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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 14, 2013


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, welcomed everyone and made introductions.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.  Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.  Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Etten had previously advised that he would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting due to work commitments.


2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal for comment or question of Consent Agenda Items 7.g and h, respectively entitled, “Approve Agreement with Ramsey County Bench Program;” and “Receive 2013 Third Quarter Financial Report.”


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


                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

            Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

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


a.            Jim Palewicz, 1489 Woodlyn Avenue

Mr. Palewicz presented neighborhood concerns regarding an absentee landlord renting a single-family home to students at 1493 Woodlyn Avenue.  As a bench handout, Mr. Palewicz presented written concerns dated September 4, 2013, from the neighbors, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and their perception that the landlord was taking advantage of the block and the City of with exceeding the allowable number of tenants according to City Code.


Mr. Palewicz noted that the ongoing problem with an excess number of automobiles parked at the home had been somewhat corrected with several now parked in the garage and not all located on the street.  Mr. Palewicz noted that the landlord had done some remodeling over the summer, adding egress windows in the basement to apparently include two additional bedrooms, also against City Code.  Mr. Palewicz stated that he and the neighbors found this aesthetically negative remodel on the front of the house, the additional traffic, and general situation prohibitive to the neighboring properties and their values. 


Mr. Palewicz respectfully asked that the City provide assistance to the neighborhood through code enforcement or other venues.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Palewicz for bringing this to the City’s attention, and advised that staff would follow-up on the situation and report back to the City Council and Mr. Palewicz.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that he would research the situation with staff and follow-up to determine if this was already an open case and then provide a report on the situation, and thanked Mr. Palewicz for bringing it to the City’s attention; and asked that the neighbors recognize that the City needed to follow due process in addressing any such situation, but advised that the neighbors would be informed once the issue had been resolved.


Julie Wearn, Roseville Visitors Association

Ms. Wearn, Executive Director of the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) announced and invited the public to the first annual “Night We Light” at the OVAL on Friday, November 8, 2013 at 6:30 pm at the OVAL, and in celebration of the 20th year of the OVAL.  Ms. Wearn recognized the sponsorship of area businesses in making this event possible as they sponsored a tree.


4.         Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe congratulated the Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority (RHRA) for their receipt of a Twin Cities Community Development Award for its Green Remodeling Plan Handbook, the award recognizing the HRA for its efforts in strengthening local neighborhoods and communities.  On behalf of the community and City Council, Mayor Roe offered congratulations, noting that additional information was available at the HRA’s website:


Mayor Roe announced upcoming events including a Community Education sponsored discussion “Community for a Lifetime” scheduled on October 24, 2013 at 6:30 pm at the Little Canada City Hall; and again on November 16, 2013 at 10:30 am at the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library.  While the events are free, Mayor Roe noted that RSVPs were necessary to ensure adequate space; with additional information available by calling 651-604-3535 (Library) and RSVPs directed to 651-297-2704; with additional information also available on the Community Education website.


Mayor Roe announced free HRA sponsored seminars to assist in retaining home values, with the next seminar scheduled for October 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm at the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library, and entitled, “Aging in Place” by Access Solutions, also requiring registration by calling 651-792-7078 or by contacting the City’s HRA or City Hall phone numbers.


Mayor Roe noted the great turnout on Saturday, October 12, 2013, for the new Fire Station Open House, estimating there were over 2,000 attending for the open house and ribbon cutting ceremony.  Mayor Roe stated that it was a great event and provided wonderful opportunities to see various aspects of the new station.


Councilmember Willmus concurred, encouraging this as an annual opportunity for residents to tour their fire station.


Mayor Roe echoed that suggestion for an annual open house of City facilities as a future consideration.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the kudos for the event, stating that it provided a great opportunity for talking with fire staff; and congratulated them all on a great job.


Mayor Roe noted that it was a great event for Roseville families and firefighter families as well.


Councilmember Laliberte recognized Roseville resident Ed DeRose for his artwork selection for the 2014 State of MN Pheasant Stamp; with his painting reproduced on the statewide stamp.


5.         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 presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve Minutes of September 23, 2013 Meeting

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the September 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes and the September 27, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes as presented


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: None.


7.         Approve Consent Agenda

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


a.            Approve Payments

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


Check Series #


ACH Payments


71500 – 71707





                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:



Type of License

Tiffany Rassat; Massage Xcape

1767 Lexington Avenue N

Massage Therapist

Theresa Anastasia May

Roseville Acupuncture and Massage

2201 Lexington Avenue N, Suite 103

Massage Therapist

Eva Blankenship; Lifetime Fitness/LifeSpa

2480 Fairview Avenue

Massage Therapist

Gary Sarppo; Massage Rejuvenation

2218 County Road D

Massage Therapist

Elizabeth Kaul-Bjornson; Kairos Center for Well-Being, LLC

2301 Woodbridge Street, #103

Massage Therapist

Leroy Tschida, Jr.; Colleen & Company

3092 Lexington Avenue N

Massage Therapist


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


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

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






Budget / CIP

Community Dev.

Midway Ford

Ford F-150 (replaces similar 11-year old vehicle)




Rosedale Chevrolet

Chevrolet Malibu (unmarked vehicles replaces similar 10-year old vehicle)





TC Lawn Care

Pathway wall repair (result of 06/21/13 storm event at 2323 Terminal Road)




Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as follows:



Item / Description

Community Development

2002 Ford F-150: $4,000 estimated resale


2003 Chevy Impala: $4,200 estimated trade-in


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


d.            Approve Final Payment Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11097___ (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements;” initiating the one-year warranty period; and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $3,070.54.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


e.            Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County Elections

As a part of the packet, a spreadsheet (Appendix C) spreadsheet entitled “Proposed Capital and Annual Operating Costs for New Voting System.”


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11098___ (Attachment A) entitled, “2013 Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment B) for Replacement Elections System.”


Approve Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


f.              Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Sprint Wireless for Additional Space on the Civic Center Campus South Tower

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a lease amendment (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Sprint Wireless for additional space on the Civic Center Campus South Tower.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


g.            Approve Agreement with Ramsey County Bench Program

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 14, 2013.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she had received comments from several residents as users of the benches already installed, that they were mounted on large cement slabs, which they found to be singularly unattractive to people.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was some other way to mount them going forward.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the slab had been required as part of the benches installed at Langton Lake to provide inset bricks with donor information.  However, moving forward, Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would not be a requirement, and noted that he would follow-up to see if they can be made more attractive, while remaining safe and secure.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of an agreement between the City of Roseville and Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department (Attachment A) for the acquisition of twelve (12) benches; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to executive the agreement, subject to final approval by the City Attorney.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: None.


h.            Receive 2013 Third Quarter Financial Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 14, 2013; noting that this is only a snapshot and subject to change.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she had no questions; however, since this was a Consent Item, she wanted to ensure that the public and City Council was reminded that the Water Fund was only afloat due to internal loans from the Storm Sewer Fund.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the Storm Sewer system would be doing a lot of improvements going forward.  Councilmember McGehee also noted that, while the Golf Course Fund seemed to be sufficient, it was not allowing for any additional funds for a new club house as requested as a priority by the community.  While the Operating Fund appeared to be doing fine, Councilmember McGehee noted that the CIP Fund was still not at a level of sustainability to provide maintenance for new buildings and pathways, and asked that the public pay attention to the overall picture.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, receipt of the Third Quarter Financial Report as presented by staff for informational purposes.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

            Nays: None.


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption

10.         Presentations

11.         Public Hearings

12.         Budget Items

13.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Receive B-2 and Victoria Pathways Presentation and Public Comment

Staff available for this presentation included Interim City Engineer Kristine Giga; Public Works Director Public Works Director; Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke; and Recreation Program Supervisor Jeff Evenson.


Mr. Brokke provided a brief introduction and overview of the proposed joint project, as detailed in the RCA dated October 14, 2013; and a summary of public meetings held to-date with most often heard concerns regarding tree preservation and drainage issues.  Mr. Brokke advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission (PWETC) recommended moving forward with the project.


Mr. Schwartz reviewed the numerous Pathway Master Plans, as well as the most recent Parks & Recreation Master Plan process, and concerns in addressing this route for much-needed safe connections to area schools, churches, and its proximity and connection to Central Park.  With several iterations over the years, Mr. Schwartz noted that this route had been identified as a priority for over twenty (20) years.


Mr. Schwartz advised that, due to impacts of the project, the original project intended to extend from Rice to Walnut Streets had been reduced in scope.  Since 2005, Mr. Schwartz noted that this corridor had been subject to two (2) grant applications, both subsequently unsuccessful; and more recently identified as part of the Parks Master Plan.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the City’s PWETC was currently reprioritizing remaining projects needing build-out for an update to the Pathway Master Plan.  While that reprioritization is nearing completion, Mr. Schwartz noted that this corridor continued to score very high in the overall picture, but simply had experienced a lack of funding options until included as part of the Parks Renewal Program providing an opportunity.


Ms. Giga reviewed preliminary project specifics for various segments as detailed in the RCA, including existing trails and sidewalks, the four (4) school within proximity of the project; and recommendations for each segment.  Those segments included:  County Road B-2 Lexington Avenue to Rice Street (north side of the street); Victoria Street to County Road B-2 to Central Park (east side of the street); Victoria Street to County Road B-2 to Central Park (east side of the street or west side of the street); and Victoria Street to Central Park to County Road C. 


Ms. Giga noted the comments and feedback – both for and against – received at various informational meetings and on-site visits with property owners to-date.  As detailed in the RCA, Ms. Giga noted most design concerns were related to drainage, trees and landscaping, retaining walls, and driveways, specific to drainage issues. 


Ms. Giga noted that a major part of the project involved addressing existing drainage issues and engineering designs to provide significant piping, structures, and grading to alleviate or mitigate those issues. 


Regarding tree preservation, Ms. Giga advised that staff continued to work with the City’s Forester to minimize impact to healthy trees and identify those that were not as healthy and may require replacement in the near future whether or not they were removed as part of this project.  Ms. Giga noted that staff would continue to work with individual residents throughout the design process, especially in those areas of significant impact.


Ms. Giga advised that, part of the final design aspects of the project would be where retaining wall specifics would be addressed, as well as other design aspects and area aesthetics.


Ms. Giga reviewed estimated construction costs – per segment and estimated construction costs for each segment as detailed in the RCA, noting that additional consulting engineer assistance would be required to work through various drainage issues and watershed requirements.


If the City Council authorizes proceeding with a Feasibility Study, Ms. Giga reviewed the proposed project schedule, with October 2013 through January 2014 for final design; January/February of 2014 advertising for bids; award of bids in March of 2014; and actual construction in May through October of 2014.  Ms. Giga advised that the construction timeline would also require phasing work around transportation needs and key dates for the School District (e.g., last and first day of school); Rosefest; Minnesota State Fair and Back to the Fifties events;  and other considerations.

As part of the multi-faceted final design process, Ms. Giga advised that this would require continued coordination with various agencies, including Ramsey County for cost-share and signal light upgrades or replacements at several intersections; Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for storm water permits to meet their requirements; private utility relocations (phone and power pedestals); individual property details: drainage improvements; tree replacement and other landscaping; driveways as they relate to the drainage improvements; and retaining walls as applicable. 


This concluded staff’s presentation as they addressed City Council questions prior to public comment.


Councilmember McGehee questioned those areas with  8’ wide pathways that were constricted and went all the way to the curb, opining that they were very unattractive (e.g. Fairview from Roselawn to B-2); and suggested plantings or prairie plants that would be more aesthetically pleasing, such as those done  by the City of Falcon Heights (e.g. Roselawn from Snelling to Hamline).  Councilmember McGehee also questioned the advantage of an infiltration trench and why that is preferred by the Watershed District rather than a ribbon curb and drainage to direct water into that instead of directly into the storm system.


Mr. Schwartz responded that 6’ was identified as a standard width for concrete installations in the Pathway Master Plan; especially on County Road B-2 with its high traffic volumes and identified shoulders for on-street bikers, as existed today.  In response to the plantings on Roselawn Avenue, Mr. Schwartz advised that this was done at the request of the City of Falcon Heights, and appeared to work well if draught tolerant plants were used, and could be a consideration with this project as well.  However, Mr. Schwartz clarified that there concrete is curb on Roselawn Avenue, while there is not on this street, but simply more of an extension of the street itself.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the main goal is to minimize that type of section on this segment due to safety concerns for elementary aged school children using the corridor.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this should speak even more to providing a visible plant buffer and not allow the sidewalk so close to the street when there was no curb; further opining that she didn’t understand the rationale for that safety aspect at all.


Mr. Schwartz responded that this was the intent; however, there were some challenges with drainage, but where possible the sidewalk would be moved back.


Regarding the 6’ width, Councilmember McGehee questioned if this was simply the standard width selected twenty (20) years ago when the original Pathway Master Plan was done; and how that width compared to surrounding communities.


Mr. Schwartz advised that width varied; however, he noted that one thing driving it and not part of the Master Plan, was due to the width of the machines used to clear sidewalks during the winter months without damaging curbs or turf, with that primary standard width being 6’.  Mr. Schwartz clarified that in Roseville, the City plowed all residential sidewalks, unlike the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul where residents were responsible for doing so.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that most sidewalk machines require a minimum of 5’ clearance.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that  pervious surfaces had not been tried for the pathway itself, as permeable pavements were typically more expensive, and would therefore be used as a last resort unless that technology was deemed best for drainage.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that there were currently other less expensive means, such as infiltration tranches where water can be directed between the sidewalk or roadway.


Ms. Giga advised that, in that situation, the City would over-excavate the area with engineered soils allowing for infiltration, or install a “belt and suspenders” for the pipe to allow water in the stormwater system.  Ms. Giga noted that the goal was to have water infiltration methods in place before it reached the storm sewer system; or at a minimum to delay and pre-treat it before it reached the system.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the City did not pay the Metropolitan Council for volume or quality of storm water.


Councilmember Willmus asked that staff remain cognizant that, on the stretch of Victoria Street between County Road B and Lovell Avenue, if striping was the final decision, there was a fair amount of southbound traffic; and suggested that with the timing of the light, a situation not be created for traffic stacking if the final design was down to a single lane.


Mr. Schwartz recognized that concern, and advised that when staff spoke with Ramsey County staff, they agreed to perform a study of the intersection.  With the City’s proposed 2014 project at Victoria Street south of County Road B, Mr. Schwartz noted that this may be an opportune time to upgrade the signal at that time.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that Ramsey County would study all aspects during the study, and identify turn lane and other issues.


Mayor Roe noted that, driving the Victoria Street corridor frequently, visibility was a concern at the crest of the bridge and connecting streets on either side of the bridge to allow their safe access into a turn lane.


Mayor Roe noted that $2 million had been designated for pathways in available Park Renewal Bond funding, recognizing that this corridor could take a major portion of that funding.


At the suggested preference of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz advised that an option would be to supplement the cost from the Stormwater Fund for drainage improvements and mitigation, versus utilizing all funds for the Parks Renewal Program.

Public Comment

Ken Jewett, 2389 Western Avenue

Mr. Jewett advised that the back windows of his home provided a good view of the upper portion of County Road B-2 approaching the Western Avenue stop sign; and since 2000, he had noted the increased traffic – vehicular, baby strollers, pedestrians, and bicyclers – and lived in abject fear that someone was going to get hit before this corridor was completed.  Having been struck by a car in 1945 and lived with the consequences since then, Mr. Jewett expressed his appreciation to see the project finally coming to a nice conclusion, and expressed his hope that the minor issues could be resolved to allow its completion soon.


Mary Chapman, 2409 Oxford Street N (Twinhome at County Road B-2 at Oxford intersection)

Ms. Chapman expressed her concern with the proposed sidewalk as it related to her existing decorative fencing, and limited area for snow removal and/or storage during winter months, opining that it would only be exacerbated with the addition of a sidewalk.  With the proposed location of the sidewalk, Ms. Chapman expressed additional concerns with its proximity to homes and land and interference with their privacy.


Ernie Willenbring, 832 Lovell Avenue (3 houses off Victoria Street)

Mr. Willenbring opined that this is a long-overdue situation now being addressed by the City, and he applauded them for doing it now and his perception that a sidewalk would be installed on both sides of Victoria Street from B-2 to Central Park Mr. Willenbring recognized that minor grading and retaining wall issues will be problematic for some residents and the City to address, but noted that this happened with any construction project.  While everyone would not be satisfied, Mr. Willenbring encouraged the City Council to do their best; and regarding snowplowing, he noted that many residents were required to shovel more than once after snow removal equipment came through; but could and should be addressed by each individual homeowner.


While the actual location of sidewalks on Victoria Street was still to be determined, Mayor Roe clarified that installation would be one side or the other, but not both sides.


Joe Wozniak, 718 Sextant Avenue

Mr. Wozniak asked for the City Council’s support in moving this project forward.  Having followed the repeated efforts over a number of years, and having children who could not currently bike along County Road B-2 with any degree of safety to access their schools, or without having dangerous build-ups of snow on the shoulder of the road when attempting to walk it, Mr. Wozniak opined that the current situation was simply too dangerous to continue.  Mr. Wozniak further opined that kids should be able to walk or bike in the area with some degree of safety; and this should allow that.


As a bike commuter, Mr. Wozniak referenced too many examples of children he’d observed along the County Road B-2 corridor who were riding against traffic, even though he continually pointed out to them their error in riding on the wrong side of the street.  Mr. Wozniak opined that a separated bike lane or pathway was the only solution to alleviate these safety concerns; as well as allowing adults in the community to move around more than currently able to do and in a safe manner.  Mr. Wozniak asked the City Council to proceed with this project, and thanked them for considering it.


Dennis O’Keefe, 325 County Road B-2 (hill between Western Avenue and Rice Street – north side)

Mr. O’Keefe recognized that this had been discussed for a long time; however, personally he did not want to see the pathway, as it would eliminate 11’ of his driveway, and with allowing an additional 2’ to avoid abutting the sidewalk, it would actually eliminate 13’ of his driveway.  With no off-street parking available without confined traffic east and west on County Road B-2, Mr. O’Keefe noted that the only other parking would be halfway up the hill to Western or Matilda, with his home being right in the middle.  If the City proceeded with the project, Mr. O’Keefe opined that he would like to see the sidewalk stop at Central Park School. 


Another concern expressed by Mr. O’Keefe included snow melt and refreezing on the sidewalk, questioning who would sand/salt it or be responsible for liability issues during those thaw/freeze cycles after plowing. 


Mr. O’Keefe suggested a better option for the City to consider was to put the $874,000 into a nice clubhouse at the golf course, or in new warming houses as city parks; and invest in those rather than a B-2 pathway that would be used by few people.  Mr. O’Keefe asked that the City not proceed with the proposed project.


Gary Falberg, 341 West County Road B-2

Mr. Falberg noted that this project would go right in front of his house, and similar to Mr. O’Keefe, he would also lose two (2) parking places and 13’ of driveway.  With adult children currently living in his home, Mr. Falberg opined that this would create a hardship for him.


Regarding snow plowing, Mr. Falberg opined that the existing pathway on Victoria Street by County Road B-2 doesn’t get plowed right away, and while not complaining about that in particular, he questioned how children would walk to school if the new pathway was not plowed before 2-3 days after a snowfall, opining that it gets slippery with the many hills, and would become a hazard.


Mr. Falberg noted that several of his neighbors would be losing quite a bit of landscaping in their front yard if the project proceeded; in addition to one significant Elm tree in the line of the sidewalk; and asked that the sidewalk be realigned to save that tree if the project went forward.


Joel Murray, 651 County Road B-2

Mr. Murray opined that nobody on County Road B-2 wants this sidewalk; and referenced an informal survey he had conducted between last Friday and today of residents between Lexington Avenue and Rice Street, with only 4 people of those he polled being in support of the project.


Referencing the safety comments of Mr. Wozniak, Mr. Murray questioned why the side streets couldn’t be used instead.


Mr. Murray questioned the expertise of the engineers in addressing existing drainage problems, and questioned how trees were categorized as to their health.  Mr. Murray noted that the setback was not the same for each house, and noting that the culvert most significantly impacting his home filled with water attracting ducks at times, and if a sidewalk was installed, opined that if will become problematic for him and probably cause water to come into his yard and/or basement.   Regarding a buffer, Mr. Murray advised that he would like to see something practical, even though opining that nothing would grow other than weeds.  Mr. Murray also noted the need to move some fire hydrants if this project went forward.


Mr. Murray opined that he had a real problem with money to finance this coming from the Parks and Recreation Department when a number of items at Central Park had been halted due to a lack of money; and expressed his preference to complete those items and pathways in parks.


Mr. Murray referenced a petition of 80 signatures against this project that had been presented in that past, and his additional 40 signatures against it.  However, despite the invitation of Mayor Roe, Mr. Murray declined to submit his petition as he had not presented it to those signing it as being an “official” petition. Mayor Roe offered to accept the petition at their discretion and with the permission of those signatories.


Thomas Gerbansky, 712 West Court___ County Road B-2

Recognizing that this pathway had been on the agenda for some time, and that even though federal money for pathway construction, drainage, grading, sewer improvements had been available in the past, since someone petitioned against it at that time, the City Council had thrown the project out.  While having raised 6 children while living on County Road B-2 and them walking along the corridor, Mr. Gerbansky noted that traffic at that time was not the same as it is today; and opined that there would be a serious accident soon. 


Mr. Gerbansky recognized the concerns expressed by those speaking before him and Ramsey County deciding in the past that the street wasn’t wide enough, eliminating several parking spaces in his driveway.  However, as a former firefighter, Mr. Gerbansky advised that his family had been able to work out a solution to their inconveniences.   


Mr. Gerbansky opined that many residents don’t actually realize where their property line is in relation to the center of the street and right-of-ways.  As a resident on the south side of County Road B-2, Mr. Gerbansky noted that there was a water problem there, and numerous utility poles and mailboxes, and opined that he would have loved to see the sidewalk come down his side of the street, as well as sharing that opinion with many of his neighbors.  As petitions are distributed throughout the neighborhood, Mr. Gerbansky questioned if the proposed project was actually understood by the neighbors, at least based on his conversations with them. 


In reviewing where students walked to school now, Mr. Gerbansky opined that the proposed sidewalk location would be further away from and safer than the current situation; and further opined that it had been way too long in getting this pathway installed. 


Mr. Gerbansky opined that most trees had a certain lifespan, and after that age, became unsafe, as evidenced by the many trees lost during the July 2013 storms, not the first time it had happened. 

While no one is going to like the installation, Mr. Gerbansky noted that many of the homes, estimated by him between 55% to 60%, had changed ownership over the last twenty years.


John Harris, 591 County Road B-2

Mr. Harris questioned if there was any distinction between “pathway” and sidewalk” and how Roseville City Code applied to snow on either or both of them.


Luke Heikkila, 2500 Matilda Street

As a family with young children, Mr. Heikela expressed his hope that the City Council would give those families consideration and provide a safe access to schools along the corridor.


With no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe concluded public comment at this time, and requested that staff respond to questions and comments for further clarification as applicable.


Distinction of Pathway/Sidewalk

Ms. Giga concurred with Mayor Roe that there was no distinction in sidewalks or pathways other than sidewalks were typically constructed of concrete and pathways of asphalt; however, she noted they were also interchangeable terms at times.


Liability Issues

Mayor Roe clarified that, except in commercial areas where maintenance was the responsible of business owners, the City was responsible for maintenance in residential areas, with this corridor treated no differently than areas with existing sidewalks.


Street Parking on County Road B-2

Mr. Schwartz clarified that the audience was correct in their interpretation that parking was allowed on most segments of County Road B-2, other than closer to Lexington Avenue. 


Mayor Roe recognized that some driveway parking area may be lost, but noted his observation that he frequently saw people parking across sidewalks, even though it wasn’t encouraged.


Mr. Schwartz clarified that the City had an ordinance prohibiting parking that blocked pathways, and while it still occurred, it was illegal.


Tree Removal Process and How Determined

Ms. Giga advised that while some trees had been preliminarily identified for removal by the City’s Forester, with conversations begun with affected property owners, the Elm tree referenced had been identified and removal of it was trying to be avoided.  However, Ms. Giga reiterated that this was part of the final design process, yet to occur, and determination of those trees that were diseased or having issues.  Ms. Giga assured the public and City Council that staff would continue to work with individual property owners on their specific areas of concern.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Giga advised that the cost of replacement trees was paid by the City of Roseville and included in project costs.


Hydrant Locations

Ms. Giga noted that some hydrants would need to relocated or adjusted outside of the project area.


Stormwater Requirements

Ms. Giga reiterated that staff would continue to meet with and be available to individual residents to address drainage issues.



Snow Removal

Mr. Brokke reviewed the current procedure in clearing snow on sidewalks, typically performed by the Parks & Recreation Department with a 6’ snow blower machine.  Mr. Brokke admitted that it was a continual challenge and effort, especially along County and City roads when snow plows threw snow onto those pathways and sidewalks from the roadways as well.  Due to the school connections, Mr. Brokke noted that County Road B-2 sidewalks would be on the higher priority list and one of the first pathways cleared.  Mr. Brokke advised that the City’s current policy would continue to remove snow initially, then go back to clean and re-clean as deemed necessary.  Mr. Brokke clarified that the City did not sand or salt pathways as a general rule, unless in areas with hills where spot sanding or salting may be done.


Mayor Roe opined that use of a snow blower rather than a plow should help to alleviate piles from plowing/shoveling.


Mr. Schwartz admitted that there were some areas lacking space to plow snow; and advised that the City worked with Ramsey County to monitor areas to haul snow piles when there were visibility issues or other concerns needing mitigation.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke noted that those hilly areas were a continual effort and more difficult to handle with freeze/thaw cycles.  While the machines had V-blades that could help manipulate plowing, without use of chemicals, the freeze/thaw cycle was hard to address.


Mayor Roe noted that he understood that the City concentrated follow-up in those spots where problems were most evident.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz noted that permeable pathways may help in those freeze/thaw cycles.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the most challenging area on pathways in the winter was with winter rain events, rather than snow events, with the pathway often becoming a reservoir and filtering under snow further complicated when the temperatures drop again but the water keeps drainage and refreezing.  In sections where a typical section may indicate drainage may collect there, Mr. Schwartz noted that permeable pathways may be an option to consider and staff could continue to look at it for those areas.  Mr. Schwartz reminded all that final drainage strategies had yet to be completed, but would be part of the final design process.


Mayor Roe noted that silt deposits and vegetation growth along the edge of pathways often exacerbated the drainage issues.


Storm Water Drainage Design

For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe asked staff to address watershed district requirements that any improvements not make a situation worse, and the permitting and approval process before a project can proceed.


Ms. Giga advised that, for all new impervious surfaces, the City was required to address the volume from the first 1.8 inches of rainfall through a storage or place for the water to go and the quality of the water (e.g. removal of pollutants and sediments) before it reached the Stormsewer system, and eventually lakes and ponds.  Ms. Giga explained that this was part of a watershed district’s requirements to grant approval of the permit allowing construction.  Ms. Giga advised that the City was required to provide calculations that would address any additional Stormsewer volume or needs.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Giga addressed any issues that may come forward after construction that would be addressed in the maintenance agreement signed by the City with the watershed district to maintain the stormwater features and continue monitoring and mitigation as applicable.  Since the City had always met those requirements to-date, Ms. Giga advised that she was unsure of the consequences if the City did not meet them.


Mr. Schwartz reiterated staff’s willingness to meet with individual residents to review final design plans, once they were completed, or to visit on-site; with staff willing to share plans to correct situations or concerns.


Mayor Roe clarified for the public that any projects done by the City were required under its Stormwater Management Plan to not make any situation worse, but to try to improve it as part of the project.


Ms. Giga, referencing the previous petition submitted as part of the 2005 proposed project, advised that staff had been unable to locate a copy of that petition against the project at this time to include in the packet materials, and invited that resident to speak to the petition tonight if she chose to do so.


Councilmember Willmus requested staff to provide the different design elements for the project at this time and how they differed from previous plans.


Mr. Schwartz advised that the 2005 project had to be designed to meet federal requirements to qualify for the multi-use trail grant, with the pathways having to be at a minimum 8’ in width on one side of the street, with the option for an on-street bike path as well.  Mr. Schwartz advised that part of the rationale in declining to proceed with the project at that time, even with some federal funding to assist, had been due to the significant impacts on private property due to the required width.  Mr. Schwartz advised that, at that time, there had been some willingness by residents for staff to bring back a single sidewalk on one side of the street, similar to this, which may make this proposed project more acceptable to them.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Giga clarified that most of this corridor had either no curbing or bituminous versus concrete curbing, except for a small segment located mostly east of Central Park Elementary School.


Mayor Roe  noted that there was also some bituminous curbing on Victoria Street.


Councilmember McGehee questioned when those areas were proposed for reconstruction and if that would include curb & gutter installation with associated storm sewer.


Mr. Schwartz advised that, given the County Road B-2 volumes, Ramsey County only foresaw maintenance (e.g. mill and overlay) projects over the next twenty years.  Based on discussions with the County at the staff level on the upcoming 2015 project south of B-2, and potential replacement of the signal, Mr. Schwartz advised that they had expressed some willingness to coordinate that project with the City’s for installation at the same time.  As those discussions continue, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff’s final recommendation may be to not construct that area south of B-2 to incorporate all aspects in the 2015 City Project.


Willmus moved, Roe seconded, authorizing staff to prepare final plans and specifications, and advertise for bids; with the preferred Victoria segment using the existing structure on east side.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no question whether or not to do the project; opining that it should go forward.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this was a heavily travelled pedestrian corridor and any efforts to move those people from the shoulder or road to a sidewalk is advantageous.  While being sympathetic to concerns expressed with the position of sidewalk installation, Councilmember Willmus encouraged staff to minimize that 5’ boulevard to a 2’ strip with other vegetation as suggested by Councilmember McGehee, and used in other areas of the City and in the City of Falcon Heights, as a more aesthetically pleasing option than having concrete up to edge.


Councilmember McGehee noted that she was also sympathetic with aesthetic and safety concerns expressed; however she was more concerned with providing safety for pedestrians and bikers.  While many back streets could be utilized in some places, Councilmember McGehee observed that County Road B-2 was a long stretch accessing several schools.  Councilmember McGehee admitted that she was still on the fence whether to go forward with this project, and awaited further dialogue with her colleagues before making her decision.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she favored not having people ride their bikes in the street, she also recognized the difficulties with pathways in Minnesota winters, expressing her interest in walking during the winter months, but the condition of pathways preventing her from doing so safely due to the difficulty of the City being able to keep them in shape, creating a liability.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she also had concerns with the project, but safety was a larger concern and the need to recognize the difference in the community today compared to when it was originally built, with the need becoming greater as streets became busier.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was leaning toward supporting the project; however, she was concerned with the segments suggested at 8’; and also in providing a safety/buffer zone for those using the sidewalks versus a situation or perception of a situation of being right against the street.


Mayor Roe stated that he supported the project; and echoed fellow Councilmember comments in staff meeting the needs of residents and addressing their concerns regarding trees and landscaping.  Mayor Roe opined that a buffer/barrier was preferable versus an 8’ width right up to the curb edge.  Mayor Roe opined that he would also prefer using the east side of Victoria,  Mayor Roe opined that a connection on Victoria was very important, given his experience in driving that section frequently, and the number of pedestrians using that corridor and the safety issues.  Recognizing that the project will return to the City Council for final approval and allow one last look and opportunity for residents to weigh in on final designs, Mayor Roe expressed his willingness to support the motion.


In an effort to provide unanimous agreement, Councilmember McGehee advised that she would support the motion.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she observed sufficient flexibility with property owners; the desire for a buffer; more 6’ versus 8’ segments; and attempts to preserve long-term trees that were important to the neighborhood.  With the final plans coming back before the City Council and continued work by staff with the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that the majority should either have their concerns resolved, or feel that they had been listened to and were able to share their feedback.  If that was not the case, Councilmember McGehee asked that residents alert the City Council to that as well.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


Roe moved, seconded by Willmus, to direct staff to consider use of the City’s designated Stormwater Funds for the drainage portions of the project as applicable.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:56 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:05 pm.

b.            Approve Contract with Eureka Recycling for Recycling Services

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated October 14, 2013; and provided a review of contract negotiations since the last City Council directive was provided to staff. 


Mr. Schwartz addressed adjustments made to the original schedule and potential for reconsideration and the late start in negotiations with Eureka; and resulting response for three (3) options provided by Eureka, mostly concerning their meeting the January 1, 2014 rollout timeframe and risks to Eureka in determining cart size preferences for residents and minimizing their cost impacts.  As noted in the RCA, Mr. Schwartz advised that any and all of the three options proposed by Eureka still remained below the costs of the second bid received by the City.


Mr. Schwartz reviewed the preliminary financial analysis of the three options provided by Finance Director Chris Miller, also outlined in the RCA.


Mr. Schwartz advised that another area having received considerable discussion during negotiations was the “termination clause (lines 208-209) of the draft agreement (Attachment A) with staff recommendation in conjunction with the City Attorney, to delete “or without” from lines 208 and 209 respectively so the first sentence would indicate that the agreement may be terminated at any time by the City “with cause…”; and to delete the entire shaded area indicated on lines 214 – 217 of the draft.  Related to the latter portion of the recommendation, Mr. Schwartz advised that the review committee felt that a longer term to amortize carts was indicated given their expected 10 year life expectancy versus their advertized 5 year life expectancy; and that the cost should therefore be realized within the first three years.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Mark Gaughan opined that based on negotiations to-date, if Eureka did not meet the February 17, 2014 rollout, unless there was a valid reason for them not doing so, it could be deemed a material breach of contract.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, who opined that there were a number of people who would not respond to a survey, and whether Eureka would then supply a pre-determined cart size, Mr. Schwartz suggested that representatives of Eureka Recycling in the audience respond to that question.


Christopher Goodwin, Eureka and Tim Brownsell, CEO of Eureka Recycling

Mr. Goodwin noted that a survey was sent by postcard asking residents to mail it back to Eureka, as well as a bin note, providing 2-3 opportunities to receive the information.  Based on the responses received, Mr. Goodwin advised that Eureka would create an estimate of those responses in relationship to the overall community, with those not responding receiving a default cart size, with a certain percentage automatically built in to address changes in cart sizes in the future.


Mr. Brownsell advised that Eureka’s experience with survey responses had been very good; and beyond that, they would build into the model how many carts to order and provide the default cart size unless otherwise requested by residents.  Mr. Brownsell advised that the survey provided a smaller risk to Eureka in not falling outside that ratio; but without the benefit of a survey, they would need to order carts of one size or the other.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Goodwin advised that it would be easy to have samples of cart sizes available at City Hall for a more visual review by residents.  Mr. Goodwin noted that it was Eureka’s intention to also have pictures available on their website with people standing beside the bins to provide additional perspective on their size, and also providing ways for residents to calculate their current volume even without the additional plastics that would be added to curbside collection, and their considerable volume.  Even though the cart sizes are different, Mr. Goodwin noted that their footprint was not actually that different, facilitating storage concerns.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Goodwin confirmed that part of their bin drop would include communication with residents on the change from weekly to every-other week pick-up.  As part of that bin drop, Mr. Goodwin advised that Eureka wanted to encourage people to continue separating out their plastics until Eureka could upgrade their facility and begin to accept them, and advising residents how to proceed until that change was initiated.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brownsell confirmed that the only reason for Eureka requesting the delay from January 1, 2014, was due to performing the survey and ordering the carts, not due to a delay in truck availability or changeover.


Councilmember Willmus noted a comment he heard from a resident at the Wild R ice Festival who was under the impression that the City would no longer seek to have “zero waste events.”  While not aware of where that misinformation was coming from, Councilmember Willmus asked that Eureka mention that in their communication efforts, advising the public that those events would actually be expanded in the future.


Mr. Goodwin duly noted that request.


As a point of information, Councilmember Willmus asked the number of trucks servicing the community to pick up recyclables.  Mr. Brownsell responded that different days will determine the number of trucks based on the route split.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Brownsell advised that the C city should not have any interruption of service if a truck is out for repair, as there were several other trucks available as backups within their fleet to meet that capacity, even with two trucks dedicated to Roseville.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a three-(3) year “Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services” between the City of Roseville and Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling as presented (Attachment A); with a cart roll-out in February of 2014, and pricing effective January 1, 2013; under Option 1, and amendments to the agreement as follows:

Lines 208 – 209 (strike “…or without…”);

Lines 214-217 (strike entire sentence as highlighted in the draft); and

Lines 59 – 82 (strike Options 2 and 3 in their entirety).


While expressing her disappointment that things could not start earlier, Councilmember McGehee recognized staff for their excellent job in negotiating the contract; and also expressed her appreciation to Eureka Recycling for their economic concerns in not wasting cart capacity.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


14.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Receive Update on June 21 Storm Recovery Efforts

Fire Department Battalion Chiefs Dave Brosnahan and Greg Peterson provided a brief video presentation of the storm recovery efforts; and were joined by Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz who participated in the oral presentation.


Chief Peterson recognized the huge response from staff throughout the night of the storm and following days; with significant call volumes to the Police and Fire Departments, with the Police Department fielding 120 calls in the first three hours of the storm.  Chief Peterson expressed thanks that there were not too many significant or life-threatening calls during that time; opining that the City had been fortunate to dodge some of those bullets without having to also address such major emergencies during that same time period.


Mr. Schwartz reviewed the positives found throughout the process, providing a good response and recovery effort made better than past situations and not having that early-on damage assessment and a defined course of action available to the City.  Components of that included having initial City Council decisions; a prompt damage assessment; defined debris strategy; pre-determined tree contractor; and rapid mobilization.


In addition to the comments of Chief Peterson, Mr. Schwartz added further observations and positive general feedback from the community on the City’s material processing/hauling; mutual aid; encouraging resident rapport; inter-department cooperation; and committed staff working cooperatively.  Mr. Schwartz also noted that, after talking with Ramsey County Waste Energy,  their contractor provided material processing and hauling at no cost in order to have those materials available for their energy plant, saving the City $35,000 - $45,000 from original estimated.


Mr. Schwartz noted that there were significant and obvious impacts to the City’s regular programming, with the Public Works Department putting in over 2,500 hours and the Parks & Recreation Department over 1,600 hours.


Mr. Schwartz provided an update of total storm-related costs:

·         Total storm costs originally estimated at $461,000

·         City and private debris removal = $362,500

·         Park debris removal = $94,300

·         Police & Fire response = $4,200

·         Total contractor costs – above those normally budgeted for = $206,344

(included in above costs) with remaining costs absorbed in normal budget


In conclusion, Mr. Schwartz noted several lessons learned during this latest event that included the need to refine debris clean-up bids in future budget cycles; and provide “storm chaser” forewarning to residents about reputable contractors after such an event.  Mr. Schwartz noted that related specifically to the power outage, it had become apparent to staff that the CIP needed adjustment to have more stationary power at lift stations so they were not so vulnerable with future widespread events.


Specific to the Parks & Recreation Department, Mr. Brokke noted that staff had just completed brush removal in parks due to the storm; and expressed thanks that there were no building damages, even though there were hundreds of trees lost, and resulting stump removals.  Mr. Brokke noted that, for the first time in its history, the Rosefest Run had to be cancelled.


Mr. Brokke thanked staff for working together in the overall response, making the clean-up go really well.  Mr. Brokke recognized the City’s part-time Forestry Technician, who put in an additional 300 hours and provided significant help in coordinating tree status determinations, and also to having a very responsive contractor under contract for diseased and hazardous tree removal, with storm damage included in that contract.  Mr. Brokke also recognized the considerable help from residents, whether individually, through the adopt-a-park program, or park users, and the organized effort in accomplishing that.  Mr. Brokke expressed pride that 80% of the City’s parks were adopted out, making those connections available and providing a real benefit to the City.  Mr. Brokke noted that future CIP’s needed to address replanting new trees to replace those many lost.


As part of the lessons learned, Mr. Schwartz added that staff had spent hundreds of hours in training for this type of event, and opined that the training had really paid for itself during and after this event.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the training the City Council had undergone had also been beneficial.


Interim City Manager Trudgeon publically thanked staff present tonight, the Police and Fire Chiefs, staff on the street, and all those public emergency responders for their efforts.  Even though many of the efforts were new to staff, Mr. Trudgeon noted that many of those efforts were performed naturally and by instinct, and thanked staff for their extra efforts, duly noted by Roseville residents and the entire community.


Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Mr. Trudgeon, and gave credit to the Department Heads, Battalion Chiefs Peterson and Brosnahan; and their efforts in coordinating the response and making it happen.


Councilmember McGehee concurred; noting the many comments she’d heard from citizens appreciating staff’s response and their assistance to residents.


Having lived in this area all his life, Chief Peterson opined that outside of the 1981 tornado, this was the biggest event he was aware of; and even with a lot of staff new to emergency management procedures, further opined that under the circumstances, everything had gone well.  Chief Peterson expressed staff’s appreciation to the City Council for their openness in seeking answers and hearing the advice of staff.


Based on the lack of FEMA funding received, and as part of staff’s after action report, Chief Peterson suggested that the City Council consider the City’s available contingency funds, how much was available, and how they should be used  or reserved for such a situation.


Mayor Roe opined that it was important to note that there was a significant amount of damage concentrated in Roseville versus the overall Ramsey County area or surrounding communities, which created the situation where FEMA funding was not available.  However, Mayor Roe further opined that it was good to not be dependent on FEMA assistance by having funds set aside for such an emergency in the community.


b.            Consider Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 306: Cigarette and Tobacco Products

Mayor Roe advised that, since there were members in the audience seeking to speak to this item, it would be moved forward on the agenda.


Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the recommended amendment to City Code Chapter 306 from a regulatory standpoint and ability to enforce the ordinance as this industry had evolved over the years, as detailed in the RCA dated October 14, 2013.

Public Comment

Emily Anderson, representing the local non-profit: Ramsey Anti-Tobacco Coalition

Ms. Anderson noted the number of types and flavors currently available and continually evolving, creating for their completely unregulated sale and manufacture; which had created a booming business, with use among young people having doubled in one year and increased adult use as well.  Ms. Anderson advised that it was anticipated that e-cigarettes will overtake regular cigarettes sales and use.


Dr. Mike Donnelinger, Resident of Roseville and attending at request of Coalition

Dr. Donneling provided his perspective as a child psychiatrist dealing with addictions, and the dangers of e-cigarettes and the naive impression of teenagers, as well as adults, that these products were actually less addicting.  Dr. Donneling noted that this was inconsistent with the actual amount of nicotine in e-juice and similar products, with their purpose to get people addicted to nicotine; and indications that there were actually more instances where these products will harm even more people than regular smoking.  Dr. Donneling opined that, in his practice, these devices that were created to heat the product and then aerosolize it, were prevalent; and in his research of no longer than five minutes earlier today, he was able to find on the internet simple instructions of how to extract marijuana (THC) in to the same products as these.  Dr. Donneling encouraged regulation of these products that were geared by their manufactures to a younger audience, of great concern to him.


Katie Edmond, Roseville resident, working in the Public Health arena

Ms. Edmond advised that she had been at the City Council meeting when they revised their ordinance eighteen months ago; and provided a bench handout entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes: Background” prepared by the Association for Nonsmokers – MN (; attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Ms. Edmond, and her assistant, provided sample products available in interactive lounges using socializing, and provided several examples currently in Roseville of these lounges, most close to schools.  Ms. Edmond advised that the FDA had cessation devices available free of charge to MN residents that were effective.  Ms. Edmond asked that the City take a stand and protect its kids and community.


Discussion ensued among the presenters and Councilmembers on other communities and their decisions for updating tobacco ordinance to prohibit sale of these items to young people any legal challenges of those ordinances to-date; Minnesota Clean Air Act provisions; use of these products in public places; and previous revisions to address Huka lounges in Roseville.


Mr. Miller referenced proposed ordinance revisions (Attachment A), recommended from a regulatory standpoint; and referenced Section 306.05 (Attachment B) related to retail establishments.  


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller offered to research and provide information at a later date on the number of licensed tobacco establishments in Roseville.


Mayor Roe suggested getting the City’s definition up-to-date may be the first step indicated.


Further discussion included retail establishments versus all work places and public places; and no limit at this time on the number of licenses available for retail tobacco licenses.


Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in updating the definition at this time as recommended by staff, and continuing discussions regarding other aspects at a later date.


Councilmember McGehee also expressed interest in updating the language now; and discussions in the near future about further updates.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was a big proponent of work place and retail space being free from materials one didn’t intend to be exposed to; with one example bystanders being exposed to and inhaling these vapors.

Mayor Roe sought clarification from City Attorney Gaughan on the language in Chapter 306 about retail tobacco establishments; and how broadly “retail” applies.


City Attorney Gaughan responded that the intent of the provision was to apply to all tobacco retail establishments and at the time of its passage, language provided only a sampling of places where tobacco may be sold.


Regardless of what was determined about the definition, Mayor Roe suggested that these aspects be considered as part of future discussions; and this request from the public to take language even further; whether smoking in public complexes; and reports from staff and the Police Department on how that would be enforced.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in updating the definition; however, she was not in favor of having vaping/sampling lounges; and was not sure about extending it to other facilities (e.g. restaurant and e-cigarette and white vapor) if someone is 18 years old and is legal to sell and buy these items, she opined that she wasn’t sure she was ready to legislate people’s behavior by their own choosing.


City Attorney Gaughan addressed how difficult this issue is, and for the City Council to keep in mind, that their authority to enact this comes from the Minnesota Indoor Air Quality Act, with the City allowed to be even more stringent about second hand smoke.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that the questions include:

·         What is second hand smoke?

·         What product(s) constitute smoking even if containing nicotine, even if they’re not lit?

City Attorney Gaughan noted that his point was that there is going to be a lot of uncertainty in what a city can or cannot do regarding these regulations. 


In just considering the definition itself and the proposed amendment, Mr. Gaughan questioned if it included or banned any device or substance, and whether this included or excluded nebulizers; or if it just applied to water vapor without any other chemicals.  Mr. Gaughan noted that it was getting into an area of products that were unknown and which area of the Minnesota Clean Air Act framework could the City impose.  Mr. Gaughan noted that several cities had enacted amendments to their ordinances regarding e-cigarettes and those not containing nicotine; but it was important for the City to keep in mind the uncertainty of whether or not those ordinances will be effective or be held up in a court of law.

Mayor Roe questioned if the City of Roseville wanted to be one of those test cases or not.  Mayor Roe questioned if there was any problem in the definition as proposed or in adding a use component, except for items used for medical reasons, or whether the City should get into it or not.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that he  didn’t know what to suggest for appropriate language at this time.


Mayor Roe stated that he was fine with the proposed language as recommended.


Ms. Anderson advised that their organization had information about exemptions for FDA-approved inhalers for tobacco cessation and nebulizers if requested.


Mayor Roe asked that she provide that information to staff for the next City Council meeting when the definition was under consideration.


Further discussion included how and when to ban or regulate products for people under or over age 18 who purchase these products; products that may be a feeder program for smoking later on; how to address he indoor air aspect; research by staff of other adjacent communities and what they have in place, and why these locations in Roseville have popped up along Larpenteur Avenue and whether this is a ramification of adjacent communities to the City of Roseville’s borders; and other websites providing additional information.


Hearing no objections from the council, Mayor Roe directed that staff return to the next meeting with a proposed definition; with further discussion scheduled at a later date.


b.        Receive Overview of City’s Information Technology Function

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a presentation (Attachment A) with an overview of Roseville’s Information Technology (IT) function and distinctions between that function and a history of the Metro-INET and its business model, benefits to participating organizations, and current and future IT staffing plans specific to Roseville as well as to the Metro-INET.


Even with a highly dedicated staff, Mr. Miller advised that the current business model was not sustainable; and even though the Metro-INET had created that need, long-term staffing had not been addressed sufficiently, and serious consideration needed to be given to remedy that imbalance.  Mr. Miller noted that Roseville’s specific IT needs had been highlighted over the last few years and previously presented to the City Council as part of strategic plan and budget presentations.


At a minimum, Mr. Miller recommended the establishment of two (2) new positions specific to Roseville’s needs, consisting of System Engineers to reduce the staff workload to 45 hours/week plus emergency situations.  Mr. Miller advised that other cities in the Metro-INET had committed to establish two (2) non-locally-funded positions to reduce service ticket backlogs and service response times.


Mr. Miller elaborated on the need for the proposed two System Engineer skilled staff persons, as the Roseville need was already there and only getting bigger.  Mr. Miller noted that, when Department Heads came before the City Council seeking funding and approval for new technologies and software to make them more efficient, the City Council needed to consider the impacts those new technologies and software programs have on its IT staff.  While that conversation just doesn’t happen easily, Mr. Miller took responsibility for not being more proactive in introducing that aspect; and assured that he would be more disciplined in doing so in the future as those staff proposals come forward.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller addressed how locally-funded IT positions related to standby capabilities or if they were distinct in nature; and whether or not those non-local-funded positions could address the City of Roseville’s needs.  Mr. Miller advised that they could address needs to some extent; however, he noted that the staff shortage was specific to Roseville technology items and users along, not the Metro-INET system; and in all fairness, should they pay more because Roseville continued to grow in its technology needs.  While some of the expenses and staffing needs could be borne by all, Mr. Miller opined that it was ultimately up to Roseville to make some financial commitment to the technology items it had approved and applied.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that approximately 9 or 10 of the 29 member cities in the consortium employed their own IT staff on some level.  Also, Mr. Miller reported that, in only one situation with the City of Maplewood to a limited degree, the others take care of their own IT needs, with the City of Roseville supplementing those needs.


As part of this IT model, Councilmember Willmus questioned if adjustments to the model had been considered as additional cities or agencies came on board, that they hire staff to service the broader consortium to get as some of Roseville’s needs.  While appreciating the presentation, Councilmember Willmus opined that it wasn’t the City Council’s desire for Roseville to be a standalone for IT needs; but he supported a deeper look at how partnerships are billed in general to step beyond the current model for relief of the City’s employees through additional staff on their part or having a greater level of funding from the consortium.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller provided information on the logistics of each Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with member organizations and categories of services provided specific to each user.  Mr. Miller explained that each JPA was open-ended and cancellable by either party.  As far as the funding allocation, Mr. Miller noted that representatives of the user group met 4-5 times/year and discussed funding allocations; using a methodology or formula to show how costs are determined, with the total cost of the system allocated accordingly.  Mr. Miller advised that a number of things provided were of general support in nature (e.g. network access, desktop trouble-shooting) and costs based on their number of users; typically done on a proportional basis.  Mr. Miller advised that each user group was billed monthly, with conversations held in the spring and fall, so commitments were available early in the budget process to determine their acceptability; and address any increases and their respective budgets.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for a list of the twenty-nine member organizations in one list; their number of users; and the services they utilized; with Mr. Miller duly noting that request.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller advised that no one had yet left the user group.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Miller for the presentation; and expressed her more clear understanding of the business model and her continued support for it.


Mayor Roe suggested that it would be helpful to have this information more publically available under the City’s IT section of the website, so the public had a better understanding of the consortium, its purpose and how it was funded.


Mr. Miller noted that the City did not advertise or market this service, but its growth had been strictly by word-of-mouth; and even though it has created extra work for the City’s IT Manager Terre Heiser, the millions of dollars saved for participants was felt to be worth it.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller noted that there were not many grant opportunities available for this IT area, other than several years ago in extending the fiber network.  However, Mr. Miller advised that staff needed to do a better job of looking for those grant opportunities, even though this consortium was unprecedented.


Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in seeing if other communities would be willing to pick up direct costs for standby personnel and fund them within their organizations (e.g. workers compensation, etc.).


Mr. Miller noted that he liked the concept, and it was currently being done on a limited basis with the City of Maplewood; however, he questioned how you provided work direction to an employee you didn’t supervise.  Mr. Miller advised that the Cities of Roseville and Maplewood had only been doing this trial for 6-12 months, and he would want to review the various aspects more carefully.


Councilmember Willmus opined that it could be defined in the JPA, but recognized it as a valid concern.


For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe clarified that this Metro I-Net terminology was more of a network of participants as opposed to a physical network like a fiber optic network, another institutional fiber network (INET) provided to the City of Roseville as part of its cable franchise, currently with Comcast, and part of ongoing discussions for the renewal of the franchise agreement with them.  Mayor Roe sought to provide distinction between the two areas.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

15.         Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 pm; with Councilmember McGehee having left the meeting at approximately 9:55 pm.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and Roe.

            Nays: None.