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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 17, 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 October: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; Johnson; and Roe).   City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.


2.            Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe advised that, in accordance with the City Council’s Rules of Procedure, Item 15.a entitled, “Councilmember McGehee Request to Discuss Requirements Relating to Fire Sprinklers and Handicapped Accessibility when Buildings are Being Rehabilitated,” did not need to be included on tonight’s agenda.  Mayor Roe noted that this request had been suggested by Councilmember McGhee at a previous meeting and that Councilmembers were aware of the request; and suggested that it be removed from tonight’s agenda and brought back at a future meeting for presentation and discussion.


Councilmember McGehee concurred that she had intended the request to seek consensus from Councilmembers for future reference; however, she advised that she had not intended any presentation on her part.


Regarding Consent Item 7.d entitled, “Appoint Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner,” Councilmember McGehee questioned if youth commissioners were simply appointed without interview from the City Council.


City Manager Malinen advised that applications and interviews for youth commissioners were handled by the respective commissions or a subcommittee of commissioners, with their recommendation for appointment then forwarded to the City Council for action.


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


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson; 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.            Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg advised, for the record, that he had submitted to Mayor Roe a written record of his verbal request made at last week’s City Council meeting, on behalf of the SouthWest Area of Roseville Neighbors (SWARN).  Mr. Grefenberg noted that this request, provided as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof, was requesting City staff to prepare a fact sheet of estimated financial impacts of current proposals before the City Council and as related to the 2012 budget.


Mr. Grefenberg asked that this information be provided by staff prior to the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing related to the proposed bond issue for proposed park improvements and a new fire station; and sought further clarification whether public comments at that hearing would be strictly focused on the merits of the bonding proposals.


Mayor Roe advised that the Public Hearing was for the purpose of the City’s intent to issue bonds, and comments would preferably be confined to the City’s use of its Port Authority to issue the bonds.  However, Mayor Roe advised that, while several public comment opportunities would be provided in November prior to the City’s adoption of its final budget and levy in December, if the comments were related to the bond issue and its impacts to the budget they could be heard on October 24, 2011.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if Mr. Grefenberg hadn’t also previously requested information on impacts of the reduced Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) and if he didn’t wish to add this to his formal written request.


Mr. Grefenberg, from his personal perspective, advised that he would leave that up to the City Council for a response, since he kept getting mixed messages as to how and/or if the MVHC impacted Roseville residents.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Malinen advised that the MCHC may impact Roseville taxpayers, but that it was hard to determine at this time until all values were finalized by Ramsey County, allowing City staff to only be able to make an estimate at this time.


Councilmember McGehee referenced a recent article in the Minneapolis Star/Triune spelling out MVHC in general; and further questioned why this requested information had not already been provided by staff this week.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff was working on compiling the requested information; and anticipated that it would be available by Wednesday of this week.


Mayor Roe suggested that instead of attempting a date certain, Wednesday of next week be used as the intended date.  Mayor Roe briefly summarized the legislation and calculations used in determining MVHC and recent legislation enacted during the Special Session earlier this year.  Mayor Roe advised that further discussions on any impacts of MVHC would occur as the 2012 budget process continued.

Mr. Grefenberg advised that the written information request dated October 13, 2011 from SWARN stood as written and submitted.


5.            Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced that Thursday, October 27, 2011, a Farewell Ceremony was planned at Fire Station No. 1 at 7:00 p.m.


6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications


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 sent to Council; with additional comments provided by Mayor Roe as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


a.            Approve Minutes of October 10, 2011  Meeting           

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 10, 2011 meeting as submitted, along with corrections from Mayor Roe as submitted as a bench handout.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGhee.

Motion carried.


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

ACH Payments


64233 – 65353





Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those applicants as follows:



         Type of License

Waste Management; 10050 Naples Street NE

Blaine, MN

Recycling Hauler

Solid Waste Hauler

Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc.

5661 – 152nd Street N; Hugo, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

Recycling Hauler


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve Ramsey County Bar Foundation Off-Site Gambling Permit

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the request of Ramsey County Bar Foundation to conduct Off-Site Gambling on November 5, 2011, at Midland Hills Country Club, located at 2001 Fulham Street.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Appoint Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Chloe Boehm to serve as a Youth Representative on the Parks and Recreation Commission until July 31, 2012.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2009 Contract B Project

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10941 entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – 2009 Contract B Project;” and authorizing final payment of $114,243.62.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2010 Contract B Project

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10942 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – 2010 Contract B Project;” and authorizing final payment of $64,070.25.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


12.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


13.         General Ordinances for Adoption


14.         Presentations


15.         Public Hearings


16.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consideration of the County Road C-2 Connection

Mayor Roe introduced this portion of the agenda to the audience, noting that the City Council had received considerable reports and responses by staff to City Council and public information requests to-date and had also heard considerable and passionate public comment from both supporters and non-supporters of this issue.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Debra Bloom responded to several questions brought forward, seeking additional information, from the October 10, 2011 meeting.  Those responses were detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 17, 2011.


Ms. Bloom advised that, as previously presented by staff to the City Council, staff continued to stand by their recommendations, as outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the RCA, whether the City Council chose the option of not making the County Road C-2 connection, or the option of making that connection.


Ms. Bloom advised that, no matter the option chosen, staff was recommending the installation yet this fall of all-way stop signs at the intersection of Merrill Street and County Road C-2 to address the sight line issues present at that intersection, as it met warrant criteria at this time.


Public Comments

Mayor Roe reminded speakers of the five minute time limit for speakers, and reviewed protocol during public comments.


Wayne Duescher, 951 County Road C-2 West

As a 35-year resident of this area, Mr. Duescher stated that he was opposed to opening up County Road C-2; and noted that he had submitted written comments and a map to the City Council, with a public copy available, which was distributed as bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereto.


Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue

Mr. McDonald expressed his opposition to opening up County Road C-2; and asked that the City Council vote against opening it up.  Mr. McDonald opined that a vote any other way would serve as a departure from community opinion by and large and against the goals and strategies outlined in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process.  Mr. McDonald referenced a previous comment from Councilmember Willmus related to the cost of opening County Road C-2 at $131,000, with Mr. McDonald opining that staff had already told the City Council that the total cost would be much more.  Mr. McDonald further opined that opening up County Road C-2 would not solve the issues for Josephine Road residents related to safety; however, it would create more negatives, including reducing pedestrian and pet safety, reduce home values, and quadruple traffic on County Road C-2.  Mr. McDonald questioned the proposed stop sign at Merrill and C-2, opining that a stop sign wouldn’t guarantee that people would stop, and would only serve to increase accidents at Hamline and C-2.  Mr. McDonald opined that opening C-2 would only add insult to injury, especially if the City chose to assess residents on C-2 when Josephine Road residents were not assessed.


Suzanne Sancilio, 1221 W County Road C-2

Ms. Sancilio noted that in May of 2011, the City Council spent $15,000 in unbudgeted funds for an independent traffic study, the results of which had shown that Josephine Road was not at or even near capacity, now in 2011; nor projected to be by 2030, with or without opening County Road C-2.


Residents supporting opening up C-2, “in the spirit of sharing C-2,” demanded that the City Council open C-2 in August of 2011.  In that same spirit, Ms. Sancilio advised that the residents opposed to opening C-2 had hired a Minneapolis-based conflict resolution center to invite all residents on both sides to a facilitated mediation session, which residents supporting “sharing C-2” had refused to attend.  Ms. Sancilio opined that this didn’t reflect that alleged spirit of “sharing,” and therefore provided no solution to the situation.  Ms. Sancilio asked Councilmembers to address whether an environmental review program had been investigated should C-2 be opened, a required by the Environmental Quality Board and State Statute 116.d to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required; and opined that it was a disservice to Roseville citizens if the City intended to bypass environmental, social and economic factors in their decision-making.  Ms. Sancilio noted legislation signed into law by former Governor Pawlenty requiring “Complete Streets,” MN State Statute 351; as well as the Strategic Vision of MnDOT for solutions for MN roadways to receive a consensus on their purpose and need when considering improvements, as well providing alternative transportation solutions within context-sensitive solutions.  In conclusion, Ms. Sancilio questioned how a decision to open C-2 was consistent with the “smart growth” strategies of the City and any positive for neighborhood designs and planning for the entire community.

Pam Newcome, “Share C-2” Group Representative

Ms. Newcome noted that a large contingent of “Share C-2” residents were in attendance, wearing red, and asked that they stand for recognition.  Ms. Newcome reviewed the rationale of the group seeking to open C-2, based on Roseville being a fully-developed, first-ring suburb with limited opportunity to expand roadways in the future and the need for a greater east/west connectivity to facilitate continued development in the area and to address the continuing and substantial traffic increases.  Ms. Newcome noted that this was the price of progress; and opined that when conceived, C-2 was intended as a fully operational connector as a future scenario.  Ms. Newcome further opined that Josephine Road had become a connector by default, since the remaining 175’ of County Road C-2 had not been opened, which had created issues related to park access, significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and safety concerns for children on Josephine Road – all being realized by those residents as stated as concerns of C-2 residents in not supporting opening C-2.  Ms. Newcome noted that staff had prepared two different scenarios to address safety concerns with the steep road grade design on C-2.  While no one wishes more traffic on their neighbor, Ms. Newcome opined that this was the price of progress; and noted that, even though this was characterized as a dispute between two neighborhood group, the situation had a much broader impact, with evidence of a cross-section of Roseville residents believing that opening C-2  was in the interest of the broader community and the next step for the community to move into the future.  Ms. Newcome opined that, with privileges come responsibilities, and that now was the time to look to the future and open C-2, since there would never be a better or more fiscally-responsible time to do so with the Josephine Woods redevelopment for connecting the remaining 175’ of C-2; and prepare Roseville for a bright and prosperous future.


Mr. Yi He, 1144 County Road C-2 (just east of Lexington)

Mr. He provided his perspective of those living on C-2, himself included, and the stress related to this ongoing discussion of opening C-2; in addition to the fighting of friends, neighbors and community members.  Mr. He addressed the inconveniences already being realized with dump trucks operating from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the Josephine Woods construction; and continuing concerns about the unknowns over the last 6-7 months during this discussion opening C-2; and the possibility of affected C-2 residents being assessed for the opening.  Mr. He noted the reductions already in property values due to the economy since 2008, opining that his family doesn’t mind paying their fair share in City taxes; however, they were 100% opposed to a wasteful project such as opening C-2 with that tax money as well as the negative impact it would create to the community.  Mr. He opined that two traffic studies clearly indicated that opening C-2 would have minimal reduction on Josephine Road traffic, while significantly increasing traffic on C-2; and scientific studies indicated that there would be minimal improvements in travel time with this additional east/west connection.  Mr. He further opined that a stop sign at Merrill and C-2 would not solve the blind intersection issue.  Mr. He implored the City Council to go beyond the staff recommendation and permanently vacate the 175’ section of C-2; opining that a common solution to traffic issues on Josephine Road would never be found, and by opening C-2, it would only further divide the community.


Mr. Chris LaPalm, 2891 Merrill Street

Mr. LaPalm provided several visuals from the HRA’s “Living Smarter” campaign, including the website and banners, designed to attract the next generation of Roseville residents moving into the community.  Mr. LaPalm opined that opening C-2 was the antithesis of a living smarter campaign; and that opening C-2 would destroy his neighborhood.  Mr. LaPalm opined that the City Council has a fantastic opportunity to make sure “Living Smarter” is not just a campaign, but a guide to the future of Roseville; and that if they chose to open C-2, they needed to change the banner to show, similar to his mocked-up samples, the negatives of such an action, increasing traffic congestion similar to freeway congestion.  Mr. LaPalm noted that the traffic studies indicated there was no need for opening C-2, since east/west traffic was not now nor would it be higher in the future.


Stewart Shwiff, 1233 Josephine Road

Mr. Shwiff thanked the City Council for their due diligence in understanding the issues; and provided the history of C-2, opining that this 175’ of C-2 affected thousands of people daily, not just those living on that section; and spoke in support of opening C-2 to serve its intended purpose as a collector road, opening up C-2 for the best long-term interest of the greater Roseville community as a collector road.  Mr. Shwiff questioned why Josephine Road and other Roseville roads should be forced to carry C-2 traffic, when all were neighbors and had obligations to each other.  Mr. Shwiff noted that the “Share C-2” group had only asked throughout this discussion that Josephine Road residents be treated equitably.  Mr. Shwiff referenced his personal discussions with road crews trying to clear snow from the C-2 cul-de-sac; concerns of the retail community attempting to keep their business viable in the current economic market; and countless zoning changes made to keep Roseville moving forward.  In the aggregate, Mr. Shwiff opined that opening C-2 as a collector between Lexington and Hamline Avenues was the next step, and urged the City Council to make the right decision by opening C-2 in the most cost-effective way possible, by including it in the Josephine Woods redevelopment project.


Jeff Strobeck, 1297 County Road C-2

Mr. Strobeck opined that opening C-2 was not valid and not wanted, and summarized his comments made at previous meeting.  Mr. Strobeck opined that there was huge opposition to opening C-2 from C-2 and neighboring residents, represented by the 200 name petition the City Council has on file.  Mr. Strobeck advised that opening C-2 would serve to degrade safety and livability, increase traffic volumes, and was not a prudent use of funds during a time of declining property values and in a depressed economy; with the creation of another thoroughfare only further decreasing property values.  Mr. Strobeck paraphrased the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Households and Neighborhoods Section, Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 and 2.3.  Mr. Strobeck respectfully asked that the City Council vote “no” on opening C-2.


Donna Miliotis, 1128 County Road C-2

Ms. Miliotis noted the many opinions expressed tonight, but a lack of theme in using facts; and opined that much of the data used was now obsolete and had been replaced with Metropolitan Council data in 2007 and 2010 census data, superseding the 2005 data used in the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.  Ms. Miliotis opined that Roseville had retained a steady population, not an increase, nor a decrease as found in communities surrounding the City.  Ms. Miliotis further noted the increase in gas prices, decreased area traffic, and no significant support from the traffic studies that would support any need for an additional east/west connection over the next twenty years.  Ms. Miliotis questioned if there was any factual proof of a traffic volume or safety issue problem on Josephine Road or whether it was simply a perception issue.  Ms. Miliotis questioned what documented problem a C-2 connection would solve and how it would improve the C-2 neighborhood.   Ms. Miliotis opined that the goals established during the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee volunteers, had been made prior to this current economic climate; and advised that C-2 residents were middle-class and were not looking for ways to spend extra money, but were in reality dealing with the current economy, job loss and rapidly declining property values, and could not afford to take a gamble for an offset from new homes being built at Josephine Woods possibly increasing those home values.  Ms. Miliotis noted the previous hit to the neighborhood twenty years ago when the Lexington Apartments were built making that area the highest density area in Roseville; with the neighborhood managing to preserve the character of their neighborhood; but questioned if it could take another significant hit if C-2 were to open.  Ms. Miliotis respectfully asked that the City Council vacate the C-2 right-of-way and save what was left of their neighborhood.


Joan Carrier, 1040 West County Road C-2 (East of Lexington Avenue)

Ms. Carrier opined that this request was not City Council or City staff initiated, and asked that the City consider the environment by not pushing any more traffic through the City or allow some residents to push additional traffic onto other neighborhoods.  Ms. Carrier suggested that the City consider a comprehensive project review for the entire City, not a piecemeal approach.  Ms. Carrier noted that a lot of people, as well as wildlife, used the pathways on the east side of Lexington through the Open Space; and that it should be retained for safety.  Ms. Carrier questioned if Pulte Homes would support opening C-2 to through traffic when they were trying to market higher-end valued homes in Josephine Woods and opening C-2 may make it harder to market the homes at those higher values.  Ms. Carrier asked that, if the City Council voted to open C-2, they dovetail it with the already-in-progress Josephine Woods development.  Ms. Carrier opined that there may not be as much of a reduction in traffic on Josephine Road as people think, since only a short delay in commute time was projected, and people would probably revert back to their original routes.  Ms. Carrier opined that the largest cost was to the taxpayers, and that money should be used on things needed more important, as well as not adding to the increases already being faced by residents with significant increases to water and sewer fees; with this only adding yet another cost.


Mei Chen, 1144 County Road C-2

Ms. Chen urged the City Council to vote “no” to opening C-2; and to further permanently vacate the right-of-way that had never been constructed.  Ms. Chen noted, for the audience, that keeping C-2 closed was the request that maintained the status quo, with no additional tax monies being spent, and not creating any traffic problem now or in the future; as well as the recommendation of staff.  Ms. Chen opined that vacating the right-of-way was the right thing to do and would provide a permanent solution for homeowners near this segment and eliminate the periodic request of Josephine Road homeowners.  Ms. Chen opined that opening C-2 would serve to further reduce home values on C-2, with those residents having everything to lose through such an action, and nothing to win.  Ms. Chen opined that, either way, Josephine Road residents had nothing to lose.  Ms. Chen asked that the City Council make their decision based on factual data from the two traffic studies, and support C-2 homeowners and their heartfelt love of their homes and community, and that their neighborhood not be destroyed.


Ilene Stanley, 1456 Sexton Avenue W

Ms. Stanley noted that she was not a resident of the neighborhood; however, she did support opening C-2 for residents and those traversing the community who had difficulty finding their way through Roseville since so many of the streets weren’t connected and were only broken segments.  Ms. Stanley noted that she consistently deals with people turning around in her driveway when they realize a road doesn’t go through; and opined that the Josephine Woods redevelopment should have been used as a catalyst to open C-2.  Ms. Stanley reviewed the other options for east/west connectivity, and the difficulties with those routes. As the City continued to develop, Ms. Stanley opined that, for the betterment of the whole community, opening C-2 would increase access points across town; and was not specific to Josephine Road or C-2 residents; and was not a “we” against “them” situation, but simply part of the City as a whole continuing to develop.


Liz Harper 2068 Merrill Street

Ms. Harper referenced Councilmember Johnson’s comments from last week’s City Council meeting about the need for more east/west connections; however, after her review of the City’s online mapping system, she opined that she couldn’t find that concept compelling enough to open C-2 to through traffic.  Ms. Harper questioned if the City wanted to destroy a Roseville neighborhood to give commuters another east/west travel option, and guiding people away from businesses along County Road C.  Ms. Harper opined that there was no justification to destroying a neighborhood for that option.


Mitchell, Linda, 2852 Huron Street (4 houses south of county road c-2

If the point is to get additional east/west connectivity, Ms. Mitchell questioned why additional lanes weren’t added to County Road C, rather than this attempted solution.  Ms. Mitchell advised that there were congestion issues on County Road C, as well as in front of the High School, and since those were two main thoroughfares through the community, it didn’t make sense to her to not increase capacity on those two roads.  Ms. Mitchell further opined that Josephine Road was not unlike other metropolitan roads around a lake that experienced excessive traffic.


Patricia Rantanen, 2846 Churchhill Street

Ms. Rantanen advised that she had spoken to several City Councilmembers since last week’s meeting, and had some additional thoughts on design capacity standards on MSA roads, and whether they were set by the state.  Ms. Rantanen opined that, if C-2 were opened, it would totally disregard design standards for MSA roads.  Ms. Rantanen opined that it would cost approximately $1 million for a project to open C-2 safely; and that this was not in the budget, nor was it on any priority documents or resident survey documents.  Ms. Rantanen further opined that if this money was going to be spent that it be taken out of reserves; however, she spoke in support of using funds for projects that would benefit the greater community, such as walkability, through installation of sidewalks on those streets currently without them; and through addressing traffic congestion in front of Roseville Area High School – both better projects and uses of $1 million than this project.


Bob Henniker, 1241 County Road C-2

Mr. Henniker spoke in opposition to opening C-2; opining that there could be accidents on the steep hill on C-2 daily; and questioned why this issue kept coming up when he thought it was a dead issue.


Ms.  Siri Peterson (Husband: Tyler), 1020 West County Road C-2

Ms. Peterson noted the long-term family-owned home of her parents, and her family’s moving back into that home due to the quality of life in Roseville from its educational facilities and other amenities.  However, Ms. Peterson advised that her one frustration was the City Council allowing this issue to continue as long as it had, serving to create further neighborhood battles.  While hearing people say they wanted to “share,” Ms. Peterson opined that they weren’t doing so; and through their blatant wearing of red for solidarity tonight, it served as additional evidence supporting their unwillingness to share.  Ms. Peterson opined that, if opening C-2 was the right decision, it would have been made by now; and even though money was spent on traffic studies supporting not opening C-2, the City and neighborhoods seemed to be stuck in a parliamentary procedure quagmire, even though there was a clear consensus that opening C-2 was not the right solution. Ms. Peterson opined that there were other things that needed to be considered to address the shared issues and concerns: speed issues and home value depreciation all beyond whether the road opens or not.  Ms. Peterson opined that this ongoing debate about opening C-2 didn’t seem like a solution, and on paper, it didn’t look like a solution.


Chuck Stokes, 2825 North Griggs Street

Mr. Stokes, after listening to comments this evening, questioned if the City of Roseville was “living smarter,” or “stuck on stupid.”  Mr. Stokes opined that there were other common sense solutions on Josephine Road that would not destroy the C-2 neighborhood, even though he had no opinion one way or the other on whether to open C-2 or not.  Mr. Stokes disagreed with Ms. Bloom’s previous comment that installing a stop sign didn’t make people stop; opining that City of St. Paul neighborhoods were a prime example, with stop signs every two blocks to meet current traffic needs and moving forward from past practices and habits.  Mr. Stokes opined that the idea of opening C-2 without exploring methods to deter or slow traffic off Josephine road proved a fine example of “stuck on stupid;” and suggested that whether the final decision was to open C-2 or not, that the City Council stop deliberations and decision-making for now and determine what options were available to divert traffic to streets where it should be, like B-2 and C, and other streets not running directly through neighborhoods.  Mr. Stokes advised that he didn’t want Josephine Road to have any additional traffic; however, he expressed his confidence that if the Councilmembers put their heads together, they could test various options, since he wasn’t confident that opening C-2 will solve the problem. Mr. Stokes opined that by reviewing other alternatives and possibilities, the City Council would be “living smarter;” and further opined that Roseville should not be a pass-through community, whether it was convenient or not.  Mr. Stokes opined that, if you live here long enough, you figure out how to get along; and further opined that by the City Council taking a step back to see if the problem on Josephine Road could be solved, it wouldn’t hurt anything; and it if worked, it could be used in other neighborhoods facing similar issues.  Mr. Stokes opined that it would avoid future frustration in the future in this issue continuing to surface.


Amy Robinson, 2011 Josephine Road

Ms. Robinson asked the City Council to make a courageous vote for the future or Roseville, not just today, by voting “yes’ to open C-2 to attract those younger families being sought in the community.


Ms. Nilanjana Baneroi, 1303 W County Road C-2

Ms. Baneroi opined that, if C-2 opens up, it will change their family’s lifestyle and that of their pets, who are used to the cul-de-sac; and further opined that their option would be to move away, an option available to their family, but not to all families seeking another cul-de-sac to live on.  Before voting tonight, Ms. Baneroi encouraged Councilmembers to think deeply about their decision.


Mayor Roe closed public comment and this time and thanked everyone for their comments.  After a brief recess, Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would return for deliberation on the issue.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:54 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:03 pm.

Staff response to public questions

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom responded to questions from the public.

·         Related to the number of lanes on County Road C, Ms. Bloom advised that when County Road C was constructed, the project design was for a five lane road, since county construction projects were done about every 100 years, and the thought process to build it up to a five lane capacity if found needed in the future.  Ms. Bloom advised that, with few exceptions, and those mostly the result of backups on Highway 36, Ms. Bloom opined that traffic on C moved pretty well with the current design between Hamline and Lexington Avenues.

·         Related to MSA design standards, Ms. Bloom noted the solutions as presented by staff to the City Council were not changing those design standards, but providing mitigation design options, mostly through additional signage.  In order to qualify as an MSA designated street, or requested by staff to be included on the list of MSA designated streets, Ms. Bloom advised that those streets needed to have higher traffic volumes and serve as collectors.  Ms. Bloom concurred that the C-2 disconnect designated as a collector street was based on the right-of-way connection of the two segments, since the plat went in, and even with the Lexington Apartment development, the right-of-way continued to be dedicated for that future connection.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Ms. Bloom responded to public questioned related to environmental issues and a process or procedure for development projects, through those projects meeting certain thresholds to determine if an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was required to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was indicated.  Ms. Bloom advised that neither a C-2 project would nor the Josephine Woods development project had triggered that threshold.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff had checked with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to see if the Josephine Woods project met those thresholds; with Ms. Bloom deferring to the City Attorney for a response.


City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi concurred that, to his knowledge, thresholds for the Josephine Woods project had not been met, nor would they be met for this 175’ segment of roadway.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom advised that, as part of the feasibility and design stages, if and when a project was ordered by the City Council, staff would proceed through that assessment process, including environmental steps, as a statutory requirement of that Chapter 429 process.


Mayor Roe questioned the process for environmental review should the City Council order a project and decide to fund it other than through assessments; with Ms. Bloom responding that, while staff would review all the issues in a comparable process, it would not be required through a state-mandated process.


While other projects were discussed to determine their similarities and whether environmental thresholds were triggers, Councilmember McGehee opined that those other examples were not in areas with a DNR wetland immediately adjacent to them.

Council Discussion

Mayor Roe summarized the options available to the City Council, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 17, 2011; and sought individual City Councilmember comment.


Councilmember Willmus provided a background of his thought process throughout this entire discussion from 1989 when the Lexington Apartments and K-Mart discussion were going on through George Reiling development companies; and his thought that the development of 350 units for the Lexington Apartments was too intense of a use of that parcel.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the existence of those uses today resulted from those discussions, with single-family homes built along the C-2 right-of-way and cul-de-sac, and high-density housing and the small commercial strip adjacent to Woodhill.  At that time, Councilmember Willmus opined that the genesis of the idea was created with the perception that the street would be vacated without retaining the right-of-way.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this was not true, since a condition of the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement with Mr. Reiling was that, if the City chose to vacate the right-of-way, Mr. Reiling would not contest that vacation.  Ultimately, Councilmember Willmus advised, the motion to vacate the right-of-way failed on a 3/2 vote of the City Council, and the right-of-way remained in existence yet today; with the intents of the C-2 design by Ramsey County for the it to be completed in phases over time, with eventual connection of C-2 to move traffic east/west from Snelling Avenue to Victoria Street.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the issue continued to come up today, and periodically since 1989: whether to open C-2 or not.  Prior to the most recent traffic study, Councilmember Willmus stated that he thought that opening up C-2 was absolutely the right thing to do.

After receiving the most recent traffic study, and mitigation options and scenarios in that study, Councilmember Willmus advised that it wasn’t completely apparent to him that this was something that those individuals affected would have a voice in. Councilmember Willmus noted this was a concern. In his continuing analysis of the traffic study and overall city-wide and regional traffic issues, as well as the conclusions drawn from the traffic study, Councilmember Willmus stated that it became apparent to him that connecting C-2 would serve to improve traffic flow for the area.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the traffic study showed 300 vehicle trips per day that would utilize C-2 over Woodhill or Josephine Road for access to the neighborhood.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the traffic study showed that connecting C-2 would not have a significant impact on area intersections, and that a connected C-2 was more efficient, better for the environment, and able to move cars from point a to b in a more efficient manner. 


While not taking the initiative to lead the charge, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council owed it to the community to find a resolution to this ongoing issue: whether by opening C-2 or by vacating the right-of-way; and personally opined that C-2 should be opened, and if consensus was that it not be opened, he intended to put forward a motion to vacate the C-2 right-of-way.


Councilmember Pust noted her interest in Councilmember Willmus’ reference to the traffic study and the residents who had also poured over it to find support for their positions.  However, Councilmember Pust expressed her frustration that the study area had not been larger to include County Road C, the only east/west connector in that area; but in retrospect took responsibility for it not being larger, since staff had only done what the City Council directed them to do.  Councilmember Pust opined that this would address traffic concerns on County Road C; and opined that she wasn’t too concerned with traffic on Josephine Road, but she was with County Road C based on her observations from her daily commute on County Road C, indicating that traffic had not decreased as stated during public comment. 


Based on the limitations of the study, however unfortunate, Councilmember Pust noted that the City was where they were today; however, she agreed with another public speaker who said the City Council needed to “do something,” and not keep kicking the can down the road.


Councilmember McGehee, as a supporter of safe neighborhoods, expressed her belief that disconnected streets served to enhance that safety; and based on her review of maps, opined that there were more than enough east/west and north/south connections within and throughout the City.  Based on the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t support the perception that opening C-2 would alleviate existing problems on Josephine Road, or perceived problems; and concurred with the public comment that there is no problem at all in reality, since none of the studies documented any problem.   Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council was actually dealing with a neighborhood request to open a street as a supposed and possible solution to a problem they believe they have in having more traffic on their street than they believe they should have or studies support.  Whether that is a fact or not, however, Councilmember McGehee opined that Josephine Road was carrying less traffic than it is built to carry; and actually less than many roads in Roseville are currently carrying.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t believe County Road C-2 should be opened; and thought the City should “live smarter,” citing the difference temporarily closing Wheeler Avenue had made, and read written testimony from a resident on Wheeler to that effect.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that some neighborhoods, like the residents on C-2 and people with young families, should remain neighborhoods and kept safe.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of asking Ramsey County to widen County Road C, allowing it to become a larger collector; and also supported talking about other alternatives to address traffic and speeding issues.  When she was originally contacted about traffic and speeding problems on Josephine Road, Councilmember McGehee noted that she had suggested a number of alternatives to alleviate those issues on Josephine Road; however, she was met with comments that those suggestions would prove “inconvenient” to Josephine Road residents.


Councilmember McGehee opined that any efforts to balance traffic were not viable, given the construction of the Pulte Homes development at Josephine Woods, which already provided a link between Lexington Avenue and C-2 with Hamline Avenue; even though that route is slower and more difficult, it could still be accomplished.


Councilmember Johnson observed that this had been a lengthy process for residents and the City Council; and recognized that everyone was passionate and sincere about their homes, their sense of community, and their neighborhoods; all of which had touched him.  However, Councilmember Johnson noted that he was also touched by the other 33,000 voters in the community and their needs. 


While remaining sensitive to the passion about County Road C-2 and Josephine Road concerns, Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Pust’s observations and conclusions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee previously referenced on the serious traffic congestion during peak hours resulting from Highway 36 commuter traffic and difficulty in getting traffic through Roseville from east to west, resulting in that traffic disseminating into neighborhood streets.  Councilmember Johnson advised that with C-2 not being connected, it created one less east/west connector at a key point of the day that he would like to have available, and opined was needed. 


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Pust’s regrets that the most recent traffic study didn’t reflect traffic coming off Highway 36 during peak points of the day.  Councilmember Johnson stated that this was a difficult decision, as he had friends in the community on both sides of the issue; creating a lot of stress in making a decision.  However, Councilmember Johnson stated that he needed to look at the need of the greater community; and what C-2 was initially designed to do: handle traffic from Hamline Avenue to Victoria Street; and advised that he could not understand the disconnect.


Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Johnson that this had been a difficult issue for all Councilmembers to work through.  As a technical person and engineer, Mayor Roe stated that he could understand the Ramsey County grid system for the road when initial work was done, with C-2 being one of those connectors.  Mayor Roe advised that he also understood current realities, with C-2 not making the connection across the City.  However, Mayor Roe noted other similar roads with obstacles, whether Lake Owasso, the Twin Lakes Area, Snelling Avenue north/south traffic during peak hours, that are also a reality.


Mayor Roe noted opined that, if done correctly from the beginning, C-2 should have been connected; however, he needed to keep in mind his philosophy as an elected official to “do no harm.”  While the level of actual harm may be debatable for the overall community, Mayor Roe opined that opening C-2 would create significant change to one neighborhood; and questioned how he would respond if it were his neighborhood.  Mayor Roe opined that neighborhoods in Roseville were very important, and that while safe streets are also of high value, the City needed to make sure that less value was not assigned to neighborhoods versus streets. 


Mayor Roe noted that it may be necessary to look at restriping County Road C, since it was built to address future traffic issues; and noted his understanding that the backups were created from Highway 36 congestions that impacted east/west road, of which the City had several; they all took that impact as well.  In an effort to consider solutions seriously in terms of not continuing to be “stupid,” Mayor Roe suggested discussions with MnDOT on solutions for Highway 36 in the first place.  Mayor Roe noted that MnDOT was currently studying the feasibility of high occupancy vehicle lanes (bus lanes); and that a park and ride facility  was underway in Little Canada at Rice Street and Highway 36 to address westbound traffic before if got to Roseville.  Mayor Roe opined that those mitigation efforts should be reviewed before looking at opening C-2.  If between Hamline and Victoria, Mayor Roe questioned if he’d use C-2; and questioned if the benefit of opening C-2 was a reality or only a perception, even as much as it had been advertised.  Mayor Roe noted that costs don’t weight the benefits from a county-wide view; and the traffic study indications that only 5% of the vehicle traffic between Lexington and Hamline on County Road C would divert to County Road C-2.  Mayor Roe reiterated that there were other ways to be explored to handle that issue beyond opening C-2 and to address that diversion.


Councilmember Pust reviewed her understanding of the most recent traffic study, excluding County Road C traffic, and the 800 vehicles estimated from the regional traffic study using County Road C. 

Councilmember Pust opined that she had learned from the public that reasonable people could and would differ, especially when talking about their homes, neighborhoods and families.  Councilmember Pust expressed her hope that residents remembered that and admitted it to themselves; opining that it was important for everyone to keep that in mind.  Councilmember Pust clarified that she and fellow Councilmembers served only because they, like other residents, cared about their communities, not to make enemies of their neighbors.  However, Councilmember Pust recognized that half of the audience would leave tonight mad, while the other half would be happy; and asked that, at some point, they remembered that the democratic process was the best process available, allowing opportunities for residents to express themselves; as the City Council had professionally and politely listened to comments on both sides. 


Councilmember Pust admitted that some of the concerns she’d heard had made sense to her, while others did not; and noted that the statement that this issue was brought forward by citizens, not the City Council or staff, was the most appropriate process and a positive thing.  Councilmember Pust noted that a lot of issues brought to the City Council were related to neighborhood traffic; and while not living on County Road C at Dale Street, she did drive it, and that area was safer now because those citizens came forward, for the betterment of the entire community, in seeking the safety mitigation improvements.  Councilmember Pust also noted that concerns voices and taken into consideration from citizens living in apartments at Highway 36 and Rice and their concerns about sight lines and impacts to their property values.  As a City Council, Councilmember Pust noted that they took those concerns into their deliberations and actions; and noted that those residents in that area also took a hit for the entire community in dealing with those changes.  While many other examples were available, Councilmember Pust advised that Councilmembers as individuals and collectively had to wade through all of the issues; while neighbors in attendance had come to represent their personal or neighborhood views with a common bond, which was also appropriate.


While a project to connect County Road C-2 was indeed not budgeted as brought up by a speaker earlier tonight, Councilmember Pust noted that a lot of things not included on the City’s line item budget were done; and noted that the City had available to it MSA funds if they wanted to use it to defer other projects already listed as higher priorities.  Councilmember Pust noted that no one was supporting raising taxes to do such a project.


Councilmember Pust strongly disagreed with the argument expressed by some that additional traffic wasn’t wanted in their neighborhood and should be left on other streets; while noting that residents of those neighborhoods feel that they’re already doing their share and taking enough of the burden.  Councilmember Pust opined that the real concern expressed, that opening C-2 would significantly change their neighborhood and change traffic levels and patterns if opened, would be accurate.  Councilmember Pust opined that those residents would need to make a decision on what they intended to do about those changes, such as needing to retrain their children and/or pets, just as others have done or will need to do.


Regarding what problem this is solving, Councilmember Pust opined that opening C-2 would serve to solve a community-wide traffic problem in Roseville, which was part of the City Council’s job to solve; and that this particular traffic problem had to do with there not being enough east/west connectors to move traffic, and since C-2 was intended to be connected, it made sense to her to connect it.


Councilmember Pust opined that such action would also address the increasing traffic on County Road C, recognizing that it was probably caused by Highway 36 congestion, but further opined that the City Council could not solve all problems everywhere by simply putting up barriers like it had done on Wheeler.   Councilmember Pust opined that this issue was not about commuters from neighboring suburbs from using Roseville streets; this was about getting Roseville traffic to work better. 


Councilmember Pust noted, in her review of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the huge improvements planned for neighborhood parks in this area, which would be funded by the entire community; and how unfair it would be to the overall community of Roseville to ask them to invest in those parks, while not providing a way to access those community assets.



In the best long-term efforts of the City Councilmember Pust moved, and Councilmember Willmus seconded, to connect County Road C-2, as detailed in Scenario One (connect roadways between Griggs and Dunlap Street) in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 17, 2011; to do so in this fiscal, not necessarily calendar, year at the discretion of staff and as logistically possible; to use Minnesota State Aid (MSA)-designated funds for this project; to install a concrete sidewalk at the additional costs as outlined on page 3 of the RCA; that the project be paid through MSA funds with no assessment to adjoining property owners; that stop signs be installed as needed; AND that the project be coordinated with the Pulte Homes development to extent possible and feasible and if not logistically possible, that the project be done or completed in 2012.


At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the fiscal year, Ms. Bloom responded that the state funds were based on the calendar year, ending December 31, 2011; creating the need to proceed into 2012.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support this motion; and concurred with Mayor Roe in “doing no harm;” and to leave things as they are served to “do no harm.  Councilmember McGhee opined that there was no need to harm the existing neighborhood; and no benefit to the larger community.  Based on her 30 year experience as a Roseville resident, Councilmember McGehee opined that she had not seen a traffic increase, and actually thought it was decreasing, even without the current push for more transit options, and future needs for less vehicular traffic.   Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no need to do this at this time; and that if Councilmember Pust was not satisfied with the funding and study that she had proposed, and her alleging that the City Council had not done its due diligence, it only served as further evidence that the City Council should do nothing, since there was nothing to indicate that the overall community needed this connection.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission was currently studying traffic management throughout the City, as well as the Public Works Department work plan currently evaluating and rating all city streets.  If anything was done, Councilmember McGehee opined that the most reasonable thing to do would be to delay or defer action to let those groups complete their work and make a recommendation to the City Council with those comprehensive plans, never done to-date in Roseville.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no reason to rush into this, and no need to do any harm; but that C-2 should remain closed, with the City not vacating its right-of-way.


Mayor Roe stated that he couldn’t agree with Councilmember McGehee more in finding fault with the study, but then proceeding without further study.  Mayor Roe opined that this bothered him; and while he might have been supporting of proposing area people time to adjust their lives or rearrange them accordingly in a certain amount of time, he could not support doing so immediately, when the evaluations as referenced by Councilmember McGehee were in process, and this action was seeking to move forward without the benefit of that analysis in place. 


Mayor Roe opined that he was very concerned with not taking into account increased lanes on County Road C, since it had been built accordingly, in addition to the things happening with Highway 36 that he had referenced that would address impacts to traffic on other east/west connectors and related areas.  Mayor Roe stated that he was unable to support the motion as currently stated. 


Councilmember Pust reiterated that she respected the differing views of all parties, whether those citizens in the audience or at the dais; and asked that Councilmembers vote their conscious.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; and Pust.

Nays: McGehee and Roe.

Motion Carried.


Mayor Roe thanked the audience and those speaking tonight; and asked that the neighborhood make efforts to connect with each other and work together.  Mayor Roe asked that any additional comments be taken up with Councilmembers outside the meeting; or during the Public Comment portion of future meeting agendas.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:58 p.m.


17.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discussion on the Use of the City Port Authority

Finance Director Chris Miller and Mary L. Ippel, Briggs and Morgan, City Bond Counsel, were present for this item and in response to specific questions raised by the City Council and the public at the October 10, 2011 City Council meeting.


Mr. Miller noted that the agenda packet included a letter dated September 29, 2011 from Ms. Ippel to City staff, and specifically referenced Section 1.(c) of page two on Port Authority descriptions and implementation in this case; with staff’s recommendations in accordance with that statutory authority.  Mr. Miller advised that Ms. Ippel would respond to additional questions beyond those addressed in the letter.


Councilmember McGehee asked if the City had been granted Port Authority powers.


Mary L. Ippel, Briggs and Morgan, City Bond Counsel

Ms. Ippel responded that the powers were not as a separate legal entity, but that the City itself was granted the powers that would otherwise rest with a port authority.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if, under that arrangement, the City could establish as separate body.


Ms. Ippel stated that, no, the City only had the powers of a Port Authority, specific to the City Council, as part of legislations in the 1980’s for a number of cities requesting that power to establish or given those use of those powers; with different legislation drafted that either allowed the City to establish Port Authority or granted those powers; and in the City of Roseville’s case, the City was granted Port Authority powers.


Councilmember Pust asked for the historical context in which Roseville asked for that power.


Ms. Ippel responded that, while she was unsure of the specific project at the time, the City requested those powers and the legislature granted it in many cases.  Ms. Ippel advised that, to her knowledge, 1990 was the first time the City utilized it with the NCR Comten project, for financial assistance to retain and add jobs; and also to purchase land that was used for parks.  Ms. Ippel noted that as part of that first Port Authority project in Roseville, the City had also adopted a Redevelopment Plan and developed into parks and in 1991, that area was enlarged and the City put together a loan program for the purpose of providing rehabilitative improvements to single-family and multi-family housing in the City, using its Port Authority powers and incorporating redevelopment powers under the State’s HRA law.


Mayor Roe confirmed that this was prior to the City establishing its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); which was estimated by Councilmember Pust to be established in approximately 2003.


Ms. Ippel advised that the City’s HRA also had powers as well as the City Council under the HRA powers and under its mission under Port Authority law.


Councilmember Willmus questioned what the City’s overall bonding capacity was, given its current outstanding debt.


Mr. Miller responded that the City could issue up to $89 million worth of debt, based on its taxable level under State Statute.


Ms. Ippel noted that this bond issue under Port Authority would be excluded from the City’s debt limit, or any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived, with revenues generated from recreational facilities not taken into account.  Ms. Ippel noted, for example, that the City Hall didn’t count against the City’s debt capacity, since it didn’t generate revenue; and even a fire station is a public convenience even though revenue can be received.  In Minnesota, Ms. Ippel advised that more important and what controlled the debt was how the rating agencies took into consideration how much debt a City should have rather than how much the City could finance.


Councilmember Pust questioned what those rating agencies think a city should have in debt.


Mr. Miller responded that there was no straight answer, given a number of variables, and while he would never recommend that the City carry $89 million in debt, the City’s debt load would be a factor, based on the City’s ability to repay that debt over the next 20-30 years as rating agencies reviewed the City now and in the future.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller responded that the City currently had $11 million in debt.


Councilmember Pust noted that this was before the additional $19 million and $8 million; with Mr. Miller responding that this was true, however to bear in mind that the City would continue to pay down those debts, even though they would spike in three years, but then continue to diminish.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification on the difference in General Obligation (GO) bonds issued under or not under the City’s Port Authority; with Mr. Miller advising that a straight GO bond was about as straightforward for a bond issue as possible, and had fewer administrative and upfront costs as other issues, such as found with a Park Abatement Bond.


As staff responded to City Council directive to issue bonds and to do so without a voter referendum, Mr. Miller advised that staff reviewed all options and returned with this recommendation as previously outlined in staff reports, and in Ms. Ippel’s letter.


Ms. Ippel clarified reverse referendum disparities and requirements of this proposed bond issue at the request of Councilmember McGehee; and questions of Councilmember Pust related to categories covered by Port Authority laws and circumstances allowing the City to use those powers.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff had met the official notice requirements for holding the Public Hearing at the October 24, 2011 meeting; with Mr. Miller responding affirmatively; and at the request of Mayor Roe, confirming that the purpose of the bond issue had been included in that official notice.


Mayor Roe asked if there was anything preventing the City from holding public comment on each $10 million issue over the course of the process; while recognizing the statutory requirement of holding the initial Public Hearing on October 24, 2011; and thus allowing public comment along the way.


Mr. Miller advised that the public could speak and the City Council solicit feedback at any public meeting; and reviewed the purpose behind the upcoming Public Hearing prior to the three (3) actions the City Council will be considering and asked to take action on next week.  Mr. Miller advised that those actions would be: to establish or confirm the City’s Port Authority powers; to set a bond sale date; and to amend the Redevelopment Plan.


Mayor Roe recommended establishing formal public hearing procedures for each of the three additional scheduled issuance dates; with staff directed to duly note this directive.



Pust moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to memorialize the directive to provide a formal Public Hearing and public comment opportunity for each bond issuance moving forward.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Further discussion among Mr. Miller, Ms. Ippel and Councilmembers included the need to get this process completed by December 31, 2011 to ensure the bond issue was bank qualified.

Public Comment


John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed his concern with tonight’s discussion, and his clarification with Ms. Ippel prior to that discussion on whether the issue was based on net tax capacity or market value, with the issue being based on net tax capacity, which would provide a payback schedule leaning more toward commercial than straight market value for balance.


Ms. Ippel clarified that the law had in the past always been based on net tax capacity, until modified to say if an election, the levy was based on market value, which had been subsequently repealed; with all General Obligation bonds now based on tax capacity.


Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed concern that the City actually had Port Authority powers, based on his review of the laws that he’d distributed at last week’s meeting; and further concerns that the City could use that power to issue bonds in the future without ever seeking to do so based on a voter referendums.  Mr. Kysylyczyn suggested that this meant that, essentially, voter referendums in the City of Roseville will no longer be required, and optional in the future; creating a brand new public policy affecting the City as long as these statutes remain in effect.  Mr. Kysylyczyn cautioned that this could mean that three members of the City Council, with little public notice, could take the City into indebtedness; a dangerous and precedent-setting change for the City.


18.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


19.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


a.            Councilmember McGehee Request to Discuss Requirements Relating to Fire Sprinklers and Handicapped Accessibility when Buildings are being Rehabilitated

As previously noted, this item will be brought forward for discussion at a later date.


Councilmember Pust requested future agenda discussion about the administrative piece of the annual budget as it relates to the recent contract with Ramsey County to administer elections; and other budget changes that may or may not affect that portion of the City‘s organization.


Recess and Reconvene in Executive Session

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed statutory authority for the City Council to hold closed meetings to consider strategies for employee labor negotiations, accepted under the Open Meeting Law, with discussions limited to those confines.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, recessing the meeting at approximately 9:35 p.m. to move into Closed Executive Session to consider strategies for labor negotiations, in accordance with Minnesota Statute §13D.03 of the Open Meeting Law.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 9:40 PM. 


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to recess the Closed Executive Session and reconvene the meeting in Open Session in the City Hall Maple Room at approximately 10:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering a motion to extend the meeting past the 10:00 PM curfew.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Open Session


Motion to Extend Meeting (10:00 p.m.)

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to extend the meeting 15 minutes.


 Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Motion to Return to Closed Session


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to recess the Open Session and return to a Closed Executive Session to continue discussion of strategies for labor negotiations.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Closed Discussion of Strategies for Labor Negotiations


Mayor Roe re-convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 10:00 pm. 


Motion to Adjourn Closed Session

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to adjourn the Closed Executive Session at 10:25 pm.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Closed Executive Session participants included Mayor Roe, Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus, Johnson and Pust, City Attorney Bartholdi, City Manager Malinen and Human Resources Manager Bacon.


16. Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the regular meeting at approximately 10:25 pm.


            Roll Call

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

Nays: None.