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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

January 11, 2010


1.         Roll Call

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


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


City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.


Councilmember Pust had advised Mayor Klausing that she was tied up in a previous meeting and would be arriving shortly after the meeting began.


2.         Approve Agenda

City Manager Malinen requested the addition of an item under the Consent Agenda entitled, “Emerald Ash Borer Update;” Item 7.d, with the Request for Council Action dated January 11, 2009.


Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.b entitled, “Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus items in excess of $5,000.”


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. 


a.         Bob Willmus, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission

Mr. Willmus, on behalf of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, expressed the Commission’s appreciation to the staff and City Council for adoption of the 2010 Budget, maintaining the Park and Recreation Department service levels close to past levels.


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

          Mayor Klausing recognized the Roseville Visitors Association Executive Director Julie Larson in the audience tonight; and announced the Saturday, January 16, 2010 Winter Jazz Blast to be held at Maranatha Auditorium at Northwestern College in Roseville.  Mayor Klausing noted that the first annual Roseville Restaurant Week – and All That Jazz would be held in cooperation with the jazz performance, with 11 Roseville restaurants participating and offering a three-course meal for $25, and reduced general admission ticket to the evening concert featuring JazzMN Big Band and guest vocalist Debbie Duncan.  Mayor Klausing personally encouraged citizens to participate, and support the up-to 16 High School jazz ensembles performing during the day, with the top three soloists featured at the evening concert.


          Ms. Larson echoed Mayor Klausing’s invitation, noting that there were nine middle/high school bands scheduled during the afternoon, with these performances open and free to the public during the day, scheduled to compete beginning at approximately 10:45 am; with the evening performance ticketed.  Ms. Larson advised that tickets could be purchased through Northwestern College at or by calling 651  631-5151; or by contacting the Roseville Visitor’s Association for more information at or by calling 651 633-3002.


Councilmember Roe noted the upcoming meeting on Saturday, January 16, 2010 of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Master Plan Citizen Advisory Team, scheduled from 8:30 a.m. – 12:00 Noon in the lower level of City Hall; and encouraged residents to attend to provide public comment.


Mayor Klausing noted the successful gathering recently held for the City’s ethnic Karen community at Roseville Lutheran Church, in celebration of their New Year.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.         Proclaim January 18, 2010 Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Mayor Klausing read a proclamation declaring January 18, 2010 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Ihlan moved, Johnson seconded, a proclamation declaring January 18, 2010 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


Mayor Klausing noted, in recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, City offices would be closed.


Councilmember Johnson confirmed that the City’s recreational facilities would be open that day.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.                 Approve Minutes of January 4, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 4, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


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 

Councilmember Johnson noted, and staff confirmed, a typographical error on page 8 of the payables, listing an “Account Name” as “Conferences” for payment to the City of St. Paul for water usage from 10/30/09 to 11/30/09 in the amount of $253,488.14.


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

ACH Payments


57217 – 57372





Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.         Authorize Extension of Contract for Waste Removal from City of Roseville Public Facilities

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of a two-year contract extension for waste removal from City facilities for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 between the City of Roseville and Nitti Sanitation Services; in the amount of $19,440.00 and $12.00/cubic yard for waste in excess of the amount described in the specifications; as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated January 11, 2010.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


            d.         Emerald Ash Borer Update (Addition to Consent Agenda)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Malinen summarized this Request for Council Action dated January 11, 2010, allowing the City to take a proactive approach to the Emerald Ash Borer based on staff’s recent submission (in November of 2009) to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for funding to prepare for a possible infestation.  Mr. Malinen advised that the original request was for $100,000 with an in-kind City match of 15% of the grant award amount to be taken from the approved 2010 Parks and Recreation Budget.  Mr. Malinen advised that the City was still being considered for funding, but was not aware if the full amount or a portion of the proposed amount would be forthcoming.  However, Mr. Malinen advised that, if the City is successful, the Mayor and City Manager would need to execute documents and enter into a contract with the State of MN prior to the next scheduled Council meeting; thus the request.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified that the City’s match would be in-kind for services, not all financial; with City Manager Malinen confirming this.


Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents to accept a grant from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, if awarded, for Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness in the amount of the grant application of $100,000, or such lesser amount as may actually be awarded, with an in-kind City match of 15% to be taken from the approved 2010 Parks and Recreation Budget.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


  1. Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.                 Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000 (Former Consent Item b)

Councilmember Ihlan sought additional information on trade-in allowances for the squad cars being purchased new, noting that the only trade-in listed was for the dump truck for the Streets Department.


Councilmember Pust arrived at this time; approximately 6:23 p.m.


Acting Police Chief Rick Mathwig advised that this was due to the timing of the purchase and subsequent retrofitting of the new squads and removing the existing squads from service.  Mr. Mathwig advised that there was no trade-in information available at this time, as once the squads were ordered, there would be a 4-5 month period before their delivery; another month for their outfitting; and then removal of the existing squads from service, based on their respective service/repair records, mileage, and any potential vehicle damage between now and then. 


Acting Police Chief Mathwig noted e-mail correspondence between City Councilmember Tammy Pust and staff, including a memorandum dated January 8, 2010 from Acting Chief of Police Rick Mathwig to City Manager Bill Malinen with additional 2010 squad car information provided as a bench handout, with City Finance Director Chris Miller confirming that any funds received from trade-ins would be returned to the fund from which new units were purchased.


Councilmember Ihlan sought additional information on the actual mileage of those vehicles scheduled for replacement.


Acting Police Chief Mathwig provided a spreadsheet listing the Police Department’s rolling stock; and proposed squads targeted for replacement; based on the caveats previously detailed for maintenance history and mileage at the time of arrival of the new units.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:






Elk River Ford

2010 Ford Crown Victoria

Five (5) vehicles



Astleford Truck

2010 Dump Truck

Note: Includes a $12,000 trade-in from

         1994 Dump Truck



Kath Fuel Oil

2010 Blanket Purchase Order fuel



Yocum Oil Company

2010 Blanket Purchase Order fuel




Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting against the motion; not based on the dump truck replacement, of which she was supportive; but based on her concern with replacement of squad cars under the City’s current policy of replacement at 75,000 miles, rather than keeping the vehicles in service longer.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that, until there was a review of that policy to consider extended use, it was premature to vote on replacement of the squad units.


Councilmember Pust advised that she was abstaining from the vote since she had not been present for the entire discussion.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Abstained: Pust

Motion carried.


9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption


10.             Presentations


a.                 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Project Update

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, and Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel presented an update on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area and infrastructure phases to-date and those planned in the future.  The information, as a Power Point presentation, was distributed as a bench handout as well.


Those items addressed during the presentation included completion of Phase I and anticipated completion of Phase II based on grant funds received and awarded to-date; reminder that the City’s role is not as a developer for Twin Lakes, but to initiate and complete infrastructure to facilitate future development; property acquisition for Phases I and II; status of Phase I public improvements and those for completion in 2010 based on weather-related issues; proposed improvements and a timeline for Phase II improvements, with final design and planning scheduled for completion in February for bringing forward to the City Council; the Response Action Plan (RAP) currently underway between Braun Intertec and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and additional sampling requirements; and anticipated cost estimates, funding sources, and  timeline for Phase II which will include undergrounding of power lines.


Additional presentation information included a revision to the Cost Allocation Study approved by the City Council in 2007 based on actual construction costs and new projections gleaned from experience with Phase I and new projections, and reduced overall projected costs based on grant funds received.  Staff anticipated completion of these revised allocations for presentation to the City Council for their approval of those adjustments within 1-2 months.


In conclusion, staff noted that the City would pay upfront costs, with future developments reimbursing that cost based on the revised cost allocation study; and expressed pride in the significant accomplishments since initially begun in early 2009; and thanked the City Council for moving the project forward in a timely manner.


Councilmember Roe requested a recap from staff in the future for Phase I that would include how much tax increment financing (TIF) money had been used, the amount of grant monies received and other revenue sources tapped; providing a final tally for Phase I as well as Phase II.


Mayor Klausing noted the number of positive comments he’d received from the community in seeing the improvements move forward, and demolition of the old buildings; and expressed his personal appreciation to staff in their oversight of the improvements.


City Manager Malinen sought additional information from staff on the status and timeframe of the congressional appropriations bill.


Ms. Radel noted that those appropriated funds would trickle back to the City through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); but that the timing of Phase II would be constrained by stipulations in the Department of Education and Economic Development (DEED) that grant funds to the City of $1 million in state bond funds be expended by December 31, 2010.


11.             Public Hearings


12.             Business Items (Action Items)


a.                 Approve Lease Agreement with Clear Wireless, LLC for Leased Space on the Fairview Communication Tower

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the lease agreements as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated January 11, 2010, with similar rates, initial terms and optional renewals as that approved for the Reservoir Woods tower several weeks ago.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the basis for calculating lease amounts based on general market conditions, comparable communication tower leases in Roseville and surrounding communities (i.e., Brooklyn Park and Shoreview), the amount of ground space required; favorable comparisons on the higher side for this lease compared to other communities based on the considerable negotiations that initiated at half the proposed rate; and ongoing negotiations for other sites in Roseville.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that this request was for space on an existing tower, with no proposed height extension or other expansion on the tower or for ground space.


Roe moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a lease agreement between the City of Roseville and Clear Wireless, LLC for leased space at the Fairview Communication Tower.


Councilmember Johnson asked why staff had not provided the historical and policy information he’d previously requested related to assignment or allocation of proceeds from these lease agreements and rationale that it be applied to the City’s Information Technology (IT) function exclusively; and expressed his disappointment that the information was not available for tonight’s discussion.


City Manager Malinen apologized for this oversight; and advised he would check on the status of staff’s preparation of this information.


Councilmember Pust noted that the RCA (page 1 of 2) identified rent for the Alta Vista tower, rather than the Fairview Communication tower.


Mr. Miller apologized for this typographical error; and clarified that the request was for the Fairview tower.


Mr. Miller, in response to Councilmember Johnson’s request for additional information, advised that the information had just been completed and would be forthcoming in the pre-packet information for the next Council meeting.  Mr. Miller advised that staff was unable to uncover anything in the archives where a specific discussion was held or a policy developed on where the revenues from tower leases should be allocated.  Mr. Miller opined that, at some point, it may have been rationalized that, since the City’s IT function benefited the City’s overall functions and services, this was an obvious allocation.


Mr. Miller noted that the revenue was allocated as restricted funds for IT hardware and/or software since it benefited all City functions and services, in addition to some level of IT support services.


Councilmember Johnson sought clarification on the actualized annual revenue from these leases.


Mr. Miller estimated $250,000 annual revenue from tower rentals; noting that this revenue source allowed the City to provide IT functions almost exclusively without taxpayer monies funding that function.


Councilmember Johnson noted that the IT function also received substantial revenue from the various Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs) with other municipalities and agencies for the City of Roseville administering their IT functions.


Mr. Miller concurred that the IT function was supported by both revenue sources.


Mayor Klausing suggested that the City Council focus on the request currently before the body; with future discussion on development of a specific policy for allocation of these revenues.  Mayor Klausing noted that there was no dispute that the purpose of the lease agreements and preference for towers to be located on public property was to generate revenue for the community that would be used to support community services.


Councilmember Johnson expressed his preference that this policy discussion be held in the immediate future, preferably at the January 25, 2010 meeting.


Mayor Klausing concurred; and asked if Councilmember Johnson was amenable to making a decision on the request before the body, exclusive of and separate from this policy discussion.


Councilmember Johnson agreed; however, expressed disappointment that the information was not available sooner; and clarified that the proposed action would not eliminate his request for this information.


Mayor Klausing assured Councilmember Johnson that the policy would be discussed in the near future.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving Conditional Use for Clearwire, LLC to allow construction of a 150-foot telecommunication tower at City Hall Campus, 2660 Civic Center Drive

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated January 11, 2010; noting previous City Council action tabling this request for staff’s consideration and review of other potential sites on the City Hall campus.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the original site, as proposed in November of 2009, was adjacent to the parking lot on the corner of County Road C and Lexington Avenue; and advised that since that time, a second potential site had been identified immediately outside and adjacent to the Public Works yard on Woodhill Avenue.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, from a land use perspective, this site would meet the standards of the Conditional Use, even though the public hearing held at the Planning Commission had originally been based on locating the tower on Site 1, at the corner of Lexington and County Road C.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City’s IT Director Terre Heiser was present to address any technical or locations questions of the City Council.


Councilmember Pust questioned how many sites had been approved and/or secured throughout the metro area to-date by Clearwire as mentioned in Section 5.1 of the staff report.


Tony Vavoulis, Clearwire Representative

Mr. Vavoulis advised that he was part of the team and only responsible for approximately half of the 400 proposed sites, and based on weekly team meetings, estimated that approximately 60% of those he’s responsible for were under lease or at similar stages of approval as with this request; and that completed leases were anticipated for 90% of the sites within the next three months.


Councilmember Pust questioned if those leases were with public agencies or private entities.  Mr. Vavoulis advised that the majority of them were with other cell carriers; noting that the City of Roseville was somewhat unique in that the municipality itself owned cell towers, noting that the majority of the pending leases for those towers were usually privately owned towers or antennae were located on water towers.


Councilmember Pust questioned that, of the proposed 7 – 9 sites in Roseville, whether any were on existing AT & T sites.


Mr. Vavoulis advised that Clearwire was currently in negotiations with AT & T for space on the Chandler Vault building; and that of the five sites he’s involved with in Roseville, four were proposed for public property and the other at the Chandler building.  Mr. Vavoulis advised that other sites were along the perimeter of the community, and had no additional information or identify on those proposed sites.


Councilmember Pust questioned if there would be additional requests forthcoming from Clearwire and/or their subcontractors for sites in Roseville.


Mr. Vavoulis advised that his group was close to overlapping their search rings, but if the Acorn Park request was not successful, additional locations would need to be considered to fill in those coverage gaps, based on complex mathematical designs by the company’s engineers.


Mayor Klausing moved adoption of a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution Approving a 150-foot Telecommunication Tower Facility as a Conditional Use in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Sections 1013.10 and 1014.01, for Clearwire, LLC and the City of Roseville (PF-09-031).”


Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the City Council needed to identify the specific and preferred site on the City Hall campus as part of their action.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, as the property owner, the City Council could determine their preferred location tonight; or make that determination at a later meeting when lease agreements are brought forward for consideration; however, he suggested that it may be worthwhile for the City Council to identify their preferred location at tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, from staff’s perspective, they recommended the proposed parking lot site, as relocated from the original proposed site, as the most advantageous location.


Mayor Klausing concurred and withdrew his motion.


Councilmember Roe noted that, based on the language of the resolution, the Site Plan was part of the resolution by attachment.


Terre Heiser, City of Roseville IT Network Manager

Mr. Heiser addressed staff’s rationale for the preferred location (Site 1) is slightly modified site from the original site moved 50-60’ further to the east and shielded aesthetically behind existing trees on the corner.  Mr. Heiser advised that the original location was almost at the corner of the circular pathway at the lower door to City Hall.  Mr. Heiser advised that the revised location was based on maximizing and maintaining connectivity of the City’s communication functions, as well as their network group, should their be a future absence of facilities through the Comcast network.  Mr. Heiser advised that the closer the radios and antenna could be kept in proximity to the base in the basement of City Hall, the less expense for equipment.  Mr. Heiser advised that the alternate site (Site 2) adjacent to the Public Works yard will also work based on the location of buried conduit along that area that could be extended.  However, Mr. Heiser advised that service trucks with a bucket used by service providers (i.e., Clearwire) would have easier access in the parking lot, rather than on the street (Woodhill Avenue) if Site 2 were utilized.  Mr. Heiser advised that the aerial photo was dated, and that the Public Works yard was now filled with materials and that the tower would need to be serviced from Woodhill.


Further discussion among Councilmembers and staff included comparable costs of fiber optic versus conduit; and aesthetic impacts of Site 1 for Central Park.


Councilmember Johnson expressed his preference for Site 2 from an aesthetic perspective, due to its proximity further from Central Park, and the existing tower in the southeast corner of the yard.


Mr. Heiser clarified that the existing UHF/VHF tower would be removed as the equipment on that tower had been relocated to City Hall several years ago.


Councilmember Pust concurred on the preference for Site 2.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the cost of the tower construction and who would be paying for that initial construction.


Mr. Heiser advised that the City would ultimately own the tower, with the construction costs applied to Clearwire as the first identified user of the pole; with lease payments abated over a period to the firm, and then turned back to the City at no cost (approximately 4 years), with construction costs estimated at $80,000.  Mr. Heiser further advised that historically, existing towers provided a positive cash flow from other providers; and advised that negotiations were continuing between Clearwire and the City for the rent abatement period.  Mr. Heiser advised that the tower ownership by the City was prudent based on their ownership of the ground underneath it, and with the City taking ownership it served to provide a future revenue source.


Councilmember Roe questioned whether there was anticipated interest of other providers on this tower in the immediate future.


Mr. Heiser advised that the only potential provider tenant absent is AT & T in the metropolitan area; however, with anticipated technological advances and future 4G technologies, additional interest from future providers was eminent.


Councilmember Ihlan, in page 5 of the staff report related to compatibility of wireless internet service being compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Plan questioned the public benefit by locating towers on public property unless providing free wireless service to residents as a service, rather than through their subscription with a private commercial venture.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that there was no immediate benefit in evidence for Roseville residents; and expressed her concern about where this concept was going in the future, with one huge tower already located in the City Hall parking lot, and where construction would stop or if the City Hall campus would become a tower farm.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that she had policy issues with this request since it was different than using existing towers; and questioned if this was how the City Hall campus should be used.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if this is approved, her preference would be locating it on the Woodhill site rather than closer to Lexington Avenue due to that location’s proximity to Central Park and residential homes on the other side of Lexington Avenue.

Mayor Klausing noted the limits of the City in excluding the towers from the City based on the Federal Communications Act of 1996.   Mayor Klausing noted that, with today’s increasing technological advances, they were an unfortunate fact of life; opining that the City’s policy appeared sound, since the issue was mostly one of aesthetics from the City’s viewpoint, the least that could be accomplished was to receive some revenue from them being located in the City.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Mayor Klausing’s observations, noting that the City cannot disallow towers from locating in the City, but could provide certain parameters for their location; with ongoing pressure from the communications industry to make it easier to locate in communities; and staff attempting to respond to those locations by locating them more appropriately from the community’s perspective.


Councilmember Johnson recognized Councilmember Ihlan’s comments related to the Comprehensive Plan not calling for free internet or computer use for wireless

technologies; however, he opined that this does create better competition for the residents of Roseville, which he further opined was more to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan’s intent, with an alternative source provided through additional and co-located providers on a minimal amount of towers.


Councilmember Roe observed that most of the metropolitan area cities providing wireless services in their community have charged for that service, even though they may have remediated some costs.  Related to Councilmember Ihlan’s concern that the City Hall campus become a tower farm, Councilmember Roe noted that any requests have to come before the City Council for approval, and would be self-regulated by the City through a natural correction process.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified her comments, stating that her point was not to ban cell phone towers in Roseville; but approvals were done without a clear policy in place on an ad hoc basis; and that revenue should not be a factor in land use decisions. 


Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10779 entitled, “A Resolution Approving a 150-foot Telecommunication Tower Facility as a Conditional Use in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Sections 1013.10 and 1014.01, for Clearwire, LLC and the City of Roseville (PF-09-031);” amended to revise Condition “B” on page 2 of 3 of the draft resolution (Attachment F) that the location indicated on the Site Plan (Attachment C) be for Site 2 located on Woodhill Drive.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that this approval was for land use purposes only, and that the contract would come before the City Council at a future meeting for consideration.


c.                  Adopt a Resolution Approving Conditional Use for Clearwire, LLC to allow construction of a 125-foot telecommunication tower at Acorn Park, 266 County Road C

Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed the RCA dated January 11, 2010, and detailing the request by Clearwire LLC for approval of a 125’ telecommunication tower facility in Acorn Park, 266 County Road C as a Conditional Use. Mr. Trudgeon noted, once again, that if future expansion for the height of the tower, and/or for additional ground space equipment, such a request would need to come before the City Council for approval. 


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed staff’s and the applicant’s review of other potential sites in the park, with the proposed location offered as the one in which any future expansion and equipment can be installed with minimal impact to the aesthetics or use of the park.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the original Clearwire request and location for a 100-120’ pole adjacent to the hockey rink that would serve as a telecommunications tower as well as replacing and accommodating existing lights for the rink.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the lack of support for the proposed location by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their January 5, 2010 meeting and recommendation to the City Council to not approve the proposed tower location pending completion of the Park Master Plan process and uncertainty of future tasking of the park.  Mr. Trudgeon further noted that the Planning Commission, having held a public hearing on the matter at their January 6, 2010 meeting, had recommended to the City Council to deny the request on a vote of 4/1.  Mr. Trudgeon provided, as a bench handout, a copy of the draft meeting minutes of the January 6, 2010 Planning Commission.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, after review of the Conditional Use application, and based on current zoning restrictions and code applications, City staff was of general consensus in supporting the proposed location and recommending to the City Council their approval of the application; as detailed in Sections 5 – 6 and the findings outlined in Section 7 of the RCA.  Mr. Trudgeon further advised that, other than a limited commercial strip on Rice Street, there were no other potential locations to provide the signal required by the wireless equipment and fill the coverage gap in that area without significantly impacting residential properties.  While recognizing the complexity of the issue, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s consensus that locating the tower in this 40-acre, city-owned park would boost the community’s technology infrastructure, a preference expressed both in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and in the Comprehensive Plan guidelines.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the original requested location adjacent to the hockey rink and the inability of that proposal to support multi-users in the future rather than constructing additional towers.


Mr. Heiser, at the request of Councilmember Roe as to the availability of alternate locations and final determination on this as the preferred location, addressed the resulting proposed location of the tower, based on a walkthrough of the park by him and Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, with this location chosen as the least disruptive to park activities, but yet supporting the space and technical needs of Clearwire.  Mr. Heiser noted that this park is used extensively for Frisbee golf, and whenever other locations were considered that may prove less visible, they conflicted with the Frisbee golf course.  Mr. Heiser reviewed other coverage areas outside the park; however, he noted on a displayed diagram, that those sites were outside the coverage area.  Mr. Heiser noted that other options were in smaller neighborhood playgrounds and in residential areas that would be even less desirable.


Mr. Heiser advised that the City itself significantly depended on wireless internet technology for its squad cars for mobile display terminals and data cards, and that this area was known as a “dead area” with squads losing CAD in proximity of McCarrons.  Mr. Heiser noted that the squads retained radio communications, but the RF networks were unavailable in that area for all providers.  Mr. Heiser opined that the perspective of the height of the tower it was not usually noticed on the horizon from a distance, but that staff’s rationale for the park location was to accommodate the necessary power and utility support equipment on open land, while not severely impacting the park’s current or future uses.

Further discussion included the number of proposed users, with one confirmed (Clearwire) and the tower engineered for future expansion up to 150’ if approved by the City Council; and access for service for the tower from an 8’ wide pathway leading to the proposed site, with construction of the tower proposing a challenge.


Public Comment

Mark Connolly, 240 County Road C

Mr. Connolly spoke in opposition to this request, as a 35-year resident in this location.  Mr. Connolly advised that homeowners had never been asked about this proposal, and that neither the Planning Commission nor the Parks and Recreation Commission were supportive. Mr. Connolly opined that, as an engineer, he thought there were alternative locations, such as Lady Slipper Park, since it is less amenable in appearance with existing rail and power lines in addition to being a less-populated area.  Mr. Connolly further opined that it didn’t make sense to put a commercial enterprise in a park used by residents from the community and wider area as well.


Additional discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the status and timeline of the Master Plan process for parks.


Parks and Recreation Director Brokke advised that it was about midpoint, with anticipated completion by June or July of 2010.  Mr. Brokke advised that the leading factor for consideration in the planning effort was if the park were to be retasked, then the tower may preclude that retasking.  Mr. Brokke noted that the original location adjacent to the hockey rink was the least obtrusive and would serve to accommodate lighting as well; however, he noted that the co-location considerations gave the concept an entirely different look and extended the ground space requirements, and extending the height caused some concerns.


Mr. Heiser addressed the gap area and potential locations and the inability of Lady Slipper Park to accommodate a tower based on the lack of available dry land to construct a tower.  Mr. Heiser advised that other potential locations in that area put the tower even closer to residential properties.  Mr. Heiser also addressed the suggested Walgreen’s commercial site noting that it had been considered; however, anywhere on that parcel would severely impact adjacent residential properties in attempting to maintain a setback from Rice Street and accommodate parking considerations for the businesses. 


Johnson questioned why, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, as well as the status of the Master Plan process, this request could not be delayed until the planning process was completed and why there seemed to be such urgency with the request.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the urgency was based on the 60-day review period and extension already used, requiring a land use decision to be made by February 6, 2010.  Mr. Trudgeon further advised that staff was advocating for future technology needs being met based on Comprehensive Plan guidance for this important community utility, with eastern Roseville having limited telecommunications opportunities, and few other options available.


Mayor Klausing reviewed the criteria used in reviewing City Code for making a determination for approval of a Conditional Use, as detailed in Section 7.3 of the RCA, and his personal analysis of those criteria.  Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the request, while recognizing his respect for the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, with the ultimate policy decision needing to be made by the City Council.  While noting that the tower was in his neighborhood and not happy about the aesthetics of another tower, Mayor Klausing recognized the need for this type of infrastructure. 


Mayor Klausing advised Councilmembers that, if they chose to deny the request, findings needed to be established that it didn’t meet the criteria.


City Attorney Bertholdi concurred, noting that reasons for denial needed to be listed in a written statement to the application; and suggested that it could be done through preparation of a resolution to be adopted at a future meeting.


Councilmember Pust questioned if time was of the essence to the applicant or if the request could be tabled, if the applicant were to waive the 60-day review deadline, to allow completion of the Master Plan process and review of this location in Acorn Park by the Parks and Recreation Commission.  Councilmember Pust questioned the applicant as to whether they had or were considering negotiations with North Heights Lutheran Church or Walgreen’s as a potential site.


Mr. Vavoulis advised that his task was to obtain locations for this tower and have a lease in place and signed by March 20, 2010, extended by management at Clearwire from February already.  Mr. Vavoulis advised that, without further consultation with management, he was not able to determine their next step if this goal was not met.  Mr. Vavoulis advised that he had held a discussion with Walgreen’s; however they didn’t feel such an agreement was feasible for them at that site.


Councilmember Johnson, in reviewing the criteria detailed in Section 7.3 of the RCA, advised that he found three that didn’t pass his litmus test; in addition to the incomplete work of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Steering Team.  For those reasons, Councilmember Johnson advised that if this motion for approval moves forward, he would not support it.


Councilmember Pust, in attempting to honor the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Master Plan process itself, expressed her preference to wait for approval, rather than actually denying the request, since it may be determined that there will be no retasking identified for Acorn Park and this tower may fit fine.


Councilmember Roe noted that the 60-day review period had already been extended by the City.  Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that any further extension would be at the discretion of the applicant.


Mr. Vavoulis, given the options of denial or deferral, advised that he would prefer to offer a waiver of the 60-day extension, provided he was able to reach consensus with the management at Clearwire, and if not asked that a decision be made at the January 25, 2010 City Council meeting.  Mr. Vavoulis advised that this waiver would be based on attempting to resolve outstanding issues with the parks Master Plan process  and potential retasking of Acorn Park; and offered his willingness to continue working with staff on any other alternative locations in the park or in the community.


Pust moved, Roe seconded, to table discussion on this topic, based on the applicant’s approval from his management team for extension and subsequent written waiver of the existing review period deadline.


Mayor Klausing clarified that if the applicant did not receive authorization for extension that the City Council would need to take action on this item at their January 25, 2010 meeting to meet the extension deadline of February 6, 2010.


Councilmember Pust strongly suggested that the Parks and Recreation Commission put their review and recommendation for the Acorn Park Master Plan as a priority in their planning process, to achieve the allotted timeframe.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that she could support neither tabling action or approving placement of the tower, opining that such a commercial entity did not belong in a park; or in a wooded area used by people to get away from other activities; and further opined that based on those policy reasons, it should be easy to deny the request.


Mayor Klausing noted that the proposed motion was non-debatable.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson.

Nays: Ihlan and Klausing.

Motion carried.


Councilmember Roe, as a member of the Master Plan Task Force suggested that, if Mr. Vavoulis received the extension from his management team, this discussion may need to be addressed by staff and their consultant team to determine future implications for the Master Plan process itself.


13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.                 Discussion of Undergrounding Overhead Electric Lines on the Rice Street I nterchange Project

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed options for burying overhead power lines running along the west side of Rice Street, in conjunction with construction of the Highway 36 and Rice Street interchange.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the City’s Advisory Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission had reviewed this issue at their December 2009 meeting and strongly recommended that the City Council move forward with this aesthetic improvement to both the City of Roseville as well as Little Canada.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the Little Canada City Council would be discussing  this issue at their meeting later this same week.   


Mr. Schwartz provided background information on this issue and costs as detailed in the RCA dated January 11, 2010; and sought City Council direction as to whether they were interested in moving forward, noting that this would not be a final decision, but would facilitate additional and more detailed engineering by Xcel Energy as part of the ongoing design and time schedule for the interchange, and potential funding options.


Mr. Schwartz provided visuals on the Rice Street corridor, original estimates for undergrounding at $1 million per mile; proposed scope of the work; the proposed option for financing the project using a Community Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS) available for such projects with each rate payer of the City having a small surcharge added to their electric bill based on a formula over a three-year period, with such option that charge would only be applicable to the work performed within the respective City limits.  Mr. Schwartz noted that, since the power lines are located on the west side of Rice Street in Roseville, even though also serving Little Canada, a great majority of the work would take place in Roseville, with both cities benefitting.  Mr. Schwartz further noted that a cost-sharing agreement with Little Canada would need to be negotiated with approval by both communities if the project were to proceed, with current recommendation by staff in both communities supporting 50/50 split.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this was the first of four anticipated phases of Rice Street corridor improvements, with the next phase expected to come forward in 2012; and the total cost for Phase I was estimated at approximately $574,000, exclusive of easement costs for ground equipment location.  Mr. Schwartz advised that preliminary cost estimates, depending on customer classes, were $.76 per month for residential customers over a 3-year period, up to $3.04 per month for three years for commercial and industrial customers depending on their classification with Xcel Energy.


Mr. Schwartz noted that Xcel Energy’s Community Relations Representative Collette Urich was present at tonight’s meeting to address questions of the City Council and/or public.


City Manager Malinen advised that, from staff’s perspective, one of the basic considerations in whether to underground or not was that the Rice Street bridge and interchange project would significantly change the front door to Roseville off Highway 36 extending up to County Road B-2.  City Manager Malinen suggested that this was a good opportunity to dramatically improve the aesthetics of that entryway, while also addressing safety issues, as well as availability of power.  Mr. Malinen advised that the projected cost estimates are a worst case scenario, depending on the interest and support, as well as cost participation by the City of Little Canada.


Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that if Little Canada participated 50/50, the cost of the Roseville surcharge would drop to less than $.50 per month per residential customer over that three-year period.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned why the cost was born by residents, since there appeared to be obvious benefits to Xcel in underground lines preventing wind and lightening issues.


Ms. Urich advised that Xcel Energy underwent a substantial study on costs and benefits of undergrounding for Xcel at the direction of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), with the results indicating that while undergrounding provided fewer outages in a calendar year, they would be longer in duration, as the problems needed to be identified underground, digging could not be initiated until notification of Gopher State One Call had made applicable notifications with that area marked; and then underground repair and restoration completed.  Ms. Urich noted that, with overhead lines, field crews could drive a line to determine problem areas and remedy outage situations more quickly.


Additional discussion among staff, City Councilmembers, and Ms. Urich included average duration of outages for overhead versus underground lines; previous legal cases (City of Oakdale v. Xcel Energy) forcing undergrounding but requiring municipalities to pay those costs; benefiting parties within a geographic area versus the benefits to the entire customer base; capacity consideration by Xcel along the Rice Street corridor with upgrading required other than geographically; and proposal that east/west lines would remain overhead until improvements were made to those county roads.


Councilmember Roe opined that if Xcel felt it was beneficial to them, undergrounding would be their standard design.


Councilmember Johnson opined that, if the duration time for blackouts was longer based on the difficulty of finding problem areas, residents would be impacted for a longer period, and advised that he would have to take that into consideration for his constituents.


Mayor Klausing opined that the difference in frequency or reduced outages needed to be balanced with aesthetics in the community, as well as residents being able to do plantings under overhead lines.


Further discussion included benefit considerations worked in to the regulatory formula for financing; designs and reliability of undergrounding in this area with some redundancy built in not existing today that would minimize future downtime, including burying the line on Western Avenue and some looping on the Little Canada side; and undergrounding by the City of Little Canada when Little Canada Road was reconstructed; and interest rates just under 1% equal to the rate of return over a 3-year period included in the recovery amount.


Ms. Urich advised that the $1 million per mile was a generic estimate, and if the City expressed additional interest, Xcel would provide a more specific scoping estimate for the Cities of Little Canada and Roseville. 


Councilmembers Johnson and Roe, and Mayor Klausing expressed interest in pursuing this option. 


Councilmember Pust requested more information.


Ms. Urich advised that she could start the process, and at any time before final acceptance of the CRFS process and sign-off by the City to proceed, the process could be ended at the discretion of the City; with no costs incurred at this point.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing staff to work with Xcel Energy and the City of Little Canada on developing a detailed engineering estimate of the undergrounding of the overheard electric lines along Rice Street from County Road B to County Road B-2 utilizing the Community Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS) option.


Mr. Schwartz clarified that this proposed action to move forward was taken, whether or not the City of Little Canada agreed to cost-share 50% of the projected costs.


Mayor Klausing recognized that the estimated costs of $574,000 as indicated on the chart used in tonight’s presentation was for only City of Roseville participation and costs; however, he expressed his interest in staff advising the City Council at their earliest opportunity of the interest of City of Little Canada.


Councilmember Roe expressed interest in proceeding with the proposed action as indicated in the motion language, and not tabling the issue until Little Canada provided their interest in proceeding.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Roe, noting that the process could be stopped at any time.


Mr. Schwartz advised that, in order to move forward, the project team needed this information from Xcel to complete final designs. 


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


City Manager Malinen requested City Council direction on the January 25, 2010 agenda related to the logistics of legislative representatives attending.


Councilmember Roe, with consensus by fellow Councilmembers, suggested that the legislative delegation be hosted during Agenda Item 10 entitled, “Presentations” in order to respect their time and other obligations.


City Manager Malinen noted that details were still being worked out for the annual strategic meeting to be held on Saturday, February 13, 2010, with additional information forthcoming.


City Manager Malinen noted that Mayor Klausing was scheduled to present his annual State of the City Address on February 22, at 5:30 pm.


15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Ihlan requested a discussion on the January 25, 2010 agenda of commercial uses on public sites, including the City Hall campus and parks properties; including a review of the Comprehensive Plan’s guidance, to see if policy adjustments were desirable.


Mayor Klausing clarified with Councilmember Ihlan her preference for staff materials to be provided for that discussion.


Councilmember Ihlan suggested providing Comprehensive Plan chapters discussing commercial uses, or general chapters with public properties and existing zoning restrictions.


City Manager Malinen, looking at time allotments for the January 25, 2010 agenda, respectfully requested deferring that discussion to the February 8, 2010 agenda.


Councilmember Ihlan agreed, pursuant to Clearwire not returning for a City Council decision prior to that date.


16.             Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:52 pm.