to the Arizona State University (ASU) program that had been instituted for that project.  Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with the process and scoring categories and weighting, opining that the interview portion apparently held more weight, creating a larger spread and unequal disparity.


Mayor Roe asked staff to respond to whether the ASU process had been use and rationale for doing so or not doing so; and clarification of the weighting of categories.


City Manager Malinen advised that the ASU process was used on only one project, a construction project, to-date; and clarified that this was for architectural services.  Mr. Malinen questioned if the ASU process was prudent, cost-wise, for a small professional services contract such as this.  Mr. Malinen clarified that staff had been typically applying a best overall value process, and while not exactly the same as used on construction projects, it had been used by staff for 4-5 professional service contracts to-date; and advised that the ASU process had not been engaged, as staff had experience with the best value process; and had been satisfied with vendors hired to-date by using that process, and in accordance with the policy direction from the City Council to use such a process.  Mr. Malinen advised that it was always staff’s intent to save money; and expressed his belief that staff had continued to refine and reinforce the best value process along the way.


Mayor Roe questioned how different staff’s best value process was from the full-fledged ASU process, and how it differed from construction versus professional service contract considerations.


City Manager Malinen advised that professional services were not bound by statutory bid requirements or through a best value procurement process, as typically expended for construction projects.  Mr. Malinen noted that the best value procurement process allowed for some deviation, and when the City Council adopted that policy, they made a distinction to avoid statutory requirements for constructions projects versus hiring of professional services; with the City then not required to do a formal bidding process, but to use this best value procurement process for construction.


Mayor Roe questioned if the five (5) weighted categories used for these services were on par with the best value procurement process.


City Manager Malinen was unsure if they were comparable in each case, since they were subject to what professional services were being sought and whether the price was driving whether it held more weight.


Chief O’Neill noted that the five (5) categories used were the same as used by the ASU program; but that their weighting or scoring mechanisms were proprietary and there was no way for staff to know that.


Mayor Roe asked if the methodology for weighting, and resulting conclusions were the City’s, with Chief O’Neill responding affirmatively.


Mayor Roe asked if these same five (5) categories were used with equal weighting for past professional service evaluations; with City Manager Malinen responding that legal services, janitorial services, and recycling services had all used the same process; however, he was unsure if the weighting was always the same.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the only required item was for price, with others optional; and that confirmed that this process followed state statute.


Mayor Roe noted that statutorily, cities had to go through a formal bidding process for construction, with price being a dominant factor; however, sought clarification from City Attorney Bartholdi whether professional service contracts had the same statutory requirements to go with the lowest or any bid.




City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the City did not have to use competitive bidding for construction, that they could either use the competitive bidding or best value procurement processes.


Mayor Roe confirmed that the City Council had authorized this process to keep itself out of statutory bidding requirements.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a very significant expense and that interviews were very subjective anyway; and questioned how that compared to other categories.


 Councilmember McGehee advised that there was no guideline given to evaluators that was uniform across members; and in this instance, it was interesting to note that the lowest fee firm received one of the higher marks; when with the construction management RFP process, those two (2) firms with the highest prices received the two highest marks, indicating that in the analysis of fees, there was considerable difference.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, between the two contracts: for construction management and architectural services, evaluators were very aware of the substantial costs.  For further clarification,  Councilmember McGehee noted that the referenced St. Louis Park process included construction of two (2) fire stations and their fee for architectural services alone was $448,000.


Councilmember Pust, when considering the objective measures in the other categories, questioned why the interview was a category since it seemed to be a way to gain information, but was not a body of information; and questioned how and why an interview became ratable; and whether that category created a larger disparity between bidders.


Chief O’Neill advised that in the two (2) processes he’d used to-date: construction manager and architectural services, there was an evaluation guide for the team to use if they felt proposals were strong or weak, with the guide used from information provided by ASU.  Chief O’Neill reviewed the preparation for the interview portion of the process upon receipt of the proposals; and redaction of information to remove any references to the firm or its principles to ensure a blind process.  On a personal note, Chief O’Neill advised that during his review of the proposal, he noted his questions throughout each proposal in just about every category; and advised that the interview allowed him an opportunity to sit down with the entire architectural team to specifically discuss the Roseville project, as well as other projects they’ve done; and opined that this interview process was the most important part and allowed him to gain the most information on who would be best for a particular project.


Councilmember Pust questioned if they should be called interviews since scoring was not based on interview skills or personalities, but the additional information made available in evaluating their proposal.


Chief O’Neill opined that the interview included perceptions on whether they would be able to complete a project on time; their background with geothermal systems; and included each member of the evaluation team asking standard, as well as specific questions, based on the proposals; while being aware of various nuances they bring to the table. 


Further discussion ensued regarding the highest possible scores in the various categories (fees, past performance, background, risk assessment) with seven evaluators involved in the interviews, two of whom consisted of representatives from the construction management team; series of questions based on evaluator notes from each proposal, with additional questions varying based on specific proposals.


Councilmember McGehee brought to the attention of Councilmember Pust the spread from the previous proposals and the spread between the top two firms.


Councilmember Pust opined that this didn’t matter to her as much as if potential points were different than other categories; and asked that Mayor Roe, from his engineering expertise, provide a mathematical analysis of the categories for comparison; and with how close two of the firms were, if it was prudent to standardize the weighting.


Councilmember Johnson opined, from a business perspective on interviews and form a managerial point of view, the interview phase should be a key aspect, since the project manager needed a relationship with City staff as well as the construction management team and the full architectural team.  While recognizing that cost was an issue, Councilmember Johnson opined that if there was no artistry, chemistry, or camaraderie, it would not be as effective of a relationship.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that more focus should be given that than some of the other categories.


Councilmember McGehee referenced recommendation of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) when using this type of a process, fees should be weighted higher than other categories to avoid potential litigation; and suggested that the City council revisit the process currently being used.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorization to the Fire Department to award the contract for Architectural Services for Phase I of the new Fire Station Project to CNH Architects in the amount of $50,800.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O’Neill confirmed that the Construction Manager played a significant role in the interviews and that they had more expertise than staff.


Mayor Roe opined that the interviews should bring about the same conclusion, not change it.


While that may be evident, Councilmember Pust recommended that the record show, based on Mayor Roe’s calculations that nothing should have been done differently.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:14 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:20 pm.


The outcome of Mayor Roe’s mathematical comparison of using seven scores for interviews versus standardizing the interview score to be consistent with the other categories for which six scores were used confirmed that, while the first and second place finishers were 3.5% apart in scores using the original method,  while they were 2.2% apart when the interview score was standardized.  In both cases, the staff-recommended firm had the highest score.


Mayor Roe clarified that the scope of services had a hard stop, similar to the construction management contract, for Phase I.


Chief O’Neill advised that it would be built into the contract, with Phase II required to return to the City Council for both construction and architectural services, based on the Phase I scope of services.


Mayor Roe asked Chief O'Neill if, based on the interviews, he could determine whether Five Bugles Design had an adequate understanding of the scope of Phase II, which might explain why their price was so much lower than the others.  Chief O'Neill responded that he could not come to a conclusion about that based on the interview.


Additional discussion included Phase II bids based on how the RFP was written;

Clarification by City Attorney Bartholdi that Phase II was not determined by this RFP process and understanding by all parties of this provision; review of the Phase I portion of the RFP to include architectural renderings and options for fitting a station on the proposed site; a concept floor plan; and working with the City Council throughout that process; then to design documents and a full work plan as part of Phase II.


Chief O’Neill reiterated that the plan was to work with the Construction Manager, Fire Department and City staff, the facility study review team, and City Council to continue receiving input throughout the process to achieve a cooperative decision.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Fire Department Reorganization

Fire Chief Tim O Neill presented the initial framework, based on previous strategic planning sessions with the City Council, for the reorganization objectives for the Fire Department. 


Chief O’Neill noted, during that presentation that the EMS represented 90% of the department’s calls, and needed more full-time attention, which accounted for a big portion of and need for the reorganization.  Chief O’Neill further noted that in his conversations with the Police Department and City Manager, they were both supportive of the Fire Department taking emergency management under the Fire Department umbrella.


Chief O’Neill noted that the department had two (2) positions vacant at this time due to full-time firefighters who had moved on; and overall projected reduction through this reorganization of $108,700 was based on not filling those positions, and did not seek any additional funds, and still positioning the department to serve the community well.  Chief O’Neill noted that the 2012/2013 department budget as submitted included this reorganization with a $154,000 reduction.


City Manager Malinen clarified that the 2007 to 2010 structure comparison proposed in Chief O’Neill’s presentation erroneously omitted the Fire Inspector position, and noted that it was simply omitted from the presentation and that  the position was NOT being eliminated.


Discussion included 24/7 staffing with scheduling done based on seniority on an annual basis with shifts traded during the year depending on individual needs and family commitments; minimum of four (4) people on staff at all times, and at least 99% of the time a total of five (5) people available.


Councilmember Johnson opined that this was the reason the single station model worked, since in the past there were three (3) stations to react, but now only one fully-staffed station with staff readily available to respond.


Councilmember Johnson opined that this reorganization was a great idea, and commended Chief O’Neill on his great work; and further opined that he was a huge asset to this community; and thanked him on behalf of the community for his efforts to save taxpayer monies.  Councilmember Pust further opined that she was pleased to be able to rely on the information provided by Chief O’Neill, always trusting that information.


At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether these positions would come back to the City Council for action; City Manager Malinen advised that they would require City Council action, since the Battalion Chiefs were new job classifications.


Chief O’Neill advised that it was staff’s intent to return to the City Council at their October 10, 2011 meeting for formal action.


17.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


18.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


a.         Councilmember McGehee Request

Mayor Roe asked that those involved in developing the format and content meet with City Manager Malinen before this item returned to the City Council to ensure everyone was in agreement.


16.      Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:45 pm.