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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 23, 2012


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 April: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.  Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 6:10 pm.


2.         Approve Agenda

Staff advised that Business Item 12.b entitled “Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1770 Stanbridge” be removed as it had been resolved earlier today.

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Agenda items 7. g, h, i, and j, respectively entitled, “Approve a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District for the 2012 Pavement Management Project;” “Approve a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District for the 2007 Pavement Management Project;” Approve Affinity Plus Encroachment Agreement;” and “Consider an Extension of the Time Limit to Make a Decision Regarding the  Citizen Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed Wal-Mart Store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue.”


Mayor Roe announced a Closed Executive Session immediately following tonight’s interview for the purpose of discussion of litigation subject to attorney/client privilege.


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

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.      

            Nays: None.

Interview Applicants for Police Civil Service Commission

Councilmembers interviewed Mr. Brad Vandervegt for a vacancy on the Police Civil Service Commission.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to appoint Brad Vandervegt to the vacancy on the Police Civil Service Commission for a term ending March 31, 2015.


 Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


Closed Executive Session

City Attorney Mark Gaughan noted that under State Statute, Section 13.D, a meeting may be closed to discuss litigation strategy.  Mr. Gaughan advised that the discussion would be related to litigation regarding bond issuance and results of a Court of Appeals decision earlier today.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, moving into Closed Executive Session at 6:15 p.m., under State Statute, Section 13.D, for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy regarding the City’s issuance of bonds through its Port Authority powers, and results of a Court of Appeals decision earlier today.


Roll Call

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

          Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the Roseville City Council in closed executive session at approximately 6:18 pm.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan, Bond Counsel Scott Knudson, City Manager Malinen, and Finance Director Miller were also present.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded adjourning the closed executive session at approximately 6:48 pm and returning to open session.


Roll Call

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

          Nays: None.


Mayor Roe reconvened the City Council meeting in regular session at 6:54 p.m.; advising that the purpose of the Closed Executive Session was to discuss strategy for pending litigation between the City of Roseville v. Responsive Governance for Roseville. 


For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Roe announced that a petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had been filed on Monday, April 16, 2012; and that this would create a delay in the City Council’s consideration of plat approval for the proposed Wal-Mart development until the EAW had been addressed.  Until that time, Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would not take that issue up; and noted that the City Council, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) had up to thirty (30) days to determine the validity of the petition; and anticipated that the City Council may have the issue before it at one of their May meetings.  However, Mayor Roe advised that the normal means of communication would be used to keep the public alert to the situation.


3.         Public Comment

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


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

Mayor Roe announced Roseville’s semi-annual clean-up day scheduled for Saturday, April 28, 2012; with material drop off at the Central Park entrance off Dale Street from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm.


City Manager Malinen, assisted by Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt, the recently-held Earth Day event held at the Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC) continuing as a “zero waste” event for the firth year.  Mr. Pratt noted that this year held the lowest waste generated for any event serving food, with only 5.5% of the materials being waste, or 2 lbs., 14 oz. collected from trash, with several hundred people attending.


Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Johnson had left the meeting briefly due to health issues; but anticipated returning shortly.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.            Proclaim May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of Asian Pacific Americans, and celebrating the inclusion of all people in building a better future for the citizens of Roseville, MN.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in the City of Roseville.


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.


b.            Proclaim Police Week and May 15, 2012 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring the week of May 13 to 19, 2012, as National Police Week in the City of Roseville; commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens.  The Proclamation further declared May 15, 2012 as Peace officers’ Memorial Day in honor of law enforcement officers who, through their courageous deeds, have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community, or have become disabled in the performance of duty, and recognizing and paying respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming Police Week, and May 15, 2012, as Peace Officer’s Memorial Day in the City of Roseville.


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of April 16, 2012 Meeting

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 16, 2012 meeting as presented.


                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

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


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


65962 – 66056





Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:


Type of License

Bodyflow Massage, LLC; 2819 Hamline Avenue N

Suite 112

Massage Therapy


Xay May Khaoone, at Bodyflow Massage, LLC

Massage Therapist


Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

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

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented in detail on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated  April 23, 2012.







Upper Cut Tree Service

Blanket P. O. for tree removal from boulevards and City rights-of-way


P & R

Upper Cut Tree Service

Blanket P. O. for tree removal in City parks



Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


d.            Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 update

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly staff update of Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long Term Goals as presented.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


e.            Receive Shared Services Report

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly staff update of shared services as presented.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


f.             Receive Grant Application Report

Mayor Roe noted a change and potential formatting error for this report since December of 2009 and June of 2010 with the “City Council Approval” the same column used for “Approval Date;” and suggested staff review for future presentations.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly staff update of grant applications as presented.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


g.         Approve a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District for the 2012 Pavement Management Project (PMP)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated April 23, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee requested clarification for this item, as well as the next item, on whether the agreement ran with the land.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned if agreements were in place between the City and citizens who were encouraged to develop rain gardens, especially if they were in City rights-of-way and whether they were aware of those stipulations.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that, when such facilities were constructed, whether requested by a property owner or a joint venture between them and the City, and if on private property, a five (5) year agreement was one of the requirements.  While such facilities are sometimes constructed on private property, Mr. Schwartz noted that both of these facilities were on public property.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern with liability for the private property owner versus the City in perpetuity for maintenance; and questioned what happened at the end of the five (5) year agreement, since most required ongoing maintenance.


Mr. Schwartz advised that the overall goal was to improve water quality; and noted that the City continued to oversee maintenance of such facilities; and he only foresaw a private property owner taking over maintenance responsibility if the City vacated the right-of-way.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Maintenance Agreement (Attachment A) for stormwater management facilities between Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Roseville for the 2012 Pavement Management Project.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


h.         Approve a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District for the 2007 Pavement Management Project (PMP)

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Maintenance Agreement (Attachment A) for stormwater management facilities between Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Roseville for the 2007 Pavement Management Project.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.


            i.          Approve Affinity Plus Credit Union Encroachment Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated April 23, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee referenced Attachment A to the report; and questioned the location of this encroachment.


Using the site plan, Public Works Director Schwartz clarified the location of the easement over a portion of existing sanitary and storm sewer running the length of the property adjacent to the north property line; both located approximately ten feet (10’)  apart; and proposed to be located partially under their parking lot as well as under a portion of their drive-through canopy.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was the possibility in the future that City would need to dig remove any portion of the Affinity parking lot or a portion of the retaining wall.


Mr. Schwartz noted that this was always a possibility, as with any easement.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that current technologies provided for options for pipe repair beyond digging them up; and thus language included in the Agreement for the property owner to assume cost-share responsibilities under the terms of this agreement.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the Agreement had been drafted, and reviewed, by the City Attorney to ensure that the language covered any liability for the City.


Councilmember Johnson returned to the meeting at approximately 7:15 p.m.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Affinity Plus Credit Union Encroachment Agreement (Attachment A).

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


j.          Consider an Extension to the Time Limit to Make a Decision Regarding the Citizen Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed Wal-Mart Store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated April 23, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee sought assurances that the plat currently before the City Council was associated with the Wal-Mart project as one complete unit, and that there was nothing else hanging out there.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that, under Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) – in this case the City of Roseville – was prohibited from taking any action on preliminary plats pending petition review.


Mayor Roe clarified that the original action coming before the City Council had been consideration of the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Wal-Mart development project.


McGehee moved, Pust seconded, granting the City of Roseville, as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) pertaining to the citizens’ petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Wal-Mart store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, an additional fifteen (15) business days to decide whether the requested EAW is to be required.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


a.            Accept 2011 Audit Report and Financial Statements

Finance Director Chris Miller introduced Mr. Matt Mayer from the firm of Kern, DeWenter, Viere (KDV) to provide an overview of the 2011 Annual Financial Report, as well as the audit process itself and any required disclosure and/or findings.


Materials referenced included: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011; Reports on Compliance with Government Auditing Standards OMB Circular A-133 Single Audit and Legal Compliance for and Management Letter for the year ended December 31, 2011.  For the benefit of the audience and the listening public, Mr. Mayer advised that discussion items from the report would be displayed as a Power Point.


Mr. Mayer acknowledged Finance Director Chris Miller and Assistant Finance Director Brenda Davitt for their assistance before, during and after the annual audit.  Mr. Mayer reviewed Audit Findings and Recommendations regarding financial controls; including Prior Period Adjustments and Current Year Legal Compliance Findings.


Councilmember Pust sought clarification, with Mr. Mayer and Mr. Miller responding, regarding budgeted versus actual expenditures in the General Fund and a reasonable variance range of 2-4% on the conservative side, with the City of Roseville’s range at approximately 4% over on the revenue side and 5% under on the expense side; and how those contingencies compared to the City’s Fund Balance Policy.


Mr. Mayer noted that, based on recommendations of the State Auditor’s Office, best practices for reserves was between 35-50%, this contingency was advised due to the most significant stream received through property tax levies, with that first settlement in June, causing municipalities to use up their reserves within the first six (6) months of a year; and requiring a fund balance sufficient to stand on its own.


Councilmember Pust noted that the City’s reserves seemed to be high at 51%. 


Mr. Mayer clarified that the City’s actual liquid or discretionary position overall was approximately 43% (referenced on Page 28 of the Comprehensive Financial Statement) with a total fund balance at $6.2 million, and incorporating some legally restricted funds of $5.91 million and the remainder unassigned fund balances.


Mr. Miller noted that the City’s current fund balance policy was 45%; however, he noted that contractual services to other cities were included in the General Fund and those dollars were set aside for those services to accommodate fluctuations from year to year.


Councilmember Pust questioned if those dollars took into consideration any of those contracts going away (e.g. City of Arden Hills Engineering services); with Mr. Miller clarifying that the contract was still in place; and that any accumulation of surplus funds would be assigned to engineering services allowing latitude for contracts with other communities and those fluctuations.


At the request of Councilmember Pust on how much the City contracted out on an annual basis, Mr. Miller and Mr. Schwartz responded that the amount was approximately $350,000, and that the City currently had double that. 


Noting that the $500,000 that was referenced by Councilmember Pust was carried forward based on City Council actions in 2011, Mayor Roe suggested that there was a cut from the 2011 to 2012 budgets of the $, $700,000 - $800,000 added to the Capital Improvement Program, with Mr. Miller concurring and not anticipating any surplus for 2012.


Councilmember Johnson sought further detail on the HRA finding regarding balances.


Mr. Mayer referenced Page 3 of the Management Letter and recommended adjustments to the fund carrying significant notes for receivable balances for low-cost housing, with the HRA the loaner of those funds and collecting those receivables.  Mr. Mayer clarified that the finding found balances overstated and the dollars were written down; with some dollars from Ramsey County for federal dollars to utilize or spend down, or returned to Ramsey County.  Mr. Mayer advised that Ramsey County was allowing those dollars to stay with the HRA mission, with no obligation to repay them, and releasing their liability from that fund as well.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if this was a bookkeeping or interpretation error.


Mr. Mayer responded that one was a bookkeeping error, and the other one of interpretation.  In the HRA context, Mr. Mayer advised that ultimately these were receivables that may or may not be forgiven; and that the audit’s intent was to ensure that all assumptions were correctly made.


Regarding the Solid Waste Recycling Fund, Councilmember Willmus noted that this report, rather than those prior to 2011, provided a more detailed breakdown; with Mr. Mayer noting that this was based on the City’s Revenue Sharing Agreement with Eureka Recycling.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, acceptance of the 2011 Annual Financial Report as presented.


Mayor Roe and Councilmembers thanked Finance Director Miller for the good job overseeing City finances.


Councilmember Willmus questioned the availability of the audit reports for the public on-line; with Mr. Miller advising that, now that they were presented to and approved by the City Council, staff would post them in the Finance portion of the website this week.


Councilmember McGehee praised Mr. Miller and his staff for the excellent report from the auditor.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


City Manager Malinen thanked all of the City’s Department Heads and their employees for the good results and the team effort on the part of the entire team and their excellent management of those resources at their disposal.


Mayor Roe concurred; noting the past few difficult years and the achievements and responsible governance based in part on the due diligence of staff.


b.            Receive Green Step Cities Presentation

Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt introduced Ms. Diana McKeown from the Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERT) to provide an overview of the Green Step Cities Program; as well as Ms. Lindsay Van Patten (Roseville resident) and Ms. Kiley Friedrich, U of MN students performing best practices research with City staff as part of their class project to help Roseville become a Green Step City.


The presentation was included in the meeting materials and displayed via Power Point; and an Implementation Checklist was provided to the City Council and Mr. Malinen as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Councilmember Johnson thanked the students for their great presentation and poise during that presentation.


Councilmember Willmus thanked the students for their presentation, and recognizing that the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Chair, Jim DeBenedet, was present at tonight’s meeting, asked for his perception of where the City was at in this process.


Jim DeBenedet, Chair, PWET Commission, advised that the Commission had recommended to the City Council proceeding with the Green Step Cities Program with the understanding that there were a number of steps that could be taken under the green category.  Chair DeBenedet noted specifically the PWET Commission’s current review of transition to LED street lighting as an immediate consideration, in addition to other items that fit with the goals of the  City’s Comprehensive Plan as referenced by the students.


As to whether the PWET Commission was still actively working on the program, Mr. DeBenedet responded to Councilmember Willmus that the PWET Commission has passed off the initiative to the appropriate staff to coordinate efforts under the broader direction of the City Council.


Councilmember McGehee thanked students for their presentation; and questioned which items they found from the checklist that have already been completed by the City.


Students reviewed the various categories and best management practices outlined in the Checklist as provided as a bench handout; and their recommendations for other initiatives, including the State of MN B-3 Program to benchmark energy use in public buildings.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, students addressed the Complete Street Program, recognizing that the City didn’t have jurisdiction over all roadways in the cities; and advantages of more aggressively pursuing green steps.


Councilmember Pust suggested that this presentation be provided to the HRA as well, since it fit well with the Living Smarter in Roseville and sustainability efforts being promoted by the HRA.


Mayor Roe congratulated the students on their presentation; and their upcoming graduation.


Due to illness, Recording Secretary Sheila Stowell left the meeting at this time, approximately 8:10 p.m., with the remainder of the meeting transcribed at a later date via DVD.


c.            Receive Update on Civic Engagement Task Force

Human Rights Commission Chair Gary Grefenberg introduced other members of the Civic Engagement Task Force, noting that several of its seventeen (17) members are members of City Council advisory commissions, as well as some at-large members of the community.  Mr. Grefenberg briefly summarized the expertise they brought to the table in assisting efforts and providing suggestions to increase civic engagement among Roseville residents.  Members involved in the Task Force were listed on Attachment A to the report dated April 23, 2012.


Members present for tonight’s presentation included Kathy Fischer Ramundt, Jim Lewis, Jim DeBenedet, and Peter Strohmeier.  Mr. Grefenberg provided copies of the Task Force’s draft report to City Council members as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Grefenberg reviewed the charge to the Task Force defined by the City’s Human Rights Commission; and noted that the work remained in progress with two major work groups of the task force currently operating: Assessment of Civic Engagement Practices Work Group and the Neighborhood Work Group.  Mr. Grefenberg displayed recommendations to-date of the Task Force and its work groups, as detailed in the bench handout, noting that he had authored the draft report based on discussions held to-date.  While reviewing various media options to maintain and/or improve communications for citizens, Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force strongly supported neighborhood networks, and neighborhood and community activists; and supported using the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process be used as a model, as well as past policies providing for community engagement. 


Mayor Roe clarified that this draft was a product of the entire group; however, he suggested that it didn’t make sense to adopt the report at this time without seeking public input on the draft report.


Councilmember Willmus thanked the Task Force for their presentation; and sought clarification on the remaining expectations and timeframe for the Task Force to develop their formal report to the City Council; and whether that required additional review and revision at the Task Force and/or Human Rights Commission level; and their anticipated process for presentation to the City Council in final draft.


Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force identified an additional six (6) weeks for their work to be completed, at which time it would be presented to the entire Human Rights Commission for their review and comment, anticipating that those comments of the Human Rights Commission would provide for additions, not for a substitute opinion, since three (3) of the seven (7) Commissioners served on the Task Force.  After that review, Mr. Grefenberg anticipated a final report to the City Council, with a work plan and recommendation for an additional public hearing once the City Council reviewed the details of the full report. 


Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force was seeking support from staff and the City Council in promoting the recommendations and organizing a community forum to solicit additional public comment.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force was also seeking someone to take meeting minutes of the Task Force for their next and final two (2) meetings, as they reviewed changes and developed a progress report in more detail.


Councilmember Willmus sought additional information as to whether this community engagement was seen as an ongoing effort of the Task Force and/or the Human Rights Commission; or once the final document was presented to the City Council, it would be up to the City Council, or designation of them to another advisory commission or appointed body for ongoing review and implementation strategies.


Councilmember Johnson thanked the Task Force for their report; noting his previously-expressed frustration in not having an update on their progress to-date.  Councilmember Johnson expressed his favorable impression of the broad and diverse citizenry serving on the Task Force; and offered his continued support for better communication between local government and the community; whether through use of the Parks Master Plan constellations or neighborhood groups.  Councilmember Johnson advised that he still encountered frustration among citizens regarding current communication problems.


Mr. Grefenberg noted, unfortunately, that the community forum had not been well-attended; but concurred that there remained citizens who didn’t feel they were receiving adequate information, whether through written and/or electronic means.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that some comments included the out-of-date nature of news in the City newsletter, City News, as well as their difficulty navigating the City’s website.  Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City of Edina as a communication model, using a citizen engagement blog, and suggested other technological advances that could make communication more accessible.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that it was the preference of a major segment of citizens that they preferred to tell their government what to do in a collaborative manner than the other way around.


Councilmember Pust opined that this discussion proved the point of the need for more dialogue; however, she noted her need to have an opportunity to review the handouts prior offering more detailed and informed comments.  Councilmember Pust suggested discussion at a future City Council work session with the Task Force, not just its Chairperson.  Councilmember Pust advised that one of her questions remained in how best to be accountable and know that communication efforts had been improved or were improving; and not just assuming that those not heard from were happy or uninterested; or whether the vocal minority attending City Council meetings or frequently e-mailing Councilmembers was representative of the entire citizenry.  Councilmember Pust sought additional information on how best to measure communication efforts and how to keep accountable going forward.


On a personal note, Mr. Grefenberg used his neighborhood in SW Roseville and perceptions of the lack of communication or interest of City Planning staff based on past experience.  Upon meeting with Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd, Mr. Grefenberg noted that there was enlightenment that those perceptions had changed and were recognized as paranoia on the part of neighborhood groups and noting that staff was unaware that some items may be found controversial by the public, but there was not ulterior motive by staff to withhold information.   Mr. Grefenberg opined that the meeting was constructive and perceptions much more clear.


Councilmember McGehee thanked the Task Force for their presentation; and noted that the City Council – and therefore the public – could be kept better informed through the periodic staff reports included quarterly in meeting packets; however, she concurred with Councilmember Pust that an ongoing accountability measure was needed.  Councilmember McGehee also concurred with Mr. Grefenberg’s comments on the failures of current and electronic efforts for communication; and the need for them to be more current.  To-date, Councilmember McGehee opined that she was personally encouraged by the work of the Task Force.


Mayor Roe thanked the Task Force for their long overdue report; and expressed his interest in its next presentation as the process moves forward. At the request of Mr. Grefenberg on staff assistance for the Task Force’s remaining work, Mayor Roe advised that City Manager Malinen would follow-through with him on that.


14.         Public Hearings


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Authorize Bids for Fire Station Project Bid Package #2

Fire Chief O’Neill and members of the Project Team were present to seek formal City Council authorization to proceed with Bid Package #2 as previously discussed.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee on whether the City Council would see a bid package for furniture and/or technology items in the future, Chief O’Neill advised that it would be handled through separate action(s) as appropriate, but not formally bid; and would remain within the $8 million budget allotment.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the bid related to work performed as described in Bid Package #2, consisting of all interior and exterior work not previously included in Bid Package #1, with the exclusion of owner furniture and fixture budget and technology budget items; and as detailed in the RCA dated April 23, 2012.


Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


b.            Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1770 Stanbridge

As previously noted, this item was resolved prior to the meeting.


c.            Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1535 Sextant Avenue

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family home at 1535 Sextant Avenue, currently occupied by the owner’s son, Mr. Joe Cox.  Mr. Munson noted that the current owners are James and Debra Cox, 2 Peterson Place, North Oaks, MN; and advised that the complaint had been generated by a neighbor.


Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of current violations, including outside storage of fencing materials (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.D, Junk and Debris); and estimated that removal of the materials would cost approximately $600.00, in addition to storage and potential disposal of the materials, for a total anticipated abatement cost of $1,500.00.


Mr. Munson advised that a notice had been provided several times to the owner of record, with promises from Joe Cox that the materials would be removed, but noted that they had not been removed to-date.  Mr. Munson noted that Mr. James Cox was present at tonight’s meeting.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson advised that the fence materials may be more appropriate for sale as scrap, but he questioned their viability for their use for fencing.


James Cox

Mr. Cox advised that over the last decade, he, his brother and/or his son had all lived in the home; and he opined that the fence was still usable and not simply scrap.  Mr. Cox offered, once he presented his perspective, to move the fencing this weekend to a screened in porch or the garage on the property.  Mr. Cox opined that it would have taken him less time to move the fence than to attend tonight’s meeting; and alleged that he felt strongly that Mr. Munson was discriminating against his 24 year old son, the current resident.  Mr. Cox advised that this was based on similar or worse code issues at adjacent properties that had not been addressed by Mr. Munson, and provided photo evidence of those issues.  Mr. Cox advised that he had respect for his neighbors, and tried to keep the yard looking well; however, he reiterated that staff had a hidden agenda; and suggested that his photographic proof more than proved his allegations.


Mayor Roe advised that, now that staff had been alerted to code issues at adjacent properties, he anticipated that Mr. Munson would act on reviewing those properties that would result in a similar process to that for his property.  However, Mayor Roe advised that tonight’s discussion was specific to his property; and further advised that if Mr. Cox wished to pursue allegations of discrimination, that was an entirely different process as well and could be addressed at a time outside tonight’s meeting.


Mr. Cox advised that the complaint also cited leaves bagged on site; and provided his rationale in not getting them to the compost site since it was not open at the time.  Mr. Cox alleged that Mr. Munson had personally moved the fencing and fence posts from their original and more safely stacked position.  Mr. Cox suggested, with encouragement by his son, that he keep a spread sheet of code enforcement issues within the neighborhood to see how long it took for them to be addressed compared to the issues on his property; and suggested that this research would result in his ability to prove age discrimination.


Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the City’s code enforcement process, with most resolved between staff and property owners, and few ending up before the City Council.


Mr. Cox asked if it was permissible for him to move the fence within the screened porch as a resolution.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he was recusing himself from this discussion, based on a business relationship with Mr. Cox, and left the bench during the discussion.


Councilmember McGehee noted the need to comply with City Code, and asked Mr. Munson if storage of the fence materials in the screened porch was acceptable with City Code.


Mr. Munson advised that inside storage – whether in the screened-in porch or garage – would both be acceptable as long as the storage was in accordance with City Code.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that Mr. Cox be given up two (2) weeks to move the fence materials into the garage or screened porch at his discretion; and questioned the status of leaves on site in black garbage bags mentioned by Mr. Cox.


Mr. Munson advised that the garbage bags may have been part of the original complaint; however, they had been resolved and were no longer part of the requested abatement.


Councilmember Johnson noted the potential for resolution of the fence material issue if Mr. Cox remediated the situation as he suggested.


Mayor Roe noted that this was typical for many abatement issues, with the homeowner given time to resolve an issue and comply with City Code; however, he noted that staff’s request for abatement authorization often provided an incentive to a property owner to resolve the issue and avoid the abatement process.


Councilmember Johnson suggested that Mr. Cox’s word be accepted that he would mediate the problem of the fencing and fence poles by a date certain.


Mayor Roe noted that the next meeting of the City Council was scheduled for May 14, 2012, which should allow Mr. Cox more ample time to resolve the issue to avoid abatement action.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, to not take action on the abatement request in the RCA at this time, allowing Mr. Cox time to address the code violation, but directing staff to bring the abatement back to the City Council for consideration on May 14th if not addressed by the property owner by then.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Pust; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

                   Abstentions: Willmus

                      Motion carried.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Council Attendance at LMC Annual Conference

City Manager Malinen summarized the upcoming LMC Annual Conference and whether the City Council was interested in or would support attendance by staff and/or members of the City Council at their discretion.


Mayor Roe encouraged all Councilmembers to attend, not just for the information and educational aspects, but for the networking and interaction opportunities with peers.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the LMC making workshops available by video for those not attending, and to save money. 


Mayor Roe noted that the LMC most likely would not make their educational seminars available by video, but preferred personal attendance, not only at the workshops but to support that interaction of those attending.


Councilmember Pust opined that, if and when attending, a formal report should be provided by staff or elected officials, to share the information gathered, as well as to provide proof to citizens of the value of attending and use of public funds to attend.  Councilmember Pust noted that this would serve to avoid perceptions and dispel views of abuse of public funds.


Councilmember Willmus noted his interest in attending; however, due to potential scheduling conflicts, advised that if he attended he would do so at his expense, not the City’s, and clarified with City Manager Malinen the pre-registration deadline of April 30, 2012.


Mayor Roe reiterated the important learning opportunities and interaction with peers and presenters; and noted the more frequent opportunities provided by the LMC other than at their annual meeting.


b.            Discuss Electronic Meeting Packets

City Manager Malinen provided preliminary information, through the staff report, on the potential cost savings in electronic versus written production and distribution to City Councilmembers of meeting materials.


Discussion included personal preferences of each Councilmember; potential technological options and software/hardware compatibility; actual time or money saved from one format to another; practical application for electronic format and convenience of receiving the materials; and training if applicable.


Councilmember Willmus noted his personal preference for paper copies, based on flexibility of taking a packet with him for study if he was out-of-town; and suggested that if the electronic route was decided on, that the City purchase the hardware and software and it remain on the Council dais, with the City providing maintenance and software updates.


Councilmember Pust noted her personal preference for hard copies; opining that monthly cost savings were minimal other than saving staff time in producing the packet materials; and opined that most people would still print a hard copy for their use.  Councilmember Pust, recognizing her remaining short tenure on the City Council, noted previous discussions on purchasing computers for City Councilmembers to use; and addressed additional costs for laptops, software and ongoing maintenance and technology updates required. 


Councilmember McGehee spoke to specific technology available to individual Councilmembers; and spoke in support of electronic packets.  She noted that she had updated her computer system at home to make necessary changes on PDF documents, but that to use a portable computer, iPad or similar tablet; she would like software capable of making marginal notes and highlighting for Council discussions.  She also stated that she would like to request specific hard copies when necessary for her Council work.  She again acknowledged the savings, particularly in staff time, and personally supported electronic packets.


Councilmember Johnson supported going paperless to save costs; and noted that his personal computer system would support electronic receipt of the agenda packet; and personally spoke in support of electronic agenda packets, as well as City purchase of the hardware.


Further discussion included current policy of the City for technology replacement schedules; discerning those items individual Councilmembers would still want to print; how to transition equipment and reports from home to the City Council chambers; use of a flash drive for making suggested revisions to reports; City network versus the internet and how to ensure compatibility of that technology for individual Councilmembers; and security of the information and the equipment when off-site.


Councilmember Pust asked that the Data Practices issue be considered as well, specifically what data belonged to the City if using City equipment, and what was considered public information; suggesting some items may become complicated or not protected by firewalls.  Councilmember Pust suggested a review of policies of other cities other than that of Woodbury, as already provided.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff had originally envisioned that the device provide city materials via wireless or internet (e.g. meeting packets) that would be e-mailed directly to City Councilmembers or provided by flash drive.


Mayor Roe suggested that the process be further reviewed; and that if electronic, it should be voluntary, with each Councilmember’s preference respected.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of Councilmembers using their personal equipment and reimbursed by the City if appropriate; and expressed confidence in the City’s Information Technology (IT) staff to advise of the most appropriate security and virus systems to use.


Additional discussion included availability and type of internet connection; the size and type of equipment if provided by the City and whether it would be exclusively used for transmitting packets, without e-mail capabilities; determining the experience of other cities and applicable policies; and how to address security of personal versus public data.


Councilmember Member Willmus suggested, and Mayor Roe concurred, that a pilot program for several members of the City Council be pursued.


As an example, City Attorney Gaughan noted past issues with state-owned cell phones and/or use of personal cell phones for official duties and related data privacy issues, with determination that all information became public.  City Attorney Gaughan cautioned Councilmembers to keep data privacy in mind and how government-owned data could be addressed and be aware of issues before making a final decision.

Mayor Roe concurred.


Mayor Roe suggested to City Manager Malinen that he continue to research policy issues, determine individual City Councilmember interest in participating in a pilot issue once procedural and technological issues had been further resolved, and report at a future meeting. 


14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


At the request of Councilmember Pust as to the specific May meeting anticipated for further discussion of the Walmart EAW, City Manager Malinen advised that the specific date remained pending at this point; and would be discussed at the upcoming staff meeting to determine if actual date can be defined at this time.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:40 pm.              

          Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.