View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 9:08 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present.
announced that Councilmember Willmus had previously advised that he would be
unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to family and other obligations.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon requested removal of Business Item 7.c; and at the suggestion of
Councilmember Etten, and without objection, Mayor Roe directed removal of
Business Item 7.g for discussion and consideration at a later date.
Etten seconded removal of Business Item 7.b be removed from tonight’s agenda
for a broader discussion and also to include Councilmember Willmus in that
clarified his rationale in requesting that the item remain under consideration
tonight. Mayor Roe advised that he had raised high density residential (HDR)
designation in the use chart as a Conditional Use (CU) in Regional Business
districts, initiating the process for an open house, formal public hearing
before the Planning Commission, and then final consideration before the City
Council. Mayor Roe advised that his only intent, and with potential
redevelopment occurring in the Rosedale Center area in the immediate future,
was to rectify not having multi-family considered as a CU in Regional Business
districts. Mayor Roe agreed that any broader discussions could be delayed for
a future meeting.
Laliberte agreed with the request for a quick surgical conversation as defined
by Mayor Roe, as long as a broader HDR discussion would occur in the near
future, and sooner than consideration of it as part of the comprehensive plan
With Mayor Roe’s
clarification, Councilmember Etten withdrew his second; and Mayor Roe declared
the motion failed due to lack of a second.
Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Etten, McGehee and Roe
4. Public Comment
a. Ken Florian,
440 Glenwood Avenue
referenced a recent Sunday article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune
reporting that Roseville was considering becoming a sanctuary city. Mr. Florian
spoke in strong opposition to the city doing so, and asked that it not get
involved in providing sanctuary for outlaws and criminals. Mr. Florian opined
that illegal aliens were not what was intended by Roseville serving as a
welcoming community, instead intended to welcome legal residents, not
Buckley, 1116 Oakcrest Avenue
stated her pride in being a Roseville resident, and reviewed the pattern
followed for immigrants to become residents. Ms. Buckley reported on her visit
to Ellis Island in March of this year, and her time spent reviewing her personal
family history and the background process followed to become a U. S. citizen.
Ms. Buckley spoke in opposition to Roseville becoming a sanctuary city, and
asked that instead of shielding illegal citizens, it abide by the ICE process.
Ms. Buckley opined that all illegal citizens should be sent home and not remain
in America to become a nuisance and tax burden to American taxpayers. Ms. Buckley
asked if Roseville considered itself above federal law.
advised that this issue will come before the City Council later this summer; at
which time an opportunity will be provided for public testimony.
Donations and Communications
Items Removed from Consent Agenda
Review Cedarholm Community Building Design Development Update
Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke introduced the consultant architectural team
and tonight’s completion of the Phase I update.
Mackerling, HCM Architects
Mackerling reviewed responses made by the team, highlighting questions and
concerns by raised by the City Council in April, and detailed in the Request
for Council Action (RCA). Mr. Mackerling provided aerial and elevation views
of the proposed new site plan and expanded parking to the south. In the
exterior elevations, Mr. Mackerling noted the community advisory task force’s
interest in echoing materials from other park and community building, resulting
in the proposed use of limestone for the building’s base and chimney, and
remainder of the building proposed with cement board paneling. In general aesthetics,
Mr. Mackerling advised that the building would most resemble the Lexington Park
community building, primarily green with yellow contrasts. Mr. Mackerling
noted that this would provide a similar palate of materials, just interpreted
in a different way.
Mackerling reviewed the refined floor plan to be more open from the foyer with
sliding glass panels to make the rooms more flexible; and advised that a
building designed for storage of up to twenty golf carts had been priced into
of today, Mr. Mackerling reported that the completion of Phase I resulted in
their contract being well over half-way, and would push the project forward
with consulting engineers (civil, landscape, mechanical and structural); with
the project then moving forward to a consultant cost estimator who would
provide a full breakout of the project, referencing the current value of costs
as detailed in the RCA.
Brokke noted that the budget detail had been refined further from the last
March 2017 estimates; with furniture, kitchen and other equipment, technology/security,
and contingency funds still to be determined at this point.
Brokke reviewed next steps, anticipated for the July 10, 2017 meeting and
initiating Task or Phase II for construction document updates at which time the
City Council would be asked to consider authorizing advertising for proposals;
and subsequent City Council consideration of the project itself at their August
14 or 28, 2017 meeting.
Roe thanked Mr. Brokke and the consultants for their update.
McGehee stated that at both of the previous presentations, she had asked about
sustainability, as well as glass use and potential bird strikes, and
orientation of the building to take advantage of solar energy and other efficiencies.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she still did not see such a report, and
therefore, asked for an update.
Roe referenced page 2 of the RCA where that information was provided as
to Councilmember McGehee’s concern with bird strikes due to the use of glass,
Mr. Mackerling reported that the glass proposed would be similar to that of a
home; and noted that glazing the glass could be included as an option in the
bid package to further alleviate any potential issues for birds.
the remarkable lack of storage voiced as an ongoing concern, Councilmember
McGehee asked why a basement was not given consideration.
Mackerling advised that the proposed square footage would allow for 2.5 times
the current available storage; and given the additional cost (estimated at
$100/square foot), in addition to installation of stairs and finishing the
space, it significantly increased the cost of the building. Mr. Mackerling
estimated that a basement would result in approximately 30% of the cost of the
upper floor, and therefore in consideration of the cost benefit analyses
performed, had not been programmed in.
McGehee requested additional information from staff and the consultant on costs
for at least a partial basement; with Mayor Roe asking that the information be
provided to all council members.
Etten noted that, with access to the building on the west side, it would also
result in higher costs for additional outside work and space on the site beyond
the cost of the basement itself.
Roe stated that he was not supportive of a basement with access at that point.
Brokke advised that additional information on the usable space for public
versus storage would be provided to council members.
a follow-up to this meeting, Councilmember Laliberte asked for a break out on
cart storage, since it seemed to have morphed into more of a building versus simply
a secured, fenced-in storage area.
Brokke clarified that the cost for a building for cart storage was estimated at
$67,000, approximately $5,000 more than the cost of a surrounding fence; and
with current cart thefts in the metropolitan area, advised it had been
determined that a building was preferable.
Councilmember Laliberte noting that cart storage was needed for only part of
the year, Mr. Brokke advised that storage for patio furniture was intended for
that space during the off season.
Laliberte noted, that at some point the City Council and staff would need to
discuss the kitchen plan in more detail and as fixtures are determined, as the
original task force had discussed to facilitate a catering-friendly kitchen,
and service counters, staffing areas and food and inventory stocking.
Brokke confirmed that the intent was to have a catering-friendly kitchen.
McGehee, along with Mayor Roe, also asked for more detailed information on
heating/cooling costs for the facility as part of future consideration of the
broader operating costs.
Discuss Broadening Commercial Business Districts to Include
Multi-Family Residential Uses
Roe seconded amending Chapter 1005 (page 5, Attachment A to the RCA) Table of
Uses for Regional Business Districts to both include multi-family dwellings as
a Conditional Use in Regional Business 1 and 2 Districts
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe stated
that he anticipated this action may help with other HDR issues adjacent to
projects similar to that discussed earlier tonight at the REDA meeting, since
Regional Business Districts don’t have much low density residential (LDR)
McGehee stated her preference for the mixed use as well.
Discuss City Code, Chapter 407.02.E, Keeping of Non-Domestic
noted earlier, this item was removed from this agenda for consideration at a
Approve Creation of a Police Cadet Position within the Police
Chief Rick Mathwig briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA. Chief
Mathwig clarified that this would not be intended as a new hire, but to change
the position of one of the four community service officer (CSO) positions currently
employed, and recreate a previous job description changing one position to a
full-time benefited position.
Mathwig corrected an error in the RCA, clarifying that funds were available for
the position in the remainder of 2017, but would require an additional $35,000
as part of the department’s 2018 budget request.
moved, Laliberte seconded, to authorize the creation of the Police Cadet
position in the Police Department at the proposed pay grade within the city’s
compensation plan; intended as a transitory position to meet current staffing
Roe asked that the job description specify that this is intended as a temporary
assignment to achieve certain staffing goals, and not intended as a permanently
McGehee commended the Police Department in their work with Roseville’s diverse
Etten, referencing emails exchanged earlier today with Chief Mathwig, asked for
clarification as to whether this position was intended to provide an incentive
around an existing excellent employee, but not clearly envisioned that the
cadet position would be available or necessarily always filled or permanently
filled when the 2018 budget was considered from a broader scope. If this
employee hired out elsewhere, Councilmember Etten asked if the cadet position
would be filled or depend on timing and current personnel, or automatically
hired into the cadet position.
Mathwig responded that it would depend on the current cadre of four CSO’s; and
their educational qualifications and the quality of their work, as well as
annual budget cycles and planning situations.
Roe spoke in support of the motion, noting that it created a position maintained
as a permanent available option, provided it would be staffed based on the
current situation at that time. At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief Mathwig
clarified that the intent was to retain four CSO positions for 2017 and seek
additional funding in 2018 for that position. Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t
want the position to be considered a permanent one, but an available option as
an additional tool.
Laliberte suggested some mechanism be put in place to review the position to
avoid it becoming permanent based solely on a particular personality and
involving someone already interviewed and in the job.
Manager Trudgeon clarified that as with any situation, as with the 2018 budget,
choices would be called out for specific conversations, especially directly
revolving around whether or not to fund the position in 2018 rather than having
it get lost in the shuffle and thus become revolving and permanent.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve Creation of an Ordinance Restricting Parking in Front of
Rick Mathwig briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA.
McGehee noted that as part of this action, consideration was also needed for
those parking their vehicles too close to intersections.
advised that, while there is a state law addressing those situations, in order
for the Roseville Police Department to enforce it, they relied on citizens to
inform them of situations that they observe that create issues.
Trudgeon read an email received by staff earlier today from Cynthia White
stating her opposition to enforcing this beyond state fair time, and then only
temporarily rather than using Police staff to enforce this rather than other
more serious situations.
3061 Woodbridge Street
Mr. Bull spoke
in opposition to this request for 365 day, 24/7 enforcement, opining that the
main driver for these issues was the annual, 10-day state fair. Mr. Bull
further opined that if the city put restrictions in place, there would be a
cost for officers to defend anyone contesting their parking location, and would
not serve as a good use of police resources. While there may be no actual
financial cost to implement this enforcement, Mr. Bull opined that he doubted
it would change the number of complaints received, just their enforcement.
Also, Mr. Bull noted that some of the overflow parking creating the issue was
by out-of-town visitors to the state fair, and they would obviously not be
aware of this ordinance.
Etten referenced the City of Woodbury (page 2 of the RCA) discussing delivery
versus footage, and noted this issue also came up frequently with city park
events, speaking in support of year-round enforcement, while suggesting further
consideration to nuance the point about measuring.
McGehee agreed with the comments of Mr. Bull.
Laliberte stated that she was not supportive of a year-round ordinance when the
issue was only during the state fair, since most park events occurred in the
evening and after mail deliveries. Therefore, even if the language was to be
further nuanced, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not interested in
supporting the motion.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte.
Etten clarified that the situation at city parks was not exclusive to evenings
only, citing an example at Rosebrook Park where the shallow wading pool was
used. Councilmember Etten noted that residents in that area had taken to
painting their curbs in front of mailboxes since they knew the city wasn’t
going to do anything. Councilmember Etten emphasized that this was an ongoing
issue that people in some areas of the community had to deal with.
agreed with Councilmember Etten, noting the area around the University of
Northwestern-St. Paul where daytime parking was a hassle for neighbors.
Laliberte suggested a surgical approach, similar to that taken earlier with the
Table of Uses for Regional Business Districts, to address trouble spots versus
a city-wide ordinance.
Etten moved, Roe seconded, TABLING
consideration of this ordinance to a later date.
Etten and Roe.
Laliberte and McGehee
noted that neighbors near the St. Rose of Lima Church had made signs that
seemed to provide a positive effect, even though not a legal sign, but simply
done by voluntary agreement.
With no action
tonight, Mayor Roe noted that this wasn’t a situation where the issue could not
be brought back at a future meeting to consider.
approximately 10:00 p.m., McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, extending the
meeting curfew to complete remaining items on the agenda.
Ayes: Laliberte, Etten,
McGehee and Roe
Consider Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 201, Advisory
Commissions of Roseville City Code
Manager Rebecca Olson briefly summarized proposed amendments to Chapter 201
related to advisory commissions.
McGehee noted the proposed language specifies that a youth commissioner is less
than 18 years of age and enrolled in high school, however, specific to ages and
terms, with an alternative high school where students may be older or students
who may have missed a year of school due to illness, shouldn’t those students
also be eligible to serve. Councilmember McGehee opined that if students are
enrolled and in good standing at the high school, there was no reason to
exclude them based on their age.
Etten noted that those over 18 years of age would be eligible to apply as a
regular commissioner. Councilmember Etten stated that the desire was to have
people in schools connect with the community by bringing their perspectives;
with few people involved in the alternative high school. Councilmember Etten
stated that he was comfortable with the current language.
McGehee also noted the omission of language not allowing for more than one
member of a household to serve on a single commission.
Mayor Roe noted
that language was not proposed for tonight’s action, but suggested
Councilmember McGehee could add that language at her discretion.
McGhee moved, Laliberte
seconded, an additional amendment to Chapter 201 to prohibit more than one
member of a household serving on one commission.
Etten noted that this had only occurred once in the last ten years.
Laliberte agreed that this could be called out during the selection and
interview process, and was not typically an issue that the City Council would
support. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was supportive of
the proposed language in Attachment A; and withdrew her second to the motion.
declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
McGehee moved, further
amendment to Chapter 201 to specify that a youth commissioner could be a student
in good standing in the Roseville High School, but removing the 18-year old
Etten noted that there were no parameters for which a commission can or cannot
have a youth commissioner, and asked if there was any reason to exclude them
from the Planning and/or Police Civil Service Commissions.
Mayor Roe noted
that, since youth commissioners are non-voting members of a commission, any
commissions should be able to recommend appointment of a youth commissioner for
consideration by the City Council.
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1528 (Attachment B) entitled, “An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 2, Chapter 201
ordinance itself was brief, Mayor Roe suggested, without objection that there
was no need for enactment of an ordinance summary for publication.
Etten stated that he was fully supportive of a background check for
commissioners working with youth, opining it was the city’s responsibility to
do so. However, Councilmember Etten asked what parameters were set, and what
was done with the data and what would disqualify a commissioner from service.
replied that if any red flags were found during a background check, it would be
brought to the Department Supervisor and/or Police Chief to make an informed
decision depending on whether it was a minor item or if deemed requiring
In making sure
a commissioner was acceptable to work with youth, City Manager Trudgeon advised
that the city would rely on the Police Department to determine if a candidate
was applicable to work with youth, allowing that wall of data privacy to remain
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Olson confirmed that this policy would also apply to park
McGehee seconded, a motion to direct staff to conduct background checks for all
current and future commissioners that serve on city commissions that have youth
Review 2017-2018 Policy Priority Planning Document
previously noted, this item was removed from tonight’s agenda for future consideration.
City Council Minutes – May 15
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the May 15, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
§ Page 8, Lines 4 –
corrections: Correct to read as follows:
McGehee asked about the booster station rehabilitation (page 46) some of which
is not included in the CIP. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was a
proponent of finding out project details to determine whether or not doing part
of a job to make it look nice, but not supporting the full project now to avoid
additional costs if the job isn’t done right or completed correctly the first
time, may result in additional costs at a later time.”
§ Page 18, Line 34
correction: Strike “was”
§ Page 26, Lines 5 –
corrections: Correct to read as follows:
McGehee questioned how Councilmember Etten could consider pathways and trails
around and throughout the city not to be germane to parks. She emphasized the
desire of residents to have increased connectivity to a subdivision adjacent to
an area needing that improved connectivity; and part of the transportation and
recreation plans and needs.”
City Council Minutes – May 22
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the May 22, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
§ Page 10, Lines 26
– 33 (Roe)
available information at City Hall, Mayor Roe asked that staff include the name
of the speaker and his representative,
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated June 5, 2017.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
85615 – 85679
Consider Approval/Denial of One Massage Therapist License
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of a Massage Therapist License as detailed in the RCA of
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in
the RCA and Attachment A entitled, “2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,” updated
May 31, 2017.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda
Laliberte asked City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan to draft a
specific resolution in support of state licensure of massage therapy
establishments and therapists for potential discussion with legislators over
Mayor Roe noted
that this issue more broadly was already requested for discussion at a future
council meeting, and that such a resolution would be appropriate to take up
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:17 p.m.