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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 10, 2015


1.      Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


2.      Pledge of Allegiance


3.      Approve Agenda

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


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


4.      Public Comment

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


a.            Thomas F. Schraad, 1142 Rose Place

Referencing his attendance at the July 20, 2015 meeting and reiterating his complaint about debris and junk on city-owned property adjacent to his property, Mr. Schraad asked for an update, as he had not heard anything from staff, and only one mowing and movement of some junk from one side of the lot to the other had been addressed to-date.


City Manager Trudgeon apologized to Mr. Schraad and the City Council for Mr. Schraad not having been personally contacted by staff.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was typically a 3-4 week cycle for mowing city-owned properties; and he would follow-up with staff on the remaining debris on the property before the next scheduled mowing. In addition, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would follow-up on the long-term plans and situation with that particular right-of-way. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Public Works Maintenance Department was responsible for maintenance of city-owned rights-of-way, and he would consult with Public Works Director Marc Culver on the situation and scheduling. Mr. Trudgeon personally thanked Mr. Schraad for alerting him to this situation.


Mr. Schraad asked that, when staff came out to the property, they let him know so he can provide his input to them on the debris and junk on the property that may not be obvious during a general review.


City Manager Trudgeon stated he would make sure that contact occurred.


Reiterating his other code enforcement issue with commercial truck parking on the street, Mr. Schraad reported that, immediately following the last discussion the trucks had been removed for a short time, but were now appearing again on a regular basis, including on weekends.  Mr. Schraad asked that the street be signed to discourage that parking of vehicles over a certain gross weight or in accordance with City Code to make sure the Police Department was aware of and could make sure those vehicles were tagged accordingly. Mr. Schraad expressed his frustration and asked how long he had to wait for resolution of this illegal parking issue.


Mayor Roe noted the difficulty in providing signage on a specific street for a code that applies city-wide; but clarified that trucks over a certain gross weight could not be parked on Roseville streets anywhere in the City at any time, and looked to City Manager Trudgeon for immediate follow-up on that point.


City Manager Trudgeon again apologized that staff had not been diligent in following up with this matter, and assured the City Council and Mr. Schraad that he would personally see that it was enforced.  However, Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that, while the Police Department could ticket offending vehicles, they could not police a particular area 24/7, and therefore didn't want to set expectations higher than could be realistically met.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed his hope that by ticketing those vehicles, it would serve to clearly get the message across.  In addressing Mr. Schraad's concerns that the Police Department was not enforcing parking violations, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would follow-through with the Police Department, and report back to Mr. Schraad and the City Council on those actions taken in resolving this situation, even though reiterating the challenges in 24/7 enforcement city-wide.


Mayor Roe stated that, whether signed or not, it should be made clear to owners of those vehicles that they could not park there and that enforcement was a requirement, no matter which department observed the violation or which department was made aware of such violations.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mr. Schraad about the parking violation, citing a similar situation along County Road C-2 in the past and subsequent resolution.  Councilmember McGehee suggested there appeared to be a communications breakdown among staff somewhere, and police officers should be made aware of what they can and cannot enforce.


Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember McGehee.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to remove the debris and junk from the right-of-way, questioning how and why it ended up there in the first place.


Mayor Roe noted it was obviously not the City using the right-of-way as a dump site, and illegal dumping needed to be addressed accordingly.


b.         Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA) Executive Director Julie Wearn

Ms. Wearn announced the recent award to the RVA of the Destination Marketing Accreditation Program seal or recognition from the Destination Marketing Association International's annual convention, one of 208 associations worldwide to achieve this honor.  Ms. Wearn noted this accreditation program required meeting fifty-three performance standards across sixteen disciplines, with standards covering nearly all aspects of management and marketing.


Ms. Wearn also announced the inaugural Roseville Police Foundation Golf Tournament at Midland Hills Country Club in Roseville on September 28, 2015, with additional information available at


c.            Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue W

Mr. Houck brought to the City Council's attention his concerns with new playground equipment installed at Bruce Russell Park and supposed safety of that equipment for 2 - 12 year olds. While the equipment may indeed be safe for older children, Mr. Houck disputed that claim that it was safe for preschool-aged children, and provided pictures he'd taken to prove his allegation of those safety issues. Mr. Houck opined that the equipment previously at the park was much safer than this replacement equipment; and expressed particular concern with a climbing rock 6' high and a cable rope bridge.  Even with adult supervision nearby, Mr. Houck opined that a potential fall or injury could occur. 


Mr. Houck referenced his recent e-mail exchanges with Park & Recreation Department staff, and his impression of their lack of concern with any potential fall or injury creating potential liability issues for the City, ergo local taxpayers.  Mr. Houck opined it was the responsibility of government to protect citizens from harm, but questioned who protected citizens from their government in situations such as this.


Mr. Houck encouraged the City Council to address this dangerous situation, and asked for input from the City Attorney regarding liability issues.


Mayor Roe suggested additional information and follow-up from staff, including how standard this type of playground equipment is, age ranges and risk information on this particular equipment, and allowing receipt of additional feedback from the public and individual Councilmembers regarding this situation to gain a better understanding.  Mayor Roe noted similar equipment had been installed in other city parks, and sought a better understanding of equipment types and liability concerns before publically responding to Mr. Houck's concerns.


Councilmember McGehee sought input from City Attorney Gaughan at this time, and since the issue had now been brought to the City's attention, whether it heightened the City's liability should it not take immediate action.


As recognized by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that, by law, the City of Roseville and its employees were immune from liability claims arising from equipment at recreational areas with good judgment used in the installation and maintenance of that equipment.


Form her personal visit to the park and her observations, Councilmember McGehee opined that, given the number of children being cared for by their elderly relatives, the City may want to establish a different standard for park equipment, since it would obviously be difficult for older caregivers to access this particular type of equipment. 


Based on his personal visit to the park and familiarity with the equipment under discussion, Councilmember Willmus opined that he did not share the same concerns with this particular apparatus and referenced the playground equipment he had used as a child and more pronounced safety issues of that older equipment (e.g. monkey bar sets and their height, swing sets, etc.). 


Mayor Roe reiterated his request for staff follow-up on industry standards as a supplement to City Attorney Gaughan's response regarding City liability.


Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road West

Ms. Ramundt referenced an e-mail she had shared with the Roseville Ethics Commission last week, and read it at tonight's meeting, specifically addressing two topics and seeking comment from the City Council and public. Ms. Ramundt expressed her support for Roseville and her optimism for its future.  However, given differences of opinion that may occur in the future and the need for all parties to feel heard and that they were being treated with respect, Ms. Ramundt requested that the Ethics Commission be charged with drafting a Code of Conduct for city staff, council members, and advisory commissioners, or any volunteers or others representing the City of Roseville. Ms. Ramundt noted that Civility Training sponsored by the City's Human Rights Commission was scheduled in September and suggested this would provide an additional opportunity for this topic as well. 


As referenced at the July 20th City Council meeting by Lisa McCormick, Ms. Ramundt noted that examples or models were available to share related to Code of Conduct language, with the vision to incorporate it into annual ethics training and in administering individual Oaths of Office.  Ms. Ramundt opined that a formal complaint process was needed to provide residents with information on who to contact and a consistent and fair process to ensure complaints were handled in a respectful manner and the Code of Conduct is followed. Ms. Ramundt asked that the City Council continue to build on their positive steps to-date and move Roseville from good to great.


Ms. Ramundt noted a response she'd received earlier today from City Manager Trudgeon advising that staff was currently working on a policy for expectations for advisory commissioners, and ask that the effort be expanded beyond commissioner, to anyone representing the City or City Council and that the policy include definitions of conduct and the process for formal complaints.


5.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced several upcoming events, including the upcoming and final Friday with Firefighters; fundraising opportunity at Granite City in Rosedale Mall for donations to the Roseville Fire Department from eat-in or takeout orders; and another monthly opportunity for volunteer assistance in removal of invasive plants in Roseville parks.


On behalf of the City of Roseville, City Council and staff, Mayor Roe congratulated Senator Bev Scalze, representing the northeast portion of Roseville, in her recent selection as a League of Minnesota Cities Legislator of Distinction, one of twenty-eight legislators and one of eleven State of Minnesota senators receiving this honor.  Mayor Roe offered congratulations and thanked her for her continued service to the community.


Mayor Roe provided a brief update from the North Suburban Communications Commission, anticipating a September 2015 timeframe for action by the Commission on pending CenturyLink franchise agreement approval, and subsequent submission to member cities for their review and action.


6.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications


7.       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 July 20, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

In addition to the corrections noted on the draft meeting minutes, Mayor Roe asked for Council comment addressing individual councilmember written submissions seeking their inclusion to meeting minutes as part of the record.  Mayor Roe noted the City Council had a well-defined policy in place regarding handouts from staff and/or the public, but not specifically addressing individual councilmember attachment. 


In this instance, Mayor Roe noted the request of Councilmember McGehee for submission of two documents at the July 20, 2015 meeting: one related to Bonding in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 17, and the other her personal analysis of annual park building costs.


McGehee Memo dated July 20, 2015 entitled, "Bonding in TIF District 17"provided as a single-copy bench handout

Councilmember McGehee noted she had read her memorandum into the record of the meeting, but her "findings" were not inserted in the draft meeting minutes or included as an attachment to the minutes.  Since she had provided a copy of her memorandum to the recording secretary, but in the absence of anything being included as part of the record, Councilmember McGehee requested - at a minimum - that her memorandum be included as an attachment. 


Mayor Roe noted this was what he was seeking opinion on from the body, since there was currently no policy in place for this type of situation, and when a similar situation had arisen in the recent past with Councilmember Laliberte's extensive comments related to the 2015-2017 Policy Priority Planning document, she had provided a summary paragraph that was approved by the body for inclusion in the text of meeting minutes, replacing the draft paragraph summarizing her comments as provided by the recording secretary.


Councilmember McGehee noted things had been attached in the past.


In his review of the July 20th meeting minutes earlier today, Councilmember Willmus noted that, while Councilmember McGehee had touched on many of the points listed in her memorandum, there was some difference in verbiage between the memorandum and Councilmember McGehee's actual comments at the meeting.  Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that the intent of the meeting minutes was to reflect what was said or offered at the time of the meeting, and not intended to correct those statements at a later date or upon further reflection. 


Councilmember Etten concurred with Councilmember Willmus, opining that whatever was said by Councilmember McGehee at the meeting, he recalled her  making a copy of her comments available for the recording secretary and therefore, not as many notes had been written in the minutes as would typically have been done. If Councilmember McGehee had read her memorandum verbatim, Councilmember Etten agreed that it should be attached; otherwise notes from the recording secretary summarizing those comments should serve as the record.  However, absent those detailed notes in this instance, Councilmember Etten noted this may create an exception and create the limbo now being discussed.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comments of Councilmembers Willmus and Etten, and recognized the suggestion of Mayor Roe that a similar summary paragraph such as she'd submitted would serve to encapsulate Councilmember McGehee's comments.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that meeting minutes were not intended as a verbatim transcript of the meeting, but were intended to serve in perpetuity as a reasonable summary of the meeting.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important when any individual Councilmember had "findings" about a particular issue supporting their particular position, it should be shown correctly in the meeting minutes.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this memorandum had not been provided to the recording secretary prior to her reading from it; but since it represented additional information after the meeting, it should be included in the meeting minutes.  If the City Council set a policy going forward, she was fine with that, but Councilmember McGehee opined that everything she submitted needed to be transcribed and her "findings" in opposition of bonding in TIF District 17 needed to be documented.


While understanding the points made by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that the challenge was that "findings" listed in the record are typically based on the City Council action and typically specific to land use case denials and why the case didn't meet requirements for approval.  Mayor Roe noted that the general situation would be for "findings" recording the City Council's viewpoint about an action.  However, as in this case, Mayor Roe questioned if it was appropriate and could even be considered confusion when archived if personal "findings" about a majority vote an individual councilmember may not agree with were memorialized as a "finding."


Councilmember McGehee questioned if Mayor Roe was suggesting that the meeting minutes only reflect the majority vote.


Mayor Roe responded that this was certainly not his intent; and reiterated that public "findings" should be part of the public record, as well as individual councilmember arguments in support of or in opposition to that particular vote.  Mayor Roe opined that the meeting minutes should reflect the essence of individual councilmember points, but in this case since every point was not read as written in the memorandum, it resulted in this discussion.


Mayor Roe suggested there may be a way to move forward by having the recording secretary review the meeting tape and submit a summary paragraph providing more detail than these draft meeting minutes provide on this particular point, but without creating a verbatim transcript.  Mayor Roe agreed that the meeting minutes were brief at that point; and since meeting minutes were already extensive and long, he didn't want to move toward transcripts of this or future meetings, but did want them to accurately reflect what was said or the essence of what was said.  Mayor Roe noted that of theoretical concern for him personally was that individual attachments not become a way to get points of view in the official record to reference at a later date and give them more credence.


Councilmember Etten added that his rationale in previous comments about the recording secretary not taking as many notes during Councilmember McGehee's comments and the apparent confusion was probably based on her receiving Councilmember McGehee's written comments via that memorandum, at which point she would have summarized the document without additional notes.  However, Councilmember Etten clarified that he had a problem with anyone coming back and providing a rewrite of what they said at that time, opining that was a dangerous slope, and had just been brought up at another commission meeting he'd attended with someone attempting to rewrite words of other people who may or may not be privy to seeing those notes; or rewriting them from a perspective after having time to think about those comments rather than minutes reflecting comments at the time they were originally spoken.


Mayor Roe noted that each Councilmember had an opportunity to provide or suggest corrections to meeting minutes, and no one was arguing that those corrections were improper if the draft minutes did not reflect the meeting accurately. In the previous reference to the summary received by Councilmember Laliberte of her comments, Mayor Roe noted that she had read her summary to the full body to replace the language provided in the recording secretary's draft, suggesting it better captured her comments, which had been reviewed and agreed to by the body at that submission.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten's concerns about not going down a slippery slope as it related to individuals attempting to restate what they actually said after the fact.


Councilmember McGehee stated she did not write this memo after the fact; and had submitted it to ensure it became part of the record; and offered her willingness to submit those ten points to the recording secretary at this time to be included in the meeting minutes as referenced.


Mayor Roe sought the will of the Council on this issue.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated his concern in this instance that Councilmember McGehee had orally put forward many of the points listed in her memorandum that she'd prepared prior to the meeting; however, he opined that some of the points had been paraphrased differently at the meeting by Councilmember McGehee.


Mayor Roe suggested tabling consideration of these meeting minutes until the recording secretary provided a rewrite of that paragraph for consideration by the body.


In addressing "findings," City Attorney Gaughan advised that factual findings are typically required of the City Council in their quasi-judicial capacity for administrative appeals or land use findings for denial, and were appropriate to be included in writing as part of the record.  However, Mr. Gaughan clarified that they represented a collective action rather than on the basis of an individual councilmember.  In general, Mr. Gaughan suggested the City Council keep in mind transparency and Open Meeting law parameters, and suggested they adopt a best practice policy for memorandums or other written summaries that they be prepared ahead of time and available for public view before the meeting.  If not made available in that way, Mr. Gaughan suggested they not be included as part of that meeting's minutes, but could be offered as part of subsequent meeting minutes as further articulation of a particular point of view on a particular item.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she made all ten points at the meeting as listed in her memorandum, but could not confirm that she read them verbatim.


City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that the point was that, if it was the desire to have her document included in the official record of an official meeting, it would be most appropriate to attach them to the minutes of the meeting at which they were offered.  However, Mr. Gaughan noted that this memorandum was being offered at tonight's meeting for incorporation in the recorded minutes of this meeting.


Mayor Roe confirmed with Councilmember McGehee that she had paraphrased her points shown in the memorandum at the last meeting, with Councilmember McGehee agreeing that she had not read them verbatim.  Mayor Roe opined that it was a problem for him to attach something from a previous meeting to minutes of the next meeting to get those individual points into future meeting minutes.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that she was hearing that Councilmember McGehee was agreeable to the recording secretary watching the meeting tape and inserting a summary of her comments into the meeting minutes to the same effect as her memorandum provided.


Councilmember McGehee agreed, stated she would be fine with that as long as it didn't become a run-on sentence.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the submittal was intended as a summary, and as always the City Council could edit that draft as applicable.


Mayor Roe clarified with City Attorney Gaughan that the most appropriate process would be for an individual councilmember to bring in and copy individual council members and provide a public copy of written material, requesting both the City Council and public to have time to review and comment on the document; and allowing the submission to be made a part of the meeting minutes at the time they would be acting on the issue.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed with Mayor Roe's statement and with that process going forward.  Mr. Gaughan noted this would be appropriate in situations where members of a public body didn't want to take up valuable meeting time during the meeting to state their positions, thereby providing their position in written format versus spoken format, with that position then incorporated into the record and made available ahead of time for the City Council and public.  Mr. Gaughan reiterated that the key was that it be made available to the public in as much advance as possible rather than holding it until the last minute.


Mayor Roe stated that ultimately the City Council had the discretion to make the determination.


In that situation, Councilmember Laliberte asked that individual Councilmembers clearly label any submission in those situations identifying the author of the document to differentiate it from the official materials presented in the staff report.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the timing of getting submissions to staff before preparation and dissemination of meeting packet materials, since comments were often in response to packet materials.  Councilmember McGehee recognized the process for staff to distribute such submittals on the dais and at the back of the Chambers for public availability.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that her intent was not to read all her "findings," but to get them into the record.


McGehee Memo (Undated) entitled, "Park Buildings Accounting" provided as a single-copy bench handout

Since this was displayed on the overhead and discussed at the July 20th meeting, Mayor Roe opined it could and should be part of the official meeting record.  Mayor Roe suggested that it be included in the Request for Council Action (RCA) packet, but clearly identified as submitted by Councilmember McGehee and not made a part of the meeting minutes.


While recognizing that Councilmember McGehee had worked had in researching her numbers, Councilmember Etten noted that updated and more accurate information from Finance Director Miller had been provided, opining that it be included as well and by whatever method was chosen as most appropriate, with the goal to providing the most accurate information for public edification.


Councilmember McGehee agreed and opined that her memorandum and figures, together with the "verification" by Finance Director Miller should be included as an attachment to the meeting minutes as well.


Mayor Roe clarified that Finance Director Miller's response was requested at the meeting, and not addressed at that time, and therefore based on previous discussion tonight, should not be made part of that meeting.  Mayor Roe agreed, as he stated previously, that Councilmember McGehee's memorandum should be incorporated into the RCA.  However, Mayor Roe suggested that Mr. Miller's response may prompt further City Council discussion before becoming part of an official city record, whether that discussion occurred later tonight or at a future meeting.  Mayor Roe opined that it may involve a different discussion subsequent to this meeting.


As noted, Mayor Roe sought council direction on whether staff should add Councilmember McGehee's memorandum to the RCA as an additional attachment to the meeting minutes, but clearly marked as such so as not to be ultimately misconstrued as an official city position.


Councilmember McGehee argued that her memorandum didn't belong in the RCA packet, as it was not part of the packet, but had been brought up by her to Councilmembers at the July 20th meeting in her personal effort to provide information and transparency for the public.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was happy to and preferred to reference Finance Director Miller's memorandum in place of hers, since she had admitted her numbers needed to be verified, which had been done subsequently.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she thought Mr. Miller's memorandum should be included as part of tonight's meeting minutes as verification of that discussion and later could be used for further discussion or for other purposes.


Mayor Roe disagreed with Councilmember McGehee on that point, noting that it was not information provided at that meeting, and even though Finance Director Miller's memorandum was being discussed, it was not currently before the body, in an effort to continue the transparency effort for the public, it needed a separate and broader discussion, but should not be part of the meeting minutes.  Therefore, Mayor Roe opined that Mr. Miller's document was not part of the minutes discussion, but rather than attaching it as such, it be included in an appropriate RCA included in the packet of record. Mayor Roe further opined that, in this instance, it was acceptable to include Councilmember McGehee's memorandum as part of the record as previously clarified.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City Council as a whole had asked Finance Director Miller to verify the numbers put forth by Councilmember McGehee on July 20th


Mayor Roe clarified that the meeting minutes clearly reflected that request.


Councilmember Etten admitted that this discussion and Mayor Roe's rationale had changed his thoughts on how and where to include Finance Director Miller's memorandum, agreeing that whatever happened was duly reflected in the meeting minutes.  However, Councilmember Etten opined that the McGehee memorandum in this case belonged as an attachment to the meeting minutes, but not as part of the RCA.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Etten to include Councilmember McGehee's memorandum in this instance as part of the meeting minutes of record.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, TABLING the July 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes pending amended language for page 20, lines 31 - 34 upon submission by the Recording Secretary.


Additional Corrections to Current Draft To-Date:

·         Page 19, Lines 7-9 (Roe)

Strike reference to Councilmember McGehee's written comments and memorandum

·         Page 20, Lines 31-34 (Roe)

Strike Lines 31 - 34 and replace with the to be developed position statement by Councilmember McGehee:


8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated August 10, 2015.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


78261 - 78519





                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of an Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement application for Roseville Anderson-Nelson VFW Post 7555, located at 1145 Woodhill Drive.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


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

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the cost for this televising coming in over budget was due to the actual cost being higher than anticipated or if additional footage had been added.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director advised that additional linear footage had been added to services for this year to provide additional lines televised in anticipation of 2016 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) work.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July 31, 2015.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Adopt a Resolution Awarding Contract for the 2015 Drainage Improvements Project

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11241 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for Project ST-15-09, 2015 Drainage Improvements Project;" to F. F. Jedlicki in an amount not to exceed $168,516.00.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


10.         General Ordinances for Adoption



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:04 p.m.


11.         Presentations


a.          Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Joint Meeting

Members present included Chair Dean Maschka; Vice Chair Vicki Lee; Councilmember and HRA Member Jason Etten; and Members Dan Wall, and Susan Elkins.  Also present in the audience were HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey and Community Development Director Paul Bilotta.


DRAFT September 2015 - August 2019 HRA Strategic Plan

HRA Chair Maschka presented updated goals as detailed in the RCA dated August 10, 2015 and five priority items identified by the HRA Board, seeking feedback on those major priorities from Councilmembers.  Chair Maschka noted that some of the priorities had been in existence and some were new (Attachment A).


Chair Maschka advised the HRA Board wanted to discuss the future of the "Living Smarter" Home & Garden Fair with the City Council as well.


At the request of Chair Maschka, HRA Consultant Barbara Raye reviewed the process used by the HRA Board, their review of background materials and the current strategic plan and identifying what had been completed to-date, what should be carried forward, and what could or should be eliminated or was found no longer relevant.  Ms. Raye noted that the HRA Board wanted to make sure their strategic plan was in alignment with the strategic priorities identified by the City Council at their retreat held earlier in 2015.   Ms. Raye noted another HRA goal and of this joint meeting was to restate or refine the role of the HRA and their relationship or contribution from the perspective of the City Council since the HRA was unique from other citizen advisory commissions intended to provide a more in-depth review of various identified issues beyond what time was available to the City Council to do so. 


Ms. Raye advised that as part of their strategic planning, the HRA had performed a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) for future efforts and the kinds of initiatives to pursue and competencies needed to accomplish their goals and those of the community.  Ms. Raye noted that those planning assumptions as identified resulted in the updated strategic plan for the next 4-5 years; and flowed into brainstorming objectives.  From the original forty-plus items identified in that brainstorming session, Ms. Raye noted they had been narrowed down as identified in Attachment A and priorities in bold print, in additional to staff's addition of their ongoing or day-to-day work under each goal.  While those ongoing efforts were not new or strategic, Ms. Raye opined that it was helpful to identify them as requiring continuing staff and/or financial resources, and therefore included in the plan as a realistic base to address any potential tradeoffs in the future.


As the HRA performed its final round of editing and determination of any omissions, Ms. Raye noted the addition of an additional initiative to look at manufactured housing in the community identified as workforce housing.


Ms. Raye concluded that the HRA was now presenting this document to and seeking City Council comment and feedback on this aggressive strategic plan for the next 4-5 years.  While aggressive, Ms. Raye stated that as the process and communication efforts continued to be improved, the HRA felt the goals were feasible, and they intended to hold themselves accountable and set their budget goals accordingly.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the HRA's definition of "social blight"under Goal 1, Item 1.


Chair Maschka responded that when physical blight occurred, whether because there was not enough land available to provide green space or a multi-family apartment was not well-run, it created risks for society in those situations, impacting quality of life issues.


Specific to employment, Councilmember McGehee clarified her strong interest in "head of household" jobs, not just any employment. 


Councilmember McGehee sought a more in-depth explanation of the HRA's view on land trust and land banking (Page 3, Goal 4, Item C).


HRA Member Elkins provided the definition of "land trust," noting that unlike typical mortgages on property, this participant would not actually own the land, but the land trust itself or the city can own the land; allowing for affordable housing to be available in perpetuity for those looking to purchase a home but unable to purchase the land as well.  At the prompting of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Elkins noted this could sometimes be a remodeled structure or new construction.


HRA Member Lee noted those land leases were typically for a term of 99 years; and land banking involved acquisition of property and maintaining and holding for a strategic purpose, whether waiting for other or adjacent properties to become available, for financing or marketplace development; but holding it for the right opportunity.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how long was considered reasonable to hold land after acquisition.


In Roseville's case, Member Lee responded that the reasonable amount of time was an unknown; while other cities and areas of the country had variable timeframes, depending on market conditions, their specific strategies, and physical location.


Regarding the HRA's planning assumption (page 2) commitment to use resources strategically and generally divide focus with 40% for "bricks and mortar," Councilmember Willmus questioned what the plan was and where the funding for those new endeavors will come from.  As a general comment to this four year plan, Councilmember Willmus noted that some were continued from the previous plan, several were new and significant that would require significant resources as well (e.g. infill and property acquisition). 


Chair Maschka noted several options, including the HRA providing gap financing for development if and when applicable, or providing financial assistance for non-profit developers.  Chair Maschka noted other options could be HRA partnerships with for-profit developers that could provide unique infill projects (e.g. homes for veterans or assembling sites).  Chair Maschka noted this was for considering 4-5 acre sites; and the hope was to build on the successful community-driven Dale Street Project process, with the HRA seeing their role as facilitating those efforts.


Member Lee noted this could also include the HRA's ability and authority of leveraging other dollars.


Councilmember Willmus noted this brought up another concern with the goals in its focus on the housing side, when his real interest was in seeing the HRA work on the commercial side of redevelopment, especially in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Chair Maschka responded that there was a need for a considerable amount of exterior enhancement in and around Twin Lakes, and a program such as a revolving loan fund using tax increment funds could accomplish a considerable amount in Twin Lakes, including new facades for existing buildings and other things that could partner with state and county programs, as well as city programs.  While each of those options present a different set of criteria, opportunities and challenged, Chair Maschka opined that they could be brought to bear in that area.


Regarding workforce housing, as a city, Councilmember Willmus stated his desire to develop a clear definition of "workforce housing" since there were so many different perceptions.  As an example with the recent Sherman Apartment project, Councilmember Willmus noted that definition was initially presented as housing that would serve residents with income potentials similar to a firefighter or police officer.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that in the narrative for the Metropolitan Council's grant application, its definition was repeatedly references as entry-level retail positions.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was necessary to put together a definition for the city to reference and use consistently, so when a potential developer came to Roseville, everyone was on the same page.


From her first look, Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was a fairly ambitious plan; and as noted at the previous joint meeting with the HRA, the City Council collectively stated that it looked to the HRA to do the more in-depth work that others or the City Council could not do.  From her perspective, Councilmember Laliberte stated this was what she was looking for in this document; and while it was a great document and a good guide for the next four years, it also caused her to question the specifics.  If for example, only one additional thing is planned to be undertaken by the HRA this year, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in hearing more about that one thing.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the strategic plan seemed to be heavy on residential and missing the commercial development component to improve certain areas.


In specifically addressing "workforce housing," Chair Maschka noted that was a red herring issue; and reviewed some of his clients' differing life situations whether wanting to sell their home and not currently having a house payment but not being able to find an applicable rental in Roseville that they can afford (e.g. $600 - $700); or just starting out in the workforce as a teacher and only making $22,000 annually - not much more than retail - and not able to pay the prevailing rental of $1,400 or purchase a home, but still needing a place to live.


Member Lee clarified that the definition of "workforce housing" was based on federal and state guidelines, not who is working in a particular community.  Member Lee cautioned that the City of Roseville should not come up with its own definition since a developer would likely be applying for state or federal funding under their guidelines, not the city's specific interpretation of the term.


Mayor Roe suggested a better understanding of the state and federal definitions would be helpful for both the HRA and City Council.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated his previous comments when workforce housing was identified for the HRA and City Council as firefighters, school teachers or police officers; yet the Metropolitan Council application was different than that, causing him to raise this issue.  Councilmember Willmus questioned, when a developer came forward, did the HRA, City Council and community all have the same understanding of workforce housing, opining that this was not currently the case.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that those guidelines and that definition should be spelled out clearly and qualifiers identified to avoid inconsistencies and misperceptions.


Mayor Roe noted that there may actually be different qualifications depending on the type of project (e.g. whether vouchers or credits) and how affordable rent was defined.  However, Mayor Roe agreed that a better understanding was needed, and asked the HRA to facilitate that understanding.


Councilmember Laliberte provided additional observations and concerns, specifically seeking to know how the HRA intended to continue what it had been doing and if adding something additional how it would fund that new initiative; as well as how the City Council could look to the HRA to perform in-depth work for it with such an ambitious plan.


Mayor Roe recognized that this was an ambitious plan, but also noted it would not all be accomplished at the end of the four years, as with the portions of the existing that carried over into this update.


Member Lee noted that some of the goals were based on whatever opportunities came forward, thus the strategic part, if and when properties became available or certain areas in Twin Lakes that required attention.  However, Member Lee noted that the HRA could also accomplish more if it didn't need to focus on the annual Home & Garden Fair.


Chair Maschka concurred, noting that some projects may require more help from the HRA in putting them together, while other projects would come directly to the HRA.  As an example, Chair Maschka noted the Target project that had remained fallow for year, and the continuing need for senior housing as part of that discussion, creating an opportunity for the HRA, not in full funding, but in filling in the gaps, both which may become part of those ongoing efforts.  Chair Maschka advised that the HRA had identified some sites that provided great opportunities for private, non-profits and the city to make a project viable.  Again, Chair Maschka noted the value leaned in bringing neighbors into the process as some of those sites got more active.


To add to the comments of Chair Maschka and Member Lee, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the work plan provided for proactive initiatives to get started on and opportunistic initiatives to be prepared for if and when they came along.


Member Lee opined that the opportunistic initiatives were a large component going forward.


In such a situation, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was an even more refined priority for those items listed, or how and which the HRA would and could react to.


Without benefit of a crystal ball, Member Lee stated the HRA would not know what they could achieve or their ability to respond until the actual opportunity came forward.


Chair Maschka noted that was the ever-variable nature of real estate.


Mayor Roe noted that some items not rising to the same threshold of priority may actually come forward before others identified as priorities.


In his role serving on the HRA Board, Councilmember Etten clarified several items.  Regarding Strategic Goal 1.A for infill projects, Councilmember Etten noted that this particular goal could actually involve an additional 3-4 goals depending on the project, which could serve to respond to how the HRA intended to accomplish it all in this aggressive strategic plan.  Also, after the last HRA meeting, Councilmember Etten noted the Board had toured the community, let by HRA Executive Director Kelsey and Community Development Director Bilotta, and looked at a total of forty-six sites city-wide: some empty, some suitable or available for redevelopment, some currently single-family uses, some high density residential, as well as driving through the Twin Lakes area and previous comments expressed by the City Council in how the HRA could improve facades of some of the existing buildings in that redevelopment area, as well as the rear-yard aesthetics.  Councilmember Etten noted that those items were part of the HRA's current thinking process for commercial redevelopment and desired initiatives of the HRA at this point.


Reverting to the workforce housing issue, Councilmember McGehee noted her preference for a percentage of each new rental housing development project to include the affordable component rather than a project specifically defined as affordable.  As an example, Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the Sherman Apartment project presentation to include one buildings for the "haves" and the other building for the "have nots," opining that she found that to indicate social blight by definition, and expressed her strong disregard of such an identification.


Specific to the SE Roseville initiative, Councilmember McGehee noted that this was and should remain a group activity already in progress for some time, and alerted the HRA to that community process.


Chair Maschka clarified for the benefit of Councilmember McGehee that he and HRA Executive Director, Community Development Director Bilotta and other staff members were involved as part of that process; and assured her that the HRA recognized the SE corridor project as a major collaborative effort and ultimate solution.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her resolve to make sure those already working on that effort remained as part of it.


Mayor Roe clarified that he had \understood that was the intent.


Chair Maschka clarified that the HRA felt it had a role, as yet unidentified, but were in no way interested in becoming the leader of those efforts.


Councilmember Willmus referenced the Star Tribune newspaper article he'd shared regarding Winona, MN (August 5, 2015 - "Supreme Court passes on Winona rental restriction case") as it highlighted some of the same issues found in Roseville.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it would fit under Goal 2, Item D (page 2) in dealing with rental properties given the proximity to colleges; and could be one tool used to mitigate those neighborhoods in close proximity to single-family neighbors.


Chair Maschka and Councilmember Etten both noted their interest in the potential for capping rental housing as being an interesting concept depending on how it would be enforced.


Councilmember Willmus opined that it could be done as part of Roseville's rental housing registration and licensing program.


Regarding the hotel/motel study and implementation, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's role in any potential code updates with implementation and the need to partner with the HRA in that role.  Mayor Roe noted his interest in knowing more about that and the next steps.


Chair Maschka agreed there may be some subsequent legislative issues. As far as next steps, Chair Maschka opined that the HRA's Finance Subcommittee would be meeting tomorrow morning to refine the 2016 budget based on this strategic plan and its goals and initiatives, for presentation to and formal action by the HRA at its regular August 18, 2015 meeting; and subsequent presentation to the City Council for the September deadline for the preliminary levy adoption.


Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair

While agreeing with the concept, Chair Maschka stated that the HRA felt they should no longer take the lead; and presented several options as identified in the staff report dated August 3, 2015, and related attachments A - E providing costs of the annual fair, feedback from attendees and exhibitors, a proposal for third-party services, and related associated fair expenses


Beyond those outlined in their analysis, Chair Maschka suggested a fourth option under discussion by the Community Engagement Commission in reinstating the City Open House concept, where all departments participated, providing an opportunity for volunteers and for a citywide open house, with some aspects incorporated from the annual home and garden fair.  Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, Chair Maschka asked that at a minimum the HRA take a year off and then perhaps look at the annual fair after that hiatus if necessary. Chair Maschka noted the considerable staff time involved, and opined that the HRA's Executive Director's time could be better spend than in putting up and taking down tables for this event.  Chair Maschka suggested pursuing another direction, and consider other options whether one of those identified in the staff report or beyond.


Councilmember McGehee noted the similarity of the Roseville fair with that of Minneapolis, and difference in the St. Paul fair; noting the inconvenience with lack of bus service to those larger fairs, making the Roseville home and garden fair more accessible.  Councilmember McGehee was in agreement with Chair Maschka in that their staff should not be running it, but given Roseville's demographics, it was still important to get this type of information out there to residents about home improvement options, and therefore it was most convenient to hold in locally, whether through a third party or other option, or offer an alternative to shuttle Roseville residents from Rosedale or another alternate location to either the St. Paul or Minneapolis Home & Garden Fair.


Chair Maschka noted another option was to expand workshop offerings cooperatively with the Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch - specially those more popular workshops (e.g. home financing and home improvements), which remained an exclusive offering by the City of Roseville not offered by other area home and garden fairs.


Mayor Roe supported tying those workshops to vendors performing that work, as long as the workshops were offered in an appropriate way and didn't become a sales pitch for a particular vendor.


Councilmember McGehee noted the value she found in attending the boiler systems and converting those systems to provide central air; with that vendor providing knowledge as well as a resource going forward.  Councilmember McGehee opined that specific topics offered at the library provided great benefit to the community.


Member Lee noted the resource of the Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation (GMHC) as well in providing neutral ground since they didn't sell a product.


Chair Maschka noted the number of good businesses in the area that could provide information and create good synergy with reputable people working in a number of the areas of interest.


Councilmember Willmus offered his full support for the HRA moving toward a more seminar-based format at the library, since those workshops are always well-attended at the home and garden fair, and it was prudent to retain that interest.  Councilmember Willmus also expressed his interest in reinstating the idea of an open house format at City Hall providing an opportunity for residents to visit with representatives from all departments.


Member Lee concurred with the value of the open house format.


Chair Maschka opined that the open house would work even better than in the past with the layout of the City Hall campus today.


While the open house format was used in the past, Mayor Roe opined that the Roseville University program may have supplanted the open house; but suggested trying both but not tying the open house to the home and garden fair.


Consensus was to look at other options going forward.


Public Comment

Sherri Sanders, 363 S McCarron's Blvd

Ms. Sanders expressed her excitement to hear that work would continue on SE Roseville issues; and offered the services of the Lake McCarron's Neighborhood Association to the HRA asking that it be kept informed.



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:45 p.m.


12.         Public Hearings


a.          Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the 2016 Budget & Tax Levy

Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:45 p.m., noting that additional e-mails and post card comments had been received, without objection asking that staff include them as part of the written record of this public hearing, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief summary of the 2016 budget process to-date, and basics of the proposed budget.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that more detailed information, as well as those presentation materials, were available online.


Mayor Roe noted that the preliminary budget scheduled for adoption on September 14, 2015 would be used by Ramsey County for the annual property tax notices and scheduled public hearing dates for taxing jurisdictions, including the City.


Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:53 p.m., briefly reviewing hearing protocol.


Public Comment

Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court

As a resident since 1959, and after careful study of the proposed 2016 budget, Mr. Toogood complimented the City Council and staff, opining that he saw positive things happening and good programs being developed from the Fire and Police Departments, as well as the Parks & Recreation Department.  As he had previously addressed via e-mail to the City Council, Mr. Toogood noted his two areas of concern were about the amount of the annual budget going toward debt repayments, and the need for greater emphasis on the City's strategic plan to stay ahead of senior needs as baby boomers impact housing, parks and other service needs of the community.


Overall, Mr. Toogood thanked the City for putting forth a solid budget; and as a taxpayer offered his support for the proposed 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for city employees.  In conclusion, Mr. Toogood stated he was "happy to pay my taxes."


Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan noted the City had just spent $19 million on the Parks and Recreation bond; and now was seeking additional funding in capital requests, which he found to be unreasonable.  Based on his review of online comments, Mr. Callaghan opined that residents didn't consider parks and recreation services and/or programs to be the number one cost for Roseville, even though it was.  Mr. Callaghan asked why the City Council was spending more for that than the community was willing to support; opining that it was way too high.


With no one else appearing for comment, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:58 p.m.  Mayor Roe thanked residents for their verbal and/or written comments; and reviewed some upcoming opportunities for further comment, in addition to continuing options to comment via e-mail, the website, by phone, or directly to staff or individual Councilmembers.  Mayor Roe noted that a hearing was also scheduled at tomorrow night's Finance Commission meeting, providing yet another opportunity for community feedback.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was scheduled for discussion at the August 17, 2015 City Council Work session, which would also be the joint meeting with the Finance Commission for a secondary discussion that same evening.


In her personal review from 2000 to-date, Councilmember McGehee stated that the tax levy portion of the annual budget had tripled from $6,400,000 to $18,806,000, making an annual budget increase of 7.65%, significantly above the average annual inflation rate.  During that same time period, Councilmember McGehee noted the addition of only 5-6 city employees, but some of the city's salaries have not tripled. Given the annual city personnel costs, Councilmember McGehee noted the other things coming up in the budget that were often done piece-meal without any long-term cost benefit analysis.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the long history of that practice had resulted in this extraordinary increase over past years, and while she supported infrastructure maintenance and replacement, she did not necessarily support how to get there, and asked for further analysis of how that was accomplished.


Mayor Roe stated he had also personally analyzed budgets and levies since 2002 and similar time period, noting that while that tax levy itself had risen by three times, the budget itself had remained closer to the rate of inflation.  Mayor Roe clarified that other sources of revenue had not been keeping up, putting more burden on the tax levy, helping create that differential.  Mayor Roe further clarified that the total expenditures of the city were not going up by three times the rate, but noted how it was shown on the annual property tax statement was confusing and notable.


Councilmember McGehee opined the situation needed to be up-played versus continuing to downplay it.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that there had been some fluctuation over the years in full-time equivalent employees (FTE's), with some reduction in the past form 2000 to current, opining that the number may not be as great if looking at 2005 - 2006, with some positions held vacant for a time, also making a difference in the overall picture.


In recognizing the City of Roseville's current employment level of 176 - 180 employees, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City of Roseville still remained 100 FTE's behind both the Cities of St. Louis Park and Edina in terms of total FTE's employed, clarifying that this was the figure she had used, and even if some positions were held vacant, it would make her figures even worse.


Mayor Roe noted that some of the levy increase had been created through additional debt service over the last few years.


Councilmember McGehee opined that both residents had brought up good points, agreeing that parks and recreation was receiving more support than it should, and sharing concerns raised regarding debt service.


Councilmember Willmus noted that information not conveyed on post cards and perhaps changing the overall picture was the amount of revenue and expenditures with the Parks and Recreation Department as it was not consistent across the board with various departments, since it brought in revenue that offset increases, and not clearly conveyed.


Councilmember stated her point of information request to make that information available to the City Council and residents.


Mayor Roe noted that the Parks and Recreation Department showed up as a high percentage of the average property's tax due to not identifying other funding sources.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that City Manager Trudgeon and his staff post this timeline online or in documents, and provide more detail, including listing items by name and not by their acronyms for better public transparency.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.


In explanation of the debt service concern, Mayor Roe noted that, unlike other government entities, the City can't borrow money to pay annual operating expenses or to address a deficit such as done by the federal government borrowing to balance its budget creating an out-of-control spiral.  Mayor Roe noted that this distinction allowed local government to have more control over their situation and issuing debt for specific projects, much like a homeowner's mortgage.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the only resource for the city was from its taxpayers, and asked that the City be respectful of that and not ask in advance for funding.


Mayor Roe noted that the City budgeted $52 million annually and didn't ask ahead of time; but noted his intent to address concerns raised about debt service by clarifying that the City used that option to pay for things, not for general expenditures.


Mayor Roe noted that the preliminary CIP's capital funding request of $800,000 per year was a preliminary number and would not necessarily be the final number.  Mayor Roe also noted that the City Manager recommended budget for $398,000 characterized as capital spending which served to put money into a capital savings account for future needs over the next twenty years and didn't necessarily mean that all $400,000 would be spent in the next year, but saved for the future.  As part of that, Mayor Roe reiterated that additional discussion on the CIP was scheduled for August 18, 2015.


13.         Budget Items


14.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Skating Center Solar Installation Project

Public Works Director Marc Culver provided a summary of this project, as detailed in the RCA dated August 10, 2015, and as recommended by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) in lines 66 - 72 of the RCA.  Mr. Culver presented an overview of the project as background and evolving from past discussions and reviewed both proposals and options within those proposals as part of his presentation,

Based on the Sundial Solar proposal, Councilmember Etten questioned the fair market value of the system at year six that would eat up some estimated savings based on the life of the system, with $500,000 assuming offset of the fair market value purchase price beyond that.


Councilmember Etten asked if Sundial Solar's estimated annual maintenance cost of $7,500 also ate into the projected profit margin.


Mr. Culver responded that the annual maintenance cost was not figured into the $500,000 cost savings, but would be part of the agreement; with subsequent negotiations with Sundial narrowing down and further refining those numbers and what they entailed, what was included, maintenance costs, and costs of any replacement equipment.


Councilmember Etten noted that this could eat away about 1/3 of the total savings - $225,000 - and a large chunk of that profit during the life of the system.


Mr. Culver confirmed that operating and maintenance costs should be deducted from any energy savings.


Councilmember Etten questioned if replacement of this system needed to be banked in the CIP going forward or if in thirty years there may be more technologically advanced options for power, negating inclusion in the CIP.


Mr. Culver agreed this was a valid point for further discussion.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that the additional $500,000 savings after year six, once the system was gifted to the City, was inclusive of the same twenty-five year overall timeframe; while the life of the equipment may prove longer than that.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver advised that there was no cost for the City to enter into this nonbinding Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar; and reviewed language addressing the next steps allowing them to perform a structural analysis of the roof and other things to vet this and negotiate an actual agreement with hard numbers for subsequent formal action by the City Council.


Since the skating center roof was an asset, Councilmember McGehee questioned if and when it needed repair, what impacts there would be when this system was to be installed for 30-35 years, but creating a situation where it couldn't be inspected, even though it should be in excellent condition.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned the rate history of Xcel with this type of installation, expressing her limited confidence in Xcel if their profit margin wasn't what they expected, and whether they could change payback rates.


Regarding the skating center roof, Mr. Culver responded that the reason for looking at that location was based on the prerequisite that it was less than ten years old and should require minimal maintenance.  Mr. Culver advised that the other option had been the Public Works Maintenance Building roof, but given the significant number of components on that roof, it made installation more difficult and would not allow for as large of a system.


While roof condition is a factor, Mr. Culver noted that the developer may be able to receive additional credits from excess capacity over 200,000 kW through Xcel programs, and clarified that while that is a valid point, the numbers he'd put together for cost savings did not include that possibility.  During the first five years, Mr. Culver advised that developer credits as well as risk are theirs, and beyond year six the City may be able to acquire those credits for additional revenue, even though he was not factoring that in.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver addressed the expected annual degradation of the output provided by the vendor over the first ten years, allowing further analysis to determine estimated production.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her surprise this was coming forward, since she was unaware staff was working on this, and her concern that preliminary conversations had not been held between the PWETC and City Council.  While recognizing that a lot of information and presentations were heard at the PWETC, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City had yet to determine if community solar was the preference versus the City owning its own solar system.  Since infrastructure and capital improvements are huge issues for Roseville as an aging community, Councilmember Laliberte noted she was not yet sure where she was at or if she was ready to do this.  Also, based on potential technology changes, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if she was ready to enter into a Letter of Intent without hearing more public input.


Public Comment

Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan opined this was a good proposal, noting he was currently in the process of buying into a solar garden.  As far as seeking historical information, Mr. Callaghan noted there was almost none available, with new laws in the State of Minnesota that Xcel is beginning to implement.  Mr. Callaghan noted that Xcel had only approved 1 out of 150 requests for community solar gardens to-date; and agreed that he didn't have a lot of trust in Xcel Energy either.  However, if the city usage can be cut by 1/6 as projected by Mr. Culver, it would prove positive no matter what Xcel Energy did, since the City still used power.  Based on his personal reading of the proposal, Mr. Callaghan opined that Mr. Culver seemed to be proposing something that looked interesting, and once real numbers were available through further due diligence provided with the Letter of Intent, that additional information desired by all parties should prove helpful.  Mr. Callaghan opined that so far, it looked like a savings for the City, and he would personally like to see how it turned out.


Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that she would have appreciated a larger discussion before this proposal comes forward, even though in principle she agreed with the concept.  Ms. McCormick expressed interest in a larger discussion at the City Council level and how else this system may be utilized.  Referencing a recent HRA presentation on solar energy from a smaller firm, Ms. McCormick stated her favorable impressions with that and grant programs that may provide potential for an expended solar garden concept.


With no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe thanked residents for their comments; and reiterated that this would come back to the City Council for a final decision, allowing additional opportunity for PWETC involvement as well as public comment.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver advised there was nothing critical related to timing constraints; with this proposal anticipating installation in the spring of 2016, allowing the company and city to work cooperatively.  Mr. Culver advised that it was staff's intent to bring final numbers, once received, to the PWETC in September and their recommendation before the City Council in October.  If it was determined to delay the project, Mr. Culver noted tax credits would reduce form 30% to 10% and significantly change financing options in 2017, and impacting how good of a deal the City would be able to negotiate.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing staff to execute a Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar for installation of a 375kW Photovoltaic system on the roof of the Roseville Skating Center; subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.


Councilmember McGehee stated she was willing to proceed with the Letter of Intent to obtain refined figures.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that before Councilmember Laliberte was elected to the City Council, many solar presentations had been held for this and other buildings, including applying for grant funds, with this opportunity having been available for some time.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she had confidence in Mr. Callaghan's take on the lack of historical data, but would like to see a fuller fleshing out of this proposal.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the Letter of Intent to obtain real numbers allowing for a more informed decision as the proposal worked its way back to the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the importance of having good, solid numbers for further discussion, and therefore, spoke in support of the motion based on that reality.  Councilmember Laliberte stated her only caveat was recognizing the other investment needed and how much could be added to taxpayers.  Councilmember Laliberte further noted the number of residents within the community interested and installing solar on their homes, while other residents waited to hear from the City Council on community solar, wishing to retain that option when this conversation is finished.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of his motion; opining that the city would learn more before further commitments and final financial decisions were made, which provided a good process for all parties.  Councilmember Etten noted the City Council's continued requests of staff to pursue grants, and this provided one way to move forward as a community and in a good direction.  Councilmember Etten noted that the PWETC was pursuing multiple solar options, and with available tax credits, this was a prudent move at this time.


Mayor Roe expressed appreciation for discussion regarding annual maintenance costs and the need to understand that better as a key point for him going forward, as well as Councilmember Laliberte's concerns about realistic costs to the taxpayer.  Mayor Roe also noted Councilmember Etten's observation about whether there was a need to set aside CIP funds for a replacement at the end of the life of this system, whether the City was sure it would want to replace the system, if other technologies or funding sources may prove more beneficial at that time.


Councilmember Willmus encouraged staff to talk to their colleagues in the City of Falcon Heights as to any surprises they've had with their solar installation.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Twin Lakes Phase Three

Public Works Director Mar Culver provided a brief presentation, and as detailed in the RCA dated August 10, 2015.  Mr. Culver noted Phase III involved extension of Twin Lakes Parkway from Prior to Fairview Avenues, lining up with Terrace Drive continuing east.  Mr. Culver provided a history of the first two phases, and provided a recap of the open house (Attachment C) held July 30, 2015, and four comments received.


Councilmember McGehee opined that from her perspective, it appeared the proposed lane layout created additional issues for existing residents and put more traffic onto Fairview Avenue.  For the record, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her previous comments that this is not funded by TIF dollars, but by taxpayer dollars, which they'd already paid $10 million for infrastructure and had been told they'd get a return on that investment that had yet to be realized, and that funding would come from developers.  With only the Walmart and Metropolitan Transit park and ride facility to-date, Councilmember McGehee opined that this extension provided no benefit for residents; and while she was supportive of this road to Arthur and Prior, she was not supportive of extending it to Fairview Avenue at this time.  Councilmember McGehee noted the opportunity available with interest expressed for selling the Hagen property, as well as the PIK property that might provide an opportunity to redevelop those parcels; and referenced comments made by Community Development Director Bilotta to her that he believes something could be done there if the City were to wait with this roadway extension. 


Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn't want to  lose $3.1 million in TIF or close the district, there were other options for designing and completing the parkway rather than this design; and suggested that time for considering whether additional development occurred in the next six months be allowed before proceeding with this extension in partnering the Community Development Department and HRA with input from the Brownfield Consultant.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this would prove more advantageous and provide a more judicious route to take.


Councilmember Etten sought clarification from Mr. Culver on the options as the parkway approached Fairview Avenue and streetscape elements with Option A as detailed in the RCA the preferred option.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver addressed movement of people around the Prior Avenue roundabout as far as walkability was concerned.  Mr. Culver noted the debate among proponents and opponents regarding pedestrian safety at roundabouts.  From his personal perspective, Mr. Culver opined that crossing a roundabout is much safer that even some signalized intersections, as you only had to cross one-half at a time and only look for vehicles in one direction, as well as avoiding turning vehicles.  However, Mr. Culver recognized that there are others that felt because crosswalks were controlled by traffic signals and with roundabouts vehicles were only required to yield, they were not as safe as a crosswalk at a signaled intersection.  Mr. Culver noted that from his review of data, pedestrian incidents were much lower at roundabouts than at typical signalized intersections.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver clarified the crosswalk striping at the Prior Avenue roundabout; colored concrete and potential additional striping as indicated on streetscape drawings to provide consistency and addressing regulatory and aesthetic elements for safety, especially at night.  At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver addressed the level of enhanced pedestrian lighting for the roadway, another part of streetscape elements.


In response to concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee regarding the number of lanes at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway between Prior Avenue and the roundabout, Mayor Roe clarified that there was one left and one right turn lane in addition to the one through lane.


Mr. Culver confirmed that the lane configuration was intended to provide safe and efficient traffic movement at the signal, and would continue to have only one lane for through traffic, but by providing the left and right turn lanes, it should reduce delays in the through lane and reduce collisions.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver further confirmed that the three-way entrance onto Fairview Avenue was also intended to alleviate any back-up going too far, and reduce quing at that intersection through potentially providing at a minimum a flashing turn arrow at some point, but probably not a left turn phasing arrow from Fairview Avenue onto Terrace Drive or Twin Lakes Parkway as that would require approval from and restriping by Ramsey County.


Councilmember McGehee asked what mitigation would be required in anticipation of impacts on Fairview Avenue north; and potential changes and related estimated costs for these changes on Fairview Avenue.


Mr. Culver responded that as presented to the City Council and public in February and March of this year, the updated traffic study for connecting Twin Lakes Parkway with Fairview Avenue provided three scenarios for that development, as well as background traffic growth modeling for each.  With an increase of potentially several hundred vehicles over the course of the day on Fairview Avenue, and as discussed multiple times in previous presentations and traffic studies, Mr. Culver reiterated the strong belief that improvements were needed at the intersections of Fairview Avenue with County Road D to address existing traffic, background growth and potential redevelopment of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Mr. Culver noted that staff continued to work with Ramsey County to accelerate such an improvement at that intersection.


Since anticipated that the City would have to pay for the cost at I-35W now, Councilmember McGehee asked for estimated costs.


Mr. Culver responded that there could be low-cost options he estimated at $100,000 to make minor lane configurations or a four-way stop at County Road D and Fairview Avenue, which would achieve better efficiencies.  However, if a 5-legged roundabout was the option chosen, Mr. Culver estimated that cost of approximately $800,000.  Since this it at the intersection of two county roads and one local road, and on the borders of Roseville and Arden Hills, Mr. Culver noted that all those jurisdictions would have cost participation in a project of that nature.


While this may be true, Councilmember McGehee opined that Roseville residents living on Fairview Avenue would suffer the most and the burden would be on them.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding the Terrace Drive and Lincoln Avenue intersections,  Mr. Culver reviewed some internal improvements that could improve and reinforce preferred movements in that area, which could include some realignment of Terrace Drive at the Lincoln Avenue intersection and removal of medians at County Road C-2 and constructing narrower medians and a dual turn lane.  Mr. Culver clarified, however, that those options have not yet been vetted well at this point, and he would estimate roughly several hundred thousand dollars for those improvements.


Mr. Culver confirmed for Mayor Roe that in the scenario shown with the Parkway connection but no further development, the intersections of Lydia and County Road D at Fairview Avenue had actually been improved, indicating that extending the Parkway itself actually alleviates some of the current problems, while what would make the problem worse is development that may yet happen.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced an earlier statement made by Councilmember McGehee indicating that Community Development Director Bilotta felt not dissecting this area would be preferable or more advantageous than connecting the road with a traffic signal, and asked for his response.


Community Development Director Bilotta stated that anytime there was a transportation improvement it changed the character of the adjacent real estate and added additional demand for that real estate by changing the character, such as installing a signalized intersection in this case.  Mr. Bilotta noted that this improvement would reduce the 7 acre parcel to 5.5 acres available for development.  Over the last few days as part of the Hagen, post-Sherman development strategy, Mr. Bilotta advised that numerous phone calls had been made seeking updates on how soon the roadway would be constructed, and when advising that could be completed in 2016, it changes the interest level of potential developers from a holding pattern of potentially 3-5 years to a more immediate resolution.  From his initial feedback with 5-6 developers he'd contacted, Mr. Bilotta advised that the road improvement was an important part of their consideration in whether or not to move forward.


Public Comments

Terry Foster, Representative of Hagen Property

As he'd previously spoken to, Mr. Foster clarified that the Hagen family did not oppose the road, but it created some problems for access to the parcel related to emergency vehicles and safety issues.  However, Mr. Foster noted that the bigger problem was that the roadway touched the west part of the building, and since that property is 30' plus in height, the Hagen's would need some assistance to either remove a portion of the building or with a potential purchase as noted by Mr. Bilotta.  With Mr. Hagen having passed away, Mr. Foster noted that the Hagen family was under the constraints of a short timeframe, and also have had several trucking firms interested in purchasing the property.  However, Mr. Foster advised that the Hagen family was still hesitant to sell the property to a speculator that could hold the property for 5-8 years unless the city preferred that option.  On the other hand, Mr. Foster suggested if the city would direct staff to work with the Hagen family to remove this one building temporarily since extension of the roadway created a situation where setbacks were no longer adequate, it would be greatly appreciated.


Lisa McCormick

At the request of Ms. McCormick, Mr. Culver corrected the reference in the RCA from TIF District 13 to District 17; and confirmed that the intersection will be signalized in this plan.


Ms. McCormick referenced her comments about impacts at various intersections, not exclusively Fairview Avenue intersections, as made at open houses (e.g. County Road C-2 and Snelling Avenue).  Ms. McCormick noted the frustration from residents attending the March City Council meeting when this was discussed and their perception that the City Council was not listening to them, thus opining this resulted in the low attendance at subsequent open houses.  Since having done more research on her own since the open house, Ms. McCormick and expressed her concern with impacts and how to prepare for them with the road extension.  Ms. McCormick expressed her disappointment that nothing had been addressed toward that end at the open house, nor any information presented to address mitigation efforts, especially impacts on the east side. 


Ms. McCormick thanked the City Council for at least recognizing resident concerns and not making traffic worse on Fairview Avenue, but noted the unique situation of those residents in having no other options in moving south as found in other areas (e.g. Lexington Avenue) and concerns about being cut off without further mitigation.  Ms. McCormick recognized that they'd received some assurances from Mr. Bilotta that the city would place an emphasis on wayfinding signage and extending improvements across Terrace Drive to entice east/west traffic flow-through.


For the purpose of encouraging residents in that area, Ms. McCormick asked the City Council to the extent possible to address potential bottlenecks when the improvements happen, displaying and referencing the traffic study presented in February and showing existing pm peak hour analyses (page 7) at various intersections, and displaying a photo taken by a resident living in that area to show how bad existing traffic was at that intersection.  Ms. McCormick further referenced minutes from a public hearing held in July of 1988 related to reviewing a comprehensive plan update and redevelopment planning on page 5 of that report and construction phases in this area acknowledging impacts and suggesting mitigation by adaption of Snelling Avenue.


Ms. McCormick asked that, as this continues to move forward, the City Council keep neighborhood concerns in mind and provide mitigation or resolution of those obvious impacts.


As a resident in that general area and routinely traveling that corridor at the time of day indicated in Ms. McCormick's photo, Councilmember Willmus asked if the picture was taken during road construction in that area during May when for a period of time the construction did generate more back-ups.


Mayor Roe noted that his recent experience in July provided the same picture of congestion.


Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan expressed his ongoing disappointment with the traffic study, and that intersections would only improve if Snelling Avenue was at six lane, otherwise things would be worse.



Mr. Callaghan expressed his strong recommendation that drainage from this roadway not be directed into Langton Lake and rerouted elsewhere.


With no further public comment offered, Mayor Roe asked staff to follow-up on several questions or issues raised.


Regarding the Hagen property, Mr. Culver noted that the right-of-way purchased from the Hagen family appeared to clip a small corner of the building, but he was unaware of the actual square footage involved, even though very small.  Mr. Culver clarified that the road construction will not impact the building as the road is narrower at that specific spot crossing the ponds, and confirmation had been received that the roadway could be constructed without impacting the building, but it would impact operations of the existing business and how that building may be used in the future as it would cut off circulation around the building which was still being used for trailers and storage, impacting how that existing business currently operated.  However, Mr. Culver noted that the city has owned that right-of-way for a period of time, and honestly believed the Hagen's would no longer own or be involved in the property when the road way extended.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that there was no property issue or concern with the city if the building continued to sit on its right-of-way at this time other than that it no longer was a conforming use due to setback requirements.  From that point of view, Mayor Roe asked if it created any legal issues in the ability of the Hagen family to sell the land.


Mr. Bilotta opined that setback issues wouldn't come into play, since it was the right-of-way creating the issue not the Hagen's building anything.  Mr. Bilotta referenced changes in state law that had been modified recently on existing uses, and if necessary most of the the building could be rebuilt without the small section extending into the right-of-way.  Mr. Bilotta suggested that the city attorney may want to get something in place to address that, but reiterated that only a very small amount of the property would be displaced and was a green area.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta duly noted his request that if something was needed from the City Attorney to protect interests of both parties that staff follow-up with that.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that Fairview Avenue and Terrace Drive work would be completed as part of Phase III.


Mayor Roe noted comments suggesting that the City not do this phase until other mitigation was discussed, clarifying that this would be a policy discussion by the City Council.  However, Mayor Roe further clarified that traffic volumes were projected out for a number of years, and actual 2015-2016 build conditions did not instantly pull that impact onto Fairview Avenue but only occurred when development happened, and would receive cost participation for mitigation from those future developers.


Mr. Culver confirmed Mayor Roe's statement regarding initial impacts on the day of opening the extension, anticipating some additional traffic using this through-route, but not impacting Fairview Avenue to a major extent at the point of construction.  As previously noted, Mr. Culver reiterated that staff had started internal discussion about seeking permission from the City Council to pursue a mitigation project in the very near future for improvements on Terrace Drive, Lincoln Avenue and County Road C-2 that could realize some short-term funding sources available to proactively address those areas in anticipation of development versus being reactive at a later date.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver addressed storm water patterns in this area to mitigate runoff, with existing flow from Arthur entering existing ponds, with that body of water expanded when Arthur was constructed and a cell constructed to treat water from that street.  Mr. Culver noted that the proposal was to maintain that treatment and flow pattern,  while created another stormwater cell further north and building raingardens in two corners to the south to accept water and flow up to those ponds, but not directly into Langton Lake, with 2-3 cell treatments prior to it getting there.  As noted by Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver confirmed that watershed district approval would be required and their regulations met throughout the area.


Specific to the traffic study and one scenario suggesting mitigation through additional lanes on Snelling Avenue as noted by Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver admitted that Mr. Callaghan had a point from the perspective of assuming that was one option in evaluating mitigation for Twin Lakes Parkway at Fairview Avenue and impacts on Cleveland Avenue.  While not a realistic scenario, Mr. Culver noted that it was important that the traffic study model run that scenario and analyze those intersections without removing  that particular filter to review additional traffic movements and potential impacts.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the plans for Twin Lakes Parkway - Phase Three Project; and authorize staff to advertise for bids.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the extension in that in provided an opportunity to facilitate redevelopment needed in the Twin Lakes area, which he had strongly supported for some time.  Councilmember Willmus further noted the huge improvements in stormwater management ultimately achieved with this phase, as well as the tremendous advantages for business and commercial property owners in the area for pedestrian access along the Parkway as well as providing greater flexibility for property owners to develop those interior parcels.


Councilmember Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked those attending the various open houses and meetings, expressing her strong desire to make sure residents are heard and have the chance to speak.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed disappointment that in some cases residents had appeared to give up, and assured them that they were heard.  Since originally pursuing this extension, Councilmember Laliberte noted her ongoing support, even while recognizing this was not supported by all parties, but still supportive of pursuing it.  Councilmember Laliberte assured the public that she was not attached to a thirty-year old plan, but believed today that this was a way to facilitate long-overdue development in this area and show developers that Roseville was not against development.  While recognizing that the extension would reduce the available property for the 5.5 acre versus 7 acre Hagen parcel, Councilmember Laliberte noted that it still provided for a less intense but potential corporate use for the parcel and a use that could provide additional jobs and address traffic impacts at peak times. 


Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support this and hadn't all along for the reasons she'd previously stated.  Councilmember McGehee noted her long-term work collecting water samples at Langton Lake and significant improvements to the south basin over the last 4 years, and even over the last 8-9 years in some cases.  However, she noted that it was still a very fragile shallow lake, and proved crucially important for ongoing tracking to ensure it remained an amenity for the entire community.  Councilmember McGehee further referenced the comments of Ms. McCormick with traffic impacts and further noted her concerns with costs to taxpayers and reviewed concerns with using TIF funds and inflicting additional debt on taxpayers.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of approving these plans to complete anticipated work on this roadway as presented.  Mayor Roe noted there was no argument that the area experienced traffic problems, but suggested that this may serve as a partial solution for those current issues.  Mayor Roe opined that the suggestion to not do this now without committing to additional mitigation didn't indicate that they were not going to happen since everyone recognized that they were necessary steps to take.  However, Mayor Roe noted that this was one of those next steps at this time and therefore, he supported moving forward.


Regarding taxpayer dollars, Mayor Roe clarified that only taxpayers in the district paid into each jurisdiction in Ramsey County, and part of that tax payment went into paying for infrastructure costs as within the parameters of TIF District 17.  Mayor Roe opined that the notion that this money was taken out the pockets of Roseville taxpayers was not a fair way to describe it, but more accurately stating that tax money from within the TIF district was used to pay for those improvements to avoid taxpayers having to pay additional taxes was a more accurate depiction.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Given the current hour, Mayor Roe alerted those present that since members of the public were in attendance for the next item, the Council would address it; however, he could not guarantee the following item would have sufficient time for discussion yet tonight.


15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.              Discussion on a Draft Ordinance Regarding Wildlife Management in Roseville

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this issue as detailed in the RCA dated August 10, 2015, and referenced the draft ordinance prepared by staff and the City Attorney to initiate discussions (Attachment A).  Mr. Trudgeon noted a one-page proposed ordinance drafted by Councilmember McGehee and provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled "Proposed Ordinance Relating to the Banning of Deer Feeding in the City, Title  4, Chapter 411."


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that this draft ordinance was not reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission for comment.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that model ordinances form other metropolitan cities were used, with this draft based primarily on that used by the City of Shoreview.  When researching the issue and contacting other metropolitan cities, Mr. Trudgeon noted that many of them were in similar positions to the City of Roseville, and were seeking input on the City of Roseville's research and recommendations.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the portion dealing with ground feeding and height of feeders in Councilmember McGehee's draft addressed that better than the staff draft, one aspect he was interested in pursuing further.


City Manager Trudgeon clarified that it was not the intent of staff to get into the minutia of specific issues unless so directed, but the preference was to educate residents versus patrolling and enforcement.


Councilmember Willmus noted, acknowledged by City Manager Trudgeon, that the draft ordinance referenced a Wildlife Management Plan not yet created.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that, from her recollection, previous discussions had been about a feeding ban, and if so, the staff draft ordinance was not at all what she was expecting to receive.


Mayor Roe stated that from his recollection, this was the direction staff was given.


Councilmember McGehee sought additional information including other types of wildlife in Roseville involving neighbors; some of the definitions in the staff draft actually addressing pets versus wild animals; creating too broad a feeding ban when the original intent was for a feeding ban to avoid deer eating vegetation; management of the regional deer herd by Ramsey County and whether permission from other communities was already a given; and whether that deer her would congregate specifically in Roseville requiring the city to deal with it exclusively.


In response, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the draft ordinance was intended to refer to wild animals versus domestic pets; confirming those communities in Ramsey County having given permission for management of the deer herd; and recognizing that it was unlikely that all deer would end up in Roseville, but the draft ordinance attempted to address migration patterns evidenced to-date.


Attempting to meet the educational efforts intended, Councilmember McGehee opined that a clear deer feeding ban should be in place as a first step, then if necessary allow Ramsey County an opportunity to reduce the deer number indicated in their most recent deer survey.


As a co-author of the draft ordinance, City Attorney Gaughan noted references to other wildlife compared to Councilmember McGehee's understanding of the deer feeding ban.  Based on his recollection of direction to staff, Mr. Gaughan noted there had been other concerns raised by the public (e.g. raccoons) that also needed addressed; and even though he admitted this was new ground for him and staff to some extent, his approach was to address the issue with a broad brush that would then allow the City Council the opportunity to pare it down.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the wild animal language came directly from the Shoreview feeding ban ordinance, and opined he thought it appropriate to include in this first draft to allow the City Council to determine what and what not to include.   Mr. Gaughan reiterated that his recollection from public testimony indicated the issue went beyond just deer feeding.


Mayor Roe concurred with the recollection of public testimony, further noting that feeding of any wild animals had also been part of the City Council's discussion with the Parks & Recreation Commission.


To that point, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City of St. Paul ordinance was strictly for enforcing a prohibition on feeding deer, and as a resident of St. Paul noted that there were rabbits and raccoons all around, but the local ordinance pointed only to deer.  Mr. Gaughan reiterated that staff was working in the dark since as a community it was not clear what was actually needed.


Mayor Roe noted that wild turkeys and other wildlife were also problematic, and suggested may be why the Shoreview ordinance was broader.


Public Comment

Jim Bull, 3061 Woodbridge Street

Mr. Bull echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee that this was a deer issue in the community and there was no need to identify a broader wildlife feeding issue.  Mr. Bull stated that deer would eat and if not fed they would find food elsewhere and that would mean continuing landscape issues.  Mr. Bull opined that based on survey information, the missing piece was not a feeding ban, but to make sure the deer herd was not being overpopulated and precipitating the issue by creating a more widespread problem.  Mr. Bull stated that the solution was to concentrate on managing the right number of deer in the city.


Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court

Mr. Toogood spoke in support of Mr. Bull's comments, expressing his disappointment with the "summary ordinance" based on previous discussions with the City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission indicting that feeding was only a small part of the problem and managing the deer herd was the real issue.  Mr. Toogood noted that this draft ordinance didn't even discuss harvesting deer, and his understanding was that the ordinance in the packet was going to be presented and finally after all this time would be formally adopted by the City Council tonight, causing him further disappointment in hearing so much dissention among individual Council members. Mr. Toogood asked that the City Council face the issue head on and make a decision.


Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan stated that his understanding was that the city was going to verify the actual acreage of deer habitat in this area; and opined that he didn't think the Park & Recreation Commission's research number was anywhere close to the actual but much larger.  Mr. Callaghan further opined that some of the information received at the last discussion was incorrect, including the statement made that all green area shown on the map was public land, which was inaccurate since at least 1/3 of his backyard adjacent to Little Johanna had been identified as public.


Mr. Callaghan opined that the city was historically poor at enforcing its ordinances, and therefore why adopt this one.  Mr. Callaghan also asked how much its enforcement would cost when there were other things brought forward needing attention.


Mr. Callaghan reiterated his issues with the University of Northwestern and city's lack of enforcement of its noise ordinance that they had violated over 100 times in the last 12 years, and his inability to get city staff or police officers to address even though he was assured by City Manager Trudgeon in his former role as Community Development Director that he had personally checked it out, but if so it had not been observed by Mr. Callaghan.  Mr. Callaghan noted the lack of enforcement in ticketing Northwestern students violating parking on Lydia Avenue, significantly impacting driving and narrowing that roadway.  Mr. Callaghan questioned if only certain individuals in Roseville were treated as special.


Mr. Callaghan stated that his personal belief was to do no harm or cause injury to wild animals, and based on that philosophy he had no intention to pay for any control method, and based on the recent Supreme Court decision, that personal right had been justified and whatever the city did to control wildlife, he had no intention of paying for in any amount.


Mary Bridgeman, 471 Wagner Street

Ms. Bridgeman reiterated her issues with raccoons on her property due to neighbors feeding them, and the cost so far of over $500 to eradicate them and take steps to mitigate their return.  While supporting natural habitat, Ms. Bridgeman noted this wasn't the same as someone deliberating feeding wildlife and was not necessary when it created problems for neighbors, feces and damage to landscaping and other problems.


At approximately 10:00 p.m., Etten moved, seconded by Laliberte to extend the meeting to completion of discussion on this particular item.


                    Roll Call

Ayes: Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.

Bill Frank, 3141 Sandyhook Drive

Mr. Frank expressed disappointment in the draft ordinance, opining that he was convinced it would only address part of the problem, but something beyond a feeding ban was necessary.  Mr. Frank addressed ramifications in feeding deer depending on the time of the year and significant impacts that could actually occur for deer with certain enzymes in their digestive tracts.  Mr. Frank opined that this draft ordinance was the wrong solution, and while an ordinance against feeding deer may be great it would not solve the problem; further opining that a hunt was the only long-term solution to reduce deer herds in this quadrant.


City Council discussion and staff direction

As Councilmember McGehee spoke to earlier, Councilmember Willmus noted the mechanisms in place in surrounding communities to address the deer population.  Whether in conjunction with a wildlife management plan simultaneously with the draft ordinance before the body, Councilmember Willmus opined that that was the direction needed.  Councilmember Willmus stated that his position had not changed, and the time had come to address this issue.


Councilmember Etten addressed some technical issues he had with the draft ordinance and suggested the following revisions to staff's draft ordinance (Attachment C):

·         Section 411.02: Definitions

Removal of items f - h retaining other definitions that related to potential wildlife evident in Roseville

· Incorporate Section 411.02 (Prohibitions) from Councilmember McGehee's draft ordinance into staff's draft ordinance, Section 411.03 (Prohibitions), replacing staff's second sentence verbatim with Councilmember McGehee's second sentence addressing the height component, but removing the reference to deer


Councilmember Etten agreed with the City Council discussion held with the Parks & Recreation Commission on the need for a wildlife feeding ban beyond just deer, noting that this would language as amended would address the amount of food and height restrictions for those desiring to feed deer.


In justifying the need for a feeding ban, Councilmember Etten opined that while it may not do much it may reduce the concentration if deer have trouble finding food and have to forage, further supporting natural eradication.  Councilmember Etten recognized that this draft ordinance represented only a small step and he wanted to see a draft wildlife management plan and move that forward with the ordinance as a comprehensive plan.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she had additional problems with the suggestion to remove items f and f.


Mayor Roe noted that there appeared to be some confusion among Councilmembers and the public with the draft ordinances, and clarified that the draft prepared by staff and the City Attorney was included as Attachment C to the RCA, and Councilmember McGehee's draft submission was the one-page bench handout and specific to a deer feeding ban.


Councilmember McGehee suggested language in item a of Section 411.02 (Definitions) of staff's draft ordinance should stop at the comma simply stating "animals and birds, the keeping of which is licensed by the state or federal government." Would suffice and the remainder of the list was meaningless with few of them seen as wildlife, while some were actually kept as pets by some people.  While unsure, Councilmember McGehee opined that item d in that section should be struck as well.


However, Councilmember Etten noted that item d addressed domestic breeds, and while some of the items were applicable, it also set up that exemption.


Councilmember McGehee questioned whether feral cats should also be addressed since not a current problem, should not be excluded.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the distinction should be in feeding outside versus inside pets; and also noted the need for the ordinance to provide an exemption for the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, as well as exempting licensed animals or those used in a school setting for education and demonstration purposes.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that the ordinance should rely heavily on education at this point, but noted her inclusion of Section 411.04 (Penalties) in her draft ordinance to address fees that could become part of the City's annually adopted fee schedule.  Councilmember McGehee suggested a brochure be created to be used along with the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) efforts and talked about annually; offering a copy of the St. Louis Park brochure as an example that addressed a variety of issues as part of those educational efforts while addressing problematic animals.  Councilmember McGehee suggested this could be addressed under the City's existing nuisance ordinance versus a separate ordinance with court ramifications if not addressed even though she was not sure a significant problem existed to justify that process. 


Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn't want to see the city come out initially with guns blazing, but preferred to encourage personal responsibility, providing residents with simple solutions for various wildlife issues requiring limited expenditures to mitigate.  Councilmember McGehee opined that to impose a rigid and objectionable hunting program for Roseville when surrounding communities may or may not have a similar program seemed to be unnecessary, further opining that Ramsey County and the Department of Natural Resources were already tasked with that obligation and had the legal rights to manage the deer herd, negating any reason for the City to duplicate that at this time.  Given plans for that fairly active program yet this fall, Councilmember McGehee opined that it should indicate a reduction in the herd.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that it was disappointing that it had taken so long to get this draft ordinance, and suggested returning to the Parks & Recreation Commission for further vetting and to get a draft ordinance closer to what people were expecting.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that discussing a feeding ban and what might happen next if this doesn't work was too much and a next step could address what might be appropriate if and when  that didn't work.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested the need for something allowing property owners to live on their property and do what they chose to do within reason in feeding non-nuisance animals, while at the same time addressing issues found in pockets of the community.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated that this draft was not what she envisioned, and didn't even reach a starting point for her.


At the request of Mayor Roe, individual Councilmembers indicated their preference for a more comprehensive ordinance or wildlife management plan. 


Councilmember Laliberte indicated that this draft ordinance went too far without addressing what happened next, especially with definitions of some animals referenced in items f and g.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in some of the ideas in Councilmember McGehee's draft that supported feeding of birds and squirrels; however, she noted it didn't address other concerns or provide a solution to safety and traffic issues specific to deer.


Mayor Roe opined that staff's draft provided a good first step and supported revising and removing some of the definitions, but to focus on what Roseville needed.  Mayor Roe expressed interest in the height component in Councilmember McGehee's draft; and supported the penalty (Section 411.05) section in staff's draft as presented in that it didn't bar other resolutions but provided another tool.  Under exemptions in staff's draft (Section 411.04), Mayor Roe noted language addressing other agents which he took to include the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center; and expressed interest for the management plan to include an option for a potential Roseville hunt.  While the feeding ban got to the nuisance issue for neighboring properties, Mayor Roe opined that it needed to be balanced with code enforcement, recognizing that you had rights on your private property but as soon as that infringed on the ability of others and rights on their property it required some controls to be in place, as also addressed through the City's zoning and code enforcement ordinances.  Mayor Roe recognized that some may think there is no harm feeding wildlife on their property, but further noted that wildlife didn't observe property boundaries, and created other issues beyond deer, and obvious in surrounding communities, whether wild turkeys, geese or other wildlife issues.  While it may be a selfish desire for a property owner to see wild animals in their yards by feeding them, Mayor Roe noted that it could become detrimental to the natural health of that wildlife when it changed their natural habitat situation.  Mayor Roe suggested it may be more beneficial to let wild animals be wild and not feed them on properties in Roseville, while the City addressed management of the deer herd when overpopulated.


In referencing previous discussions, Councilmember Laliberte noted the type of hunt was not identified or what triggers were activated if the hunt didn't work.


Mayor Roe opined that it made sense for this to return to the Park & Recreation Commission for their feedback.


Since this proposal originated with 14-15 complaints, and in her research of other ordinances (e.g. Shorewood) and prior to their enacting a feeding ban, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may be prudent for Councilmembers to read the results of that survey.  Councilmember McGehee noted that some communities actually went out and sought where critical issues stood in their community, opining that was something rarely done in Roseville in the broader sense.


City Attorney Gaughan stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission had no interest in further hashing out this issue with the many other things they have on their plate.  Regarding what may trigger a subsequent action, Mr. Gaughan admitted that neither he nor City Manager Trudgeon claimed to be experts in this area; and asked the City Council for their input on what sort of trigger or metric they preferred, or details on how they wanted that section of the ordinance to work.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested something about Department of Natural Resources (DNR) counts, with Councilmember in agreement and also recognizing counts from Ramsey County.


Mayor Roe noted his discussion of triggers at the previous meeting, and suggested if neighboring cities were participating with Ramsey County, the City of Roseville should do so since it made no sense not to participate.


Councilmember McGehee noted that Ramsey County had not asked the City of Roseville to participate and since many of its residents have asked not to participate, the City should listen to its constituents.


Mayor Roe clarified that just because people had differing opinions, it didn't mean that their City Council and its staff were not listening, suggesting that Councilmember McGehee was well aware of that.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there was a representative at Ramsey County who could talk to the City Council and how Roseville could factor into their efforts.


Mayor Roe noted that this had been part of the research of the Parks & Recreation Commission.


City Manager Trudgeon opined that tonight's discussion and ongoing dissention should allow an understanding by the City Council and the public of staff's dilemma in drafting this ordinance.  For further direction, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the consensus was a desire to maintain a wildlife feeding ban in some form and beyond deer; to draft a wildlife management plan with specific triggers identified; and provide next steps, including the hunting option contained in the draft ordinance.


Mayor Roe noted that this was at least the direction from three Councilmembers.


City Manager Trudgeon apologized while recognizing that this effort seemed to keep missing the mark, and was aware of the community's frustrations, but also noted it obviously was not a simple issue.  If the intent was to focus only on deer, Mr. Trudgeon opined that the Parks & Recreation Commission had come forward with great recommendation, and suggested staff base options on that in drafting a wildlife management plan, further opining that he had not gotten that direction clearly during previous discussions, and seeking as much clarity in direction as possible.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus concurred with the need to reassess the situation after two years; with Councilmember Willmus further supporting getting in line with surrounding communities as soon as possible to be included in the DNR deer hunt.


Mayor Roe directed staff, majority opinion of the council, to draft a plan for the public and Councilmembers to respond to.


With agreement with that direction from Mayor Roe and consensus of the majority, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the two year period for reassessing was specific to the hunt, but not appropriate for the ordinance itself.  Mayor Roe noted that the City Council could also choose to re-evaluate it at any time.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she didn't want to wait another two years for more information on how to participate with Ramsey County but preferred that information immediately, which was duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


b.              Discussion of 2015 - 2017 Policy Priority Planning Document

Deferred to a future meeting.


16.                         City Manager Future Agenda Review


17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.         Adjourn

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:29 p.m.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Nays: None.