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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

October 26, 2009


1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.


(Voting and Seating Order for October: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing)


City Attorney Stephen Andersen was also present.


Mayor Klausing advised that a Closed Executive Session was scheduled for 6:00 pm, as well as public hearings noticed for 6:00 pm.  Mayor Klausing noted that one applicant was already present for the public hearings, but that she was flexible as to the timing.  Mayor Klausing suggested going into Executive Session at this time, and then moving the public hearings up on the agenda upon their return to regular session.


Councilmember Roe clarified that this would be prior to budget discussions.


Mayor Klausing responded affirmatively.


Closed Executive Session: Discuss Acquisition of portions of property at 2700 and 2814 Cleveland Avenue; and 2680 – 2690 Prior Avenue for Road and Construction Purposes

City Manager Malinen and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to attorney/client privilege and confidential purchase offers and appraisal information, and potential counter offers, in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.01; and Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.c respectively.  City Manager Malinen advised that the closed session would be recorded, whether the City was legally obliged to do so or not.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:07 pm, in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.01, for the City Council, staff, and legal counsel to discuss attorney/client privileged information and confidential appraisal information related to a discussion regarding acquisition of portions of property at 2700 and 2814 Cleveland Avenue; and 2680 – 2690 Prior Avenue for road and construction purposes; and to include Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.05, subd. 3.c for closure to discuss real property that may be subject to an offer or counter-offer to purchase.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; and Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.



Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:07 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:34 pm in Regular Session. 


2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.d entitled,” Adopt a Resolution approving a Request by Boater’s Outlet (with owner RECO Real Estate, LLC) to allow outdoor storage as a Conditional Use at 1705 County Road C (PF09-025).”


Mayor Klausing noted that the public hearing to consider an On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor and Wine License for Noodles & Company at 1655 County Road B-2 would be moved up on the agenda immediately following the Consent Items.


By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.


3.         Public Comment

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


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

Mayor Klausing announced an upcoming “Community Meeting #1” on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to be held at City Hall.  Mayor Klausing advised that the Roseville Park & Recreation Community Advisory Team had scheduled the meeting for the purpose of gathering community input on those parks and recreation facilities that best fit the future community needs; and offered an opportunity for the public to provide their issues and ideas.


Mayor Klausing announced the Human Rights Commission-sponsored and hosted second annual Welcoming Community and Diversity Forum, to be held at the Roseville Skating Center at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, stemming from Imagine Roseville 2025 Community Visioning.  Mayor Klausing noted that advance registration was requested by registering at City Hall at 651 792-7026.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.         Recognition of HRA Members for their Service to the City

Mayor Klausing recognized “retiring” Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) members for their service to the community and the HRA during their tenure.  Mayor Klausing advised that neither Michael Tracy nor Josh Fuhrman were able to attend tonight’s meeting, but expressed appreciation on behalf of the City Council, staff and community.  Plaques were available and would be provided to each member.


b.         Accept the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA) 2008 Award of Excellence in Sustainability for the Roseville Skating Center Geothermal Project

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang provided a summary of the annual MRPA awards for notable projects and programs of excellence in park and recreation-related categories; and announced that the City of Roseville had been selected as the 2008 Award Winner in the Sustainability category for the Roseville Skating Center Geothermal Project; as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009.


Ms. Anfang recognized Roseville Park Project Coordinator Jeff Evenson and Skating Center Superintendent Brad Tullberg for their submission of the application.  Mr. Evenson was present; however, Mr. Tullberg was unable to attend tonight’s meeting.


MRPA representative, Mr. Mark Peterson (City of Plymouth Parks Superintendent) presented the award to the City of Roseville and recognized Mr. Evenson for nominating the award.  Mr. Peterson noted that, as a former resident of Roseville, and former employee at the Ice Arena, he was especially proud to present the award to the City.


Mr. Evenson accepted the award from Mr. Peterson on behalf of City; thanking the MRPA and City Council.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing acceptance of the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association 2008 Award of Excellence for Sustainability for the Roseville Skating Center Geothermal Project.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


            Councilmember Roe noted late Councilmember Tom Kough’s involvement in the initial pursuit of the project; even though he was unable to enjoy the fruits of his labors, mention of his involvement should be noted.


c.                  Recognition of Roseville Genisys Credit Union for their 2009 Rose Parade Title Sponsorship

Parks and Recreation Assistant Director Jill Anfang introduced representatives of Genisys Credit Union for their $2,500 title sponsorship for the 2009 Rose Parade and their active participation in partnering with the community.


Mr. Tim Doese spoke briefly of the history of their business in the community over the last 20 years and their excitement in being part of the community.


d.         Proclaim National American Indian Heritage Month

Mayor Klausing read the proclamation recognizing the National American Indian Heritage in the Roseville community.


Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, proclamation of November 2009 as National American Indian Heritage Month in the City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join in appreciate for our rich and diverse community.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.                 Approve Minutes of October 19, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 19, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.



                        Page 1, line 13 (Ihlan)

Councilmember Ihlan requested that she had been unavailable to attend the October 19, 2009 meeting due to illness.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

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


a.                 Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments







Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


b.                 Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:







Lexington Avenue Fiber Segment

Note: Previously approved by the City Council with the 2009 Fiber Project









Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.         Set a Public Hearing on November 16, 2009 for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, scheduling a public hearing for November 16, 2009 to consider an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack, 2704 Snelling Avenue N.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


          e.         Approve a One-Year Extension to an Agreement with Metro Transit for a Park and Ride Facility at the Skating Center

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of an Amendment No. 3 to the existing lease agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Roseville for a 50 space Park and Ride facility at the Skating Center until December 31, 2010.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


f.                   Roseville Energy Action and Conservation Team (REACT) Update

Mayor Klausing recognized the REACT as an example of the type of employees of the City and their affirmative action in reducing energy use and costs for the City.  Mayor Klausing acknowledged their efforts on behalf of City of Roseville taxpayers and applauded their actions in the community above and beyond their normal duties.

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, receipt of the October 26, 2009 update from the Roseville Energy Action and Conservation (REACT Team) as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


g.                 Authorization of Joint Fuel Purchase for City Fleet

Councilmember Roe clarified that the joint fuel purchase option approach, similar to that of last year, was based on the timing in the market place.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff’s analysis had been founded on those similarities.


Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of continuing the City ‘s participation in the cooperative purchasing venture for fleet fuel for 2010 as part of the State of Minnesota contract.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.         Adopt a Resolution Approving a Request by Boater’s Outlet (with owner RECO Real Estate, LLC) to allow outdoor storage as a Conditional Use at 1705 County Road C (PF09-025) (Former Consent Item 7.d)

City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009; with the application process having been heard at public hearing before the Planning Commission, and their recommendation for unanimous approval, with conditions.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that, under the Twin Lakes Master Plan, this area had been envisioned as industrial into the future; but that boat storage was not the type of use envisioned in that area.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that, in granting the request for a Conditional Use (CU), it would continue with the property; and suggested that an Interim Use Permit (IUP) would be more appropriate for a period of five years; but opined that a permanent CU made no sense whatsoever.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon concurred that outdoor boat storage was not in the long-term plans for the area, and that the property owner had acknowledged that as well.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the history of the property, previous moratorium and original granting of an IUP that had subsequently expired.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, with the property zoned Industrial, not mixed use or Twin Lakes Special, the property owner had the right to request a CU for outdoor storage, since they’re already there.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he found no compelling reason to deny them the storage use and shut down their business; and opined that as redevelopment occurred, the issues could then be resolved.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that consideration of this request was not reviewed through the Twin Lakes lens, as redevelopment at this time was directed more at the east rather than west side of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was attempting to transition the redevelopment area through productive uses rather than vacant buildings.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had not approached the property owner with a suggestion for IUP rather than CU, but offered to do so at the direction of the City Council.


Discussion ensued related to outdoor storage as a permitted use as a Conditional Use on the parcel; timing of future redevelopment; consistencies with the Comprehensive Plan; IUP versus permanent CU related to short and long-term property rights; and future rezoning inconsistencies and non-conforming parcels as the rezoning is done to conform to the Comprehensive Plan, not unique to the Twin Lakes area.


Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Ihlan’s concern that by taking this action the City Council may be creating rights that the City Council would prefer to limit based on future redevelopment intent.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the 60 day review period expired on November 10, 2009, but could be extended at the November 9, 2009 meeting at the City Council’s direction.


Councilmember Johnson expressed weather-related impacts to the property owner with extending the review period and outdoor storage of the boats and impacts to owners of those boats in relocating them.


Staff was directed to return to the applicant to discuss an Interim Use for a period of up to five years to continue their current outdoor storage operation.


Councilmember Roe requested that staff provide the City Council, for their decision-making process, with a history of similar types of requests over the last few years and steps taken to achieve consistency.  Councilmember Roe opined that he was leaning toward an Interim Use.


Roe moved, Klausing seconded tabling action on this request until the November 9, 2009 regular City Council meeting.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption


11.     Public Hearings


a.                 Conduct Public Hearing and Consider an On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor and Wine License for Noodles & Company located at 1655 County Road B-2

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009 for application of an On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor and Wine License for Noodles & Company located at 1655 County Road B-2.


The applicant was present at tonight’s meeting.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed application; with no one appearing to speak.


12.             Business Items (Action Items)


a.                 Consider the On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor and Wine License Application for Noodles & Company located at 1655 County Road B-2

Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the application of an On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor and Wine License for Noodles & Company located at 1655 County Road B-2.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


10.       Presentations


b.                 2010 Budget Prioritization Process

Finance Director Chris Miller provided materials in the form of up-to-date prioritization matrixes that provided individual and composite rankings for Councilmembers. Mr. Miller noted staff observations that additional information was needed for Councilmembers from staff and further refinement on a majority of those items falling in the “unfunded” category in the initial ranking, many of which are comprised of multiple and varied components compiled in the “other” category, but necessary to the day-to-day operations of the City and not necessarily representing significant cost savings.   Mr. Miller again noted that this new budget process was a learning experience for staff as well as Councilmembers and the public.


Mr. Miller noted, in this first ranking iteration, those items with a composite score of two or less remained unfunded, and recommended tonight’s focus be on those programs and services to determine if that was the intent of the City Council, or what additional information staff needed to provide for their reconsideration.  As an example, Mr. Miller noted that “Lost State Aid” ranked in that unfunded list, and suggested that the City Council may benefit from additional dialogue; as well as reviewing various differentials in the rankings in order to achieve more precision in the next iteration.


Discussion included the perceptions previously mentioned by Councilmembers, as well as how they determined their rankings; confusion on rankings for those items that were statutory obligations or mandatory; rankings of “Debt Service” as one of those obligations to fund; and several oversights in identifying whether a particular item is mandated by the federal, state or municipal government.


Mr. Miller advised that, following tonight’s discussion and revisions, he would send out an up-to-date matrix recognizing those revisions, as well as providing a live update as the document changes on the City’s website for public consumption.


Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmembers and staff of his five ranking categories as addressed at the October 19, 2009 meeting, using the five categories as follows, and skewing some of the composite rankings accordingly. 

·         Ranking #5 – the highest ranking, based on the physical, well-being of individuals and properties throughout the community (i.e., fire and police services and responses).

·         Ranking #4 – exponential burdens in subsequent years (failure to replace or deferrals of capital assets).

·         Ranking #3 – failure to fund may impede the quality of life in Roseville (i.e., cultural or social events), noting that those items have value and make the  City unique, but don’t have as significant impacts as the first two categories.

·         Ranking #2 – if not funded, wouldn’t impact citizens, but may impede staff in fulfilling their duties.

·         Ranking #1 – if not funded, no negligible impacts, and very few would fall into that column.


Councilmember Roe advised that, when considering mandatory items, he didn’t necessarily rank them as a high priority, based on whether he felt it was something at which the City should excel, or just perform adequately as a mandate, based on how best to direct staff and resources.


Mayor Klausing recognized Councilmember Roe’s clarification as a good point; while admitting that he had applied his criteria as referenced previously in determining whether to meet obligations or those items having more discretion in the ranking process.


Councilmember Johnson advised that, at some point during tonight’s discussion, and in light of comments already made, he would like an opportunity to re-rank a number of his initial rankings, now that he better understood the process. 


Councilmember Ihlan, as a point of procedure, expressed her concern about the entire ranking process, especially following the initial ranking and how rankings being done via e-mail and outside the realm of a regular business meeting complied with Open Meeting Laws.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the ranking constituted voting, and further opined that members needed to have their votes recorded openly and transparently to allow the public to react.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed her discomfort in changing rankings and questioned the purpose in numerous iterations during the process.  Councilmember Ihlan further noted the difficulty she’d had in making meaningful value ranks based on category structures, providing several examples that could only be ranked as having the highest priority (fire, police and public safety services based on a 24/7 emergency response schedule).  Councilmember Ihlan also noted that this only provided for some tax supported services and programs, and did not represent the entire City budget or entire proposed levy, which should include the HRA levy.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that, unless the ranking was completed across the entire budget, it was not representative of the entire budget and priorities.  As another example, Councilmember Ihlan noted that, the category including pathways and parking lots was too broad, with her ranking it as a “3” but nor representative of her values since she considered pathways as a high priority, but low priority for parking lots.


Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmembers that they had previously held a discussion on the Open Meeting Law related to the ranking process and been assured that there were no issues. Mayor Klausing noted that discussions are held during regular business meetings, with the rankings available continually to the public, which should allow for the greatest transparency possible for the public’s benefit.  Mayor Klausing noted that, as the process gets into the final stages and before any final levy and budget adoption in December, the City Council would have the opportunity to vote on the actual allocation of resources.


Councilmember Pust clarified with Mr. Miller how the unallocated time and “other” categories were defined, and how to address those items.  Councilmember Pust advised that, during her ranking process, if she didn’t understand the line item, she had applied a ranking of “2”.


Mr. Miller suggested that staff resolve that issue by eliminating the “other” category and allocating applicable dollars for that category back into the various programs rather than as a separate item.  Mr. Miller used the Police Department as an example, with impacts to dozens of people across dozens of programs and services, which needed to be included with similar categories in that department. 


Councilmember Pust suggested that staff remove the “other” from the list and account for those line items in another way.  Councilmember Pust opined that those items were too finite and unable to be defined and ranked as a congregate, without additional detail.


Mr. Miller advised that the next iteration would be addressed as recommended.


Councilmember Roe requested that the Skating Center line item in the amount of $442,000 be broken down, in addition to any similar and large items as well.  Councilmember Roe also requested more explanation for the “citizen customer service” item under the police patrol.  In response to Councilmember Ihlan’s concerns about those items not currently included in the matrix, if not generally tax-supported items, he opined that if Councilmember Ihlan could provide an idea of those missing items from her perspective, perhaps staff could somehow plug them into the matrix by reference.  Councilmember Roe opined that just because they were not currently listed, it didn’t mean that they would not be taken into consideration at some point during the process.


Councilmember Pust, as it related to process, questioned the next step in the process from “drawing the line” on those items funded and those remaining unfunded, and what next steps would be recommended by staff based on timing concerns before year-end in completing this process.  Councilmember Pust also addressed how impacts to various programs and staff would be provided to Councilmembers as part of their decision making, as well as impacts between and among various departments.


City Manager Malinen responded with staff’s discussions and approach, based on the complexities and intermingling of various positions for one service, advising that the initial rankings, individually and as a composite, already allowed an identification of priorities that staff could apply to a recommended budget in rough draft for further City Council and public dissemination.  Mr. Malinen advised that, in staff’s review of the rankings, if there was something below the line that had the potential for elimination, the staff-recommended budget would duly reflect that elimination; with staff providing further comment and recommendation on other items currently unfunded that may need further consideration based on their implications to the overall operation and community impact.  Mr. Malinen advised that staff was already working on those recommendations, and would continue to refine them as discussions and reprioritizations continued with the City Council, and thanked individual Councilmembers for their willingness to proceed through this new process. 


City Manager Malinen addressed Finance Director Miller for further explanation of the significance of replacing State Aid, and the $450,000 that would only reflect what the State would automatically take off the top of the total levy; and the need for the City Council to recognize that the amount would automatically be decreased from the City Council-adopted Preliminary Levy.


Councilmember Pust opined that the council understood that description of the “reduction of state aid” item, and had ranked it accordingly.


Councilmember Roe noted that he failed to catch that on his first attempt at ranking, thus his ranking and his preference to change that ranking so it fell above the line, while opining that he wasn’t sure if it would rank a “5.”


Mayor Klausing noted that he had missed that as well, understanding it as a replacement of funds previously lost; and requested that his ranking be raised as well.


Councilmember Johnson concurred, seeking to raise his initial ranking.


Mr. Miller reviewed the next steps, assuming these were final rankings with the Council having signaled their preferences through those rankings.  Mr. Miller advised that, even without addressing all the unfunded items, the City Council was identifying clear priorities.  Mr. Miller noted that a number of items in the unfunded category included inflationary-type impacts that staff had identified as 2010 Budget impact items, but most having received relatively low rankings from Councilmembers.  Mr. Miller advised that this signaled to staff and the community that the City Council was not interested in funding additional dollars, but indicating to staff that they were looking for a staff-recommended budget that would absorb inflationary impacts as much as possible.  Mr. Miller used the “Street Maintenance” area (page 4) as an example with a composite ranking above the “yellow line” of “2.4” and implications of less resources to replace needed improvements, that may decrease the miles of streets addressed in a given year.  Mr. Miller advised that this was the clear message he was receiving, even without additional dialogue that would be forthcoming, and if the City Council wanted to send a different message before staff returned with a recommended budget, now was the time to do so.


Mayor Klausing noted how the ranking process, as identified previously, caused him to rank items deferred in past years’ budgets as “4” due to the additional cost in continuing to defer them and corresponding inflationary adjustments.  Mayor Klausing admitted that he didn’t fully understand implications of that linking


City Manager Malinen also noted those items identified with increased costs (i.e., asphalt and material costs for street maintenance) and how those increased materials impacted the amount of street miles that could be rehabilitated annually.  City Manager Malinen advised that the intent was to get the City back on track to a level held two years ago, and addressing those two years of inflation within the 2010 budget.


Councilmember Roe noted that, on inflation items, several show up under the “yellow line,” but it provided an opportunity for reflection how to prioritize those items and how to apply those inflationary impacts. 



Councilmember Johnson suggested that, as the next ranking iteration proceeded, the City Council needed to view the new reality and priority level, and asked that staff provide that revised document as soon as possible.  Councilmember Johnson asked for clarification on the funding source for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process and why it was ranked so low on the 2010 Budget.


Mr. Miller responded that this was due to the funding being provided in 2009, and no allotment necessary for the 2010 budget.


Councilmember Johnson requested that Mr. Miller poll Councilmembers on the state aid reallocation and determine where things stood.


Mayor Klausing asked that Mr. Miller provide a closer connection, further refinement, and a better understanding of other major inflationary categories and which items they fit more closely with.


Councilmembers were of a consensus that they were always receptive to input from Department Heads.


City Manager Malinen noted that the most current budget matrix, as refined, was posted on the City’s website to allow the public an opportunity to go through the exercise with the City Council and staff and provide their comments to Councilmembers, providing another source of feedback in the decision-making process.


Councilmember Roe opined that staff needed to receive feedback from Councilmembers tonight to allow them to proceed with the next step in providing the first draft of a staff-recommended 2010 budget for further refinement.  


Councilmember Ihlan, as a point of information, questioned how agreement was being reached in re-ranking; expressing a lack of clarity as to where the consensus was at; and how the public could follow the ranking process.

Mayor Klausing advised that individual Councilmembers were re-ranking their individual rankings related to the $450,000 lost State Aid line item, currently listed in the unfunded area due to misunderstandings in the initial ranking process by those individual Councilmembers, as they had so indicated.  Mayor Klausing advised that he had chosen to move his ranking up.


Councilmembers Roe and Johnson also raised and re-ranked that specific item, identified as line item #9.


Councilmember Johnson clarified to Councilmember Ihlan that the process involved re-ranking as additional information and clarification was provided and discussed as a body.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that she did not wish to change her ranking on the lost State Aid, and was prepared to make a motion to allow transparency and clarity for the public.


Councilmember Roe opined that as the rankings were updated on the matrix, it accomplished the same thing.


Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the rankings served the same function as a vote, and had the potential to be unclear to the public.


City Manager Malinen clarified that this was part of the budgetary tool during the ranking process.


Councilmember Johnson concurred that this was a fluid process, with the intent to use it to conform to a final responsible budget.


Councilmember Roe opined that the Council was not taking votes on a budget at this time, but simply moving along in the budget ranking process.  Councilmember Roe noted that, when it came time to consider budget motions at the end of the process and prior to adopting the final levy and budget for 2010, individual Councilmembers had the option to make a motion according to their preference on all line items.  Councilmember Roe advised that, from an Open Meeting Law perspective, he had no problem with ongoing discussions and continuing to work through the process; recommending that staff keep the tool up-to-date as re-ranking occurred on the website for the public’s benefit and to ensure continued transparency.


Mr. Miller noted that the re-rankings were being updated on line as discussion ensued at tonight’s meeting.


To that end, Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers Roe and Klausing provided Mr. Miller with re-rankings on various items. 


Additional discussion included further ranking and resorting of line items; current programming at the highest levy level under the nine percent as adopted in the Preliminary Levy; with staff requested to provide additional scenarios at reduced percentages for discussion purposes and further consideration prior to the Truth In Taxation public hearing on the 2010 budget to allow sufficient public reaction to the direction proposed by City Council rankings.


Councilmember Roe requested that staff return to the November 9, 2009 meeting with their recommendations continuing with the line item, rather than in aggregate form; indicating the initial ranking, current and revised ranking, and how to make reductions to achieve the selected levy amount.


City Manager Malinen noted additional information received over the last few weeks, and brought to the Council for action as it related to employee health benefits and the additional $50,000 that had been incorporated into the 2010 budget numbers; as well as his recommendation for a zero percent (0%) cost of living adjustment (COLA) for employees, and only allowing for step increases for the City’s newest employees.  Mr. Malinen noted that there were agreements in place that would need to be renegotiated to achieve that universal outcome for all.  City Manager Malinen reiterated that those current numbers had been included in the numbers currently before the City Council for the proposed 2010 budget.


Further discussion included comparisons of staff rankings with those of individual Councilmembers and how to determine rationale for disparities and those items with similar rankings; League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) membership as a separate issue from the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust (LMCIT) insurance line item; and confirmation that staff had completed their ranking on the whole matrix, not just those areas applicable to their specific department. 


Mr. Miller clarified that staff had ranked the entire list of services and programs, and that they had been challenged, similarly to the City Council, in overcoming those areas that needed additional education and awareness for departments with which they were less familiar.


Councilmember Pust requested that each department provide written materials to Councilmembers specific to their departments as well as for other departments on their rationale for their ranking of line items. 


Public Comment

                        Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg asked that, for public comprehension of the budget, that staff provide the maximum nine percent preliminary levy increase, as well as a line showing an eight and seven percent levy increase for comparison purposes and to allow rational public comment.


Mr. Grefenberg concurred that public safety (i.e., fire and police) were ranked highest and everyone was in agreement as to their importance; however, he questioned how and whether overtime or different forms of management to reduce costs further could be considered and addressed rather than making an assumption that the current level is the best level of funding.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed hope that the process was transparent as well as comprehensible; and complimented the City Council on their work on the process to-date.


Bob Wilmus, 2932 Hamline Ave.

Mr. Wilmus expressed confusion regarding inflationary items, when previous budgets in 2008 and 2009 were held flat or even decreased.


Mr. Miller concurred, and advised that the 2010 inflationary items reflected an attempt to return to 2008 levels based on added costs the City had incurred in achieving those flat budgets during 2008 and 2009.


Mr. Wilmus quoted statistics from the Bureau of Labor related to actual inflation numbers; and requested information on how the City proposed to project that number in 2010.


Mr. Wilmus asked how the City Council was looking at tax-payer funded, as well as fee-paid programs, using as an example the Leaf Pickup Program, with only 10% of the 9,000 households in Roseville utilizing the program, but included in the tax-supported program, and where the equity was in such a practice, and questioned how much was being expended by the City on the facility, land, equipment and personnel to turn the leaf piles, asking that the City look at some of those variables and impacts as well.


Mr. Miller, at the request of Councilmember Pust, addressed the inflation issue, advising that some program costs did not have inflationary figures attached (i.e., COLA), but that there were other things that would be subject to inflationary pressures (i.e., cost of asphalt for street maintenance; increased fuel costs).  Mr. Miller advised that, while the overall inflation is very small, that was not the case for many services provided by the City.


Mr. Miller further noted that the City held several multi-year contracts (i.e., external audit contract; custodial services) that guaranteed inflationary increases of a certain percentage during the term of the contract, following negotiation between those providers and the City.   Mr. Miller advised that assumptions were that Qwest and Xcel would not hold their services at zero percent (0%) and that the City needed to provide for such contingencies.


Further discussion included staff estimates of inflationary increases based on normal operations and funding levels to provide consistency in getting back to service levels of 2007 and 2009 before falling into an unsustainable pattern; and calculations applied by staff in reflecting those assumptions and projections for the proposed 2010 budget; having been paid for at the expense of other programs, services, and reserve levels and to reduce those compounding effects.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:39 p.m.


11.             Public Hearings


b.                 Conduct Public Hearing and Consider an Off-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food & Fuel located at 2815 Rice Street

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009 for application of an Off-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food & Fuel located at 2815 Rice Street.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed application; with no one appearing to speak.


c.                  Conduct Public Hearing and Consider renewal of Currency Exchange License for Pawn America located at McCarron’s Hills Shopping Center located at 1715 Rice Street

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009 for renewal of a Currency Exchange License for Pawn America located at McCarron’s Hills Shopping Center located at 1715 Rice Street.  Mr. Paschke noted that staff had received no verbal or written comment on this request to-date.

Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:42 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed application; with no one appearing to speak.


12.             Business Items (Action Items)


b.         Consider an Off-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food & Fuel located at 2815 Rice Street

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the application of an Off-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food & Fuel located at 2815 Rice Street, for the period of one year.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.                  Consider the renewal of a Currency Exchange License for Pawn America located at McCarron’s Hills Shopping Center located at 1715 Rice Street

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the renewal of Currency Exchange License to operate currency exchange businesses for Pawn America Minnesota LLC at McCarron’s Hills Shopping Center located at 1715 Rice Street, for the 2010 calendar year.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned if this was a service in addition to the pawn business, or a requirement of having a pawn business.


Mr. Paschke advised that this was a renewal for a service having been in existence for at least five years, and was in addition to the pawn business and as a separate process beyond the CUP.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that if this allowed them to cash checks, she was less supportive of that type of financial type of business, rather than going through a bank for smaller check cashing fees; and further opined that she would not be supportive of granting a license for that type of business.


Mayor Klausing sought clarification as whether granting such a license was at the discretion of the City Council, or if it was regulated at the state level, with the City Council only charged with conducting a public hearing but without option to deny.


Mr. Paschke advised that the State of MN, not the City, granted the license.


Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that the public hearing process simply allowed any problems or issues to be brought forward by the City and its residents to weigh into whether the license should be granted by the State of MN.


Councilmember Pust sought a history of when the City Council had heard this request in the past.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the license was renewed annually by the State of MN, and had last been heard by the City Council in 2007; with the State assuming there was no local objective if there was no action within sixty days.


Councilmember Ihlan, in her reference to State Statute related to fees charged, read a portion of the statute, and presumed that higher than one percent of the value of a check was charged by a currency exchange.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Abstentions: Pust.

Motion carried.


d.                 Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning 2587 Rice Street from R-1 to B-3 as Requested by Semper Development Ltd. (PF09-026)

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009, to allow the applicant a more comparable and consistent redevelopment and marketing opportunity for the adjacent subject parcel as it connected to the additional four parcels to the north, already zoned B-3.  Mr. Paschke advised that the Planning Commission had heard public comment and recommended approval on a 3/1 vote; and staff was recommending approval via the draft ordinance included in the packet materials.


Mayor Klausing requested what controls the City could have in place for this commercial property adjacent to a residential neighborhood for screening and landscaping mitigation with future development.


Mr. Paschke advised that City Code provided performance standards for such development for permitted uses.


Mayor Klausing noted the concern expressed by the public during the public hearing at the Planning Commission level as it related to traffic on Wewers; noting that there was no existing curb cut at this time that would allow access into this residential neighborhood.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that staff would address that issue when an application was received for development, depending on the proposed use, and in accordance with City Code; possibly requiring a traffic study to determine traffic flow on site; access; and whether adequate police, fire and vehicle disbursement was provided; at which time access issues would be addressed in conjunction with Ramsey County for Rice Street.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that current City Code discouraged commercial access onto residential streets, and referenced applicable City Code, as well as references in the Code to access to county and state roads and factors determining demonstrable proof.


Mayor Klausing opined that access onto Wewers would prove difficult during most of the day, specifically during rush hour, and made little sense.


Mr. Paschke advised that there was a shared access on the site already in place and that  perpetual access easements were also in place through that lot for access to the north side.


John Kohler, architect with Semper Development

Mr. Kohler noted that the minor subdivision previously approved split access to the property, already on the southern property line, preserving that access, which had been stipulated for that specific purpose.


At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Mr. Kohler advised that closing on the property was currently underway between Semper and the current property owner (owner of the hardware store), with the property owner being the applicant for this request.  Mr. Kohler advised that there was no specific user defined at this point, with some interest expressed until the rezoning issue was realized, due to half zoned residential and half zoned commercial, and that this action should make the property more marketable.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned why consideration of rezoning to B-1 designation, rather than B-3 was not considered, to provide more protection to the residential neighborhood through fewer and less dramatic permitted uses.


Mr. Paschke reiterated that the properties directly adjacent on the north were guided and zoned as B-3, which seemed more appropriate adjacent to Rice Street, with staff concluding that the B-3 designation was justifiable zoning, rather than zoning separately from the total property, thereby reducing redevelopment options and parking requirements.  Mr. Paschke opined that this was not a sizable commercial property, and with rezoning consistent with those properties to the north, should provide a more amenable commercial project.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pending adoption, designated the area as Community Business, with further definition needed for those designations.  However, Mr. Trudgeon concurred further that the B-3 Zoning Designation seemed appropriate with the current, as well as proposed Comprehensive Plan guidance.


At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the process was currently underway at the Ramsey County level to recombine this parcel with the others for an overall parcel. 


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No.   entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Roseville City Code Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 2587 Rice Street from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to General Business District (B-3).


Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that the request was premature without a specific project before the City Council.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that by acting prematurely in rezoning to B-3, the City Council was giving away their ability to ensure a future project did not require access onto Wewers, allowing protection for the residential neighborhood.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the Council could provide for a lesser rezoning (B-1 rather than B-3) allowing less flexibility for future development. 


Councilmember Roe, as to Councilmember’s perception that this action was premature, opined that this was not providing the full picture, and opined that the zoning was consistent with current and proposed Comprehensive Plan guidance and as indicated in the staff report, and should have been addressed years ago.  Councilmember Roe further opined that, through the zoning code update process as a result of completion of the Comprehensive Plan update process, zoning districts will be addressed in various areas of the community, including this area.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that any potential for harm was mitigated through City Code standards applied for any property, and further opined that it seemed prudent to assist in making the property more marketable.  Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing that traffic movements were not conducive to being directed down Wewers. 


Councilmember Roe noted that, since this was an upzoning, it would require super majority vote of the body.


Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, based on his experience at the Planning Commission level, as well as that on the City Council; opining that this action was supportive of the neighborhood as a whole, both residential and commercial property owners.  Mayor Klausing noted that single-family homes fronting busy streets, particularly when adjacent to commercial properties, may be less desirable for residential use; and that the result is that such residential properties often are not well-maintained and can negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods.  Mayor Klausing further noted that on the other hand, such locations are very desirable as commercial properties and rezoning to commercial allows for new construction that can actually benefit surrounding neighborhoods.  Mayor Klausing opined that B-3 zoning designation seemed more consistent with that area; and further opined that redevelopment of commercial businesses in that area would prove to be an asset to the community, as well as the neighborhood, as long as the City properly addressed traffic issues and concerns.


Councilmember Ihlan further noted, related to property values, that those residents submitting written comment to the Planning Commission and City Council, raised the issue of property value declines with increased traffic.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that by voting in support of this motion, the Council was sending a message to its constituents that they wanted to increase property values for commercial property owners at the expense of residential property owners on Wewers.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the City Council didn’t need to make this decision now, but could wait for a specific project to allow more control over the property use.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


e.                 Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed the history to-date during this two-year process, advising that much of the delay was not due to incompleteness of the City’s plan, but due to the sheer number of plans under review by the Metropolitan Council. 


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed several minor and/or technical revisions since previous review by the City Council, specific to Chapters, 3, 5, 8 and 10; with no revisions to the land use chapter, the most comprehensive chapter in the document.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that adoption of the Plan, as well as the Tier II Sewer Plan, was the requested action based on outdated State Statute from the 1960’s, when those documents were separate rather than combined documents.


Mr. Trudgeon recognized the group efforts of staff, members of the Steering Committee, and thanked them once again for the many hours spent meeting, deliberating and finding consensus on more difficult areas of the Plan and finding areas for compromise when required.  Mr. Trudgeon also expressed appreciation to City of Roseville Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel for her untiring efforts as staff liaison, and her work to ensure property information and consistency was provided in the final document.


Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10759 entitled, “Final Adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan;” identified as Attachment F to the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009.


Councilmember Roe spoke in wholehearted support of the motion; and echoed those comments of Mr. Trudgeon in expressing appreciation to all serving on the Steering Committee and those members of the public who participated, some who are no longer with us.  Councilmember Roe noted his pride in the finished product; and the compromises reached throughout the process to move the process forward through many contentious issues.  Councilmember Roe noted that, while issues may remain that needed resolution in the future, the final document points the City in the right direction and provides an opportunity for the Planning Commission, City Council, staff, and the community to make further decisions.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, primarily due to the lack of completion by the City Council in the work they promised to do prior to this requested approval, namely review of the numerous Master Plans included in the previous Comprehensive Plan, and which needed to be included and/or excluded from the updated Plan.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that those Master Plans provided guiding documents for development and redevelopment in various neighborhoods, including the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and represented  hundreds of taxpayer dollars and time spent by consultants and staff and had been taken seriously by the community.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that those Master Plans had been subject to super majority vote of past City Councils to provide that credibility, and were significant enough to be included in the previous Comprehensive Plan.


Councilmember Ihlan referenced contentious votes alluded to by Councilmember Roe; opining that one of those was a last-minute vote by the Steering Committee to remove those Master Plans from the Comprehensive Plan Update document; with the condition that the City Council would decide the future of each of those Master Plans prior to adoption of this updated Plan. Councilmember Ihlan noted that other communities (i.e., City of Bloomington and City of Edina), both with significant retail development comparable to Roseville, included Master Plans in their Comprehensive Plan to ensure community input was provided.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern in another last-minute action of the City Council in removing square footage guidelines in several of the business categories, severely reducing how meaningful those land use designations would be; and specifically reducing protections for adjacent neighborhoods as they related to big box retailers.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was another example of providing maximum flexibility for commercial interests and little protection for residential property owners. 


Councilmember Ihlan thanked members of the public who attended the Steering Committee meetings, and apologized that the final document seemed to be in the best interest of commercial developers.


Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; and spoke specifically to the comment of Councilmember Ihlan related to Master Plans; noting that the intent remained that review of the Master Plans would be accomplished during the rezoning update process, some of them which may or may not be included in whole or in part in the updated Comprehensive Plan.


Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing’s perception related to Master Plans.


Mayor Klausing noted as an example, during his past service on a Steering Committee developing the Master Plan for the City Hall campus, that Master Plan was no longer relevant and did not belong in its entirety in the updated Comprehensive Plan.  Mayor Klausing opined that it made much more sense to work on the Master Plans for incorporation where appropriate.  Mayor Klausing further opined that the Comprehensive Plan could never be considered a finished document, but remained dynamic as the needs of the community change.  Mayor Klausing opined that, overall, the plan was a good plan; and expressed his personal appreciation to all who served on the Steering Committee; and his favorable impressions with their approach to a fair compromise on many very contentious issues.


Councilmember Roe, as promoter of the compromise position, clarified that discussions of the Steering Committee, as it related to Master Plans, was not intended to suggest that they didn’t have value; and that it was not accurate to portray their action as removing them from the Comprehensive Plan update.  Councilmember Roe addressed aspirational objectives for those items belonging in the Plan and those objectives that were not appropriate for inclusion in the Plan, whether they were of a specific or technical nature.  Councilmember Roe assured all that his objective was to review each specific Master Plan and include them as appropriate, a review that he took very seriously.


Councilmember Pust thanked specifically members of the public who put in so many hours to bring this process and document to fruition; as well as staff and the consultants involved.  Councilmember Pust noted that the process had strong opinions on many topics, but that throughout, it remained a professional and respectful process.  Councilmember Pust expressed pride in the product and the compromises made.


Councilmember Pust noted that, those Councilmembers having strong views on the Master Plan review process, had had one year since the last review by the City Council and the plan being submitted to the Metropolitan Council, and questioned why they had not brought up the issue of the Master Plan review during that time, as the City Council had promised.  Councilmember Pust encouraged those Councilmembers to build requisite support at the City Council level, perform adequate research and bring it forward to the City Council for discussion and consideration, specific to each and every Master Plan as applicable.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion; thanking all members of the Steering Committee and staff.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it had provided for meaningful and considerable discussion, with the meetings well-balanced and well run.  Councilmember Johnson noted that there were some contentious issues; however, spoke in support of the document as presented; and expressed pride in his involvement.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that printed or electronic copies of the final document as adopted will be provided to Councilmembers at their preference.


f.                   Select a Consultant to Complete Roseville’s Zoning Ordinance Re-write

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request to select a consultant to complete Roseville’s Zoning Ordinance Re-write, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009.


Councilmember Ihlan asked the total cost of the proposal.


Mr. Paschke advised that, as per page 11 of the proposal attached as part of the Request for Council Action, it was $35,000.


Mr. Paschke noted that, Ms. Suzanne Rhees, Urban Planner with the Cuningham Group, was present at tonight’s meeting and available for any questions of the City Council.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the Cuningham Group as the consultant to complete the zoning ordinance re-write and direct staff to negotiate the contract to be approved by the City Council in November of 2009.


Mayor Klausing expressed his appreciation to staff for their ranking and providing rationale in making their recommendation to the City Council.


Councilmember Pust commended the Cuningham group for including the graphics and specifically noting the value of sign type illustrations for inclusion in a sign ordinance.


Councilmember Roe suggested including consideration of conservation-based zoning in the zoning ordinance review and areas that may apply in the City of Roseville.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.                 Discuss 2010 Public Works Work Plan

Public Works Director Dwayne Schwartz provided highlights of the proposed 2010 Public Works Work Plan, as per detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009.


Mr. Schwartz reviewed funding sources, proposed utility work, in addition to additional mainlining of sanitary sewers and storm sewers more recently identified and not yet listed as further development of the projects and cost estimates are reviewed; pathway and right-of-way projects; and water main replacement along Rice Street in conjunction with the Ramsey County reconstruction project.


Mr. Schwartz advised that each project would be brought back to the City Council in the spring of 2010 for approval of any and all bids.


Councilmember Roe, under the sealcoat/crackseal category and related to the 2010 budget figures presented to-date, sought clarification on whether the mileage would be reduced or increased.


Mr. Schwartz advised that the normal program was proposed, in accordance with the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) indications, with eleven miles proposed this year, presuming it would be fully funded, and if not, it would be reduced accordingly.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the 2010 Public Works Work Plan as presented and detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 26, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


At the request of Councilmember Roe, City Manager Malinen noted that public input on the 2010 Budget would be received at the November 16, 2009 regular meeting.


15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 pm.