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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 17, 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 May: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing).  City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman was also present.


Closed Executive Session – City Manager Evaluation

Mayor Klausing advised that he and Councilmember Johnson, representing a City Council Subcommittee to coordinate the annual evaluation of City Manager Malinen, had met with the full body and City Manager Malinen in Closed Executive Session on May 10, 2010, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.05, subd. 3, for discussion of personnel matters, specifically the annual evaluation of Mr. Malinen.  Mayor Klausing advised that a summary of this evaluation would be heard at tonight’s meeting and was listed as Business Item 12.b on the agenda.


By consensus, Councilmembers concurred with Mayor Klausing that there was no need for a Closed Executive Session again tonight for further discussion of this matter.


2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Approve Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements on property located at 2814 Cleveland Avenue for Road and Construction Purposes.


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 spoke.


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

Councilmember Pust advised that she would be leaving the meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m. to briefly attend Scholarship Night at the Roseville Area High School, and return shortly thereafter.


Mayor Klausing announced an upcoming Regional Human Rights meeting focusing on state and local government efforts to enforce the MN Human Rights Act on Thursday, May 27 at 5:00 p.m. at the Skating Center.


Councilmember Roe announced the next input opportunity in the form of a community workshop as part of the ongoing Parks and Recreation Master Plan process, and seeking creative plans for parks, with this meeting's focus specific to several individual parks and the southwest area of the community.  The meeting is scheduled for May 19 from 6:30 – 9:30 pm in the Olympic Room of the Skating Center.


Councilmember Roe noted that Rosefest buttons were now available for purchase.


Mayor Klausing announced that the  Roseville Historical Society had rededicated the monument at City Hall, recognizing the bicentennial of the State of MN Constitution, with the memorial originally put in place in 1991, then removed during the remodeling of City Hall, and having been damaged in storage had now been restored and reinstalled.


Councilmember Johnson briefly left the bench at this time.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of May 10, 2010 Regular Meeting

Pust moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 10, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


          Councilmember Johnson returned to the bench at this time.


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, Roe seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.

ACH Payments







Roll Call

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

Nays: None.           


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

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







Wireless in-building Wi-Fi routers (10)





Roll Call

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

Nays: None.           


c.            Approve Amendment to East Metro Narcotics Task Force Joint Powers Agreement

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the Police Department to accept the terms of the “Second Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement Creating the East Metro Narcotics Task Force, n/k/a the Ramsey County Violent Crime Enforcement Team” Agreement (Attachment A); and authorize the Mayor, City Attorney, Finance Director and Acting Chief of Police to execute the document.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.           


d.            Approve Resolution for the Quitclaim Deed Easement to the Minnesota Department of Transportation

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10811 entitled, “Resolution Approving Quitclaim Deed Easement;” to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.           


e.            Approve a Resolution for the Final Acceptance and Maintenance for Public Improvements Constructed for Northwestern College (PF 08-002)

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, Resolution No. 10812 entitled, “Final Acceptance and Maintenance for Public Improvements Constructed for Northwestern College.”

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.           


  1. Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.            Approve Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements on property located at 2814 Cleveland Avenue for Road and Construction Purposes (Former Consent Item 7.f)

Summary information related to this item was provided as a bench handout at the request of Councilmember Ihlan.


At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 17, 2010.


Councilmember Ihlan’s questions were related to whether the appraisal documentation had been made a part of the public record.


City Manager Malinen advised that they were currently out for public display in the back of the room.


Councilmember Ihlan sought an explanation from staff as to why the proposed final settlement cost on the use of the temporary construction easements was higher than the actual appraisal.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that the difference in the amount of $1,892 was identified by the property owner as fair compensation for use of their land, given potential additional costs; and was commiserate with Extra Lease’s compensation at $13 plus per square foot; and was recommended by staff as a lesser cost than further legal fees for continued negotiation, or the cost of an appraisal ordered by the property owner at a potential cost of up to $5,000.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned the status of the fence removal and replacement costs, and whether the final settlement should be depending upon proof that the money had actually been spent and the work completed.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the fence work had yet to be undertaken; however, he noted that, in Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement (Attachment C), this item was detailed and noted that if actual costs incurred for the fencing proved to be less than $11,995.00 based on the submission of invoices, the City’s payment to the property owner (Dorso) would be adjusted to an amount equal to actual costs.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Settlement Agreement (Attachment C) and Easement (Attachment B) document with the property owner of 2814 Cleveland Avenue regarding the acquisition of temporary construction easements.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

9.            General Ordinances for adoption


a.            Adopt a Floodplain Ordinance as required by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for continued Eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (PROJ00-22)

A map entitled, “FEMA Floodplain Designations,” was provided as a bench handout.


City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief summary of this item as detailed in the RCA dated May 17, 2010.


Councilmember Roe noted the italicized language of the ordinance, lines 74-81 and questioned whether this reference language related to future annexation should be included in final language, as it was actually referenced later in the body of the ordinance in Section I entitled, “Annexations:…,” lines 222 – 228.


Mr. Paschke advised that the language could be removed if so directed by the City Council.


Councilmember Roe further noted that the ordinance, line 304, referenced “Conditional Use Permits,” with the current process now referred to as “Conditional Uses,” eliminating the word, “Permits;” and questioned whether the language should be revised accordingly for consistency.


Mr. Paschke expressed flexibility in removing the word, “permit” now or with future revisions most likely necessary as the entire city zoning code is rewritten.


Councilmember Roe noted that lines 526 – 529 talked about utilities being elevated above flood protection, and questioned if, as a municipality, the City had done so.


Mr. Paschke advised that he would verify with the City’s Engineering staff as to whether there were any public or municipal utilities lying within those areas.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned the FEMA map, and whether language of the ordinance creating new districts was consistent with the boundaries designated by FEMA on the map. 


Mr. Paschke offered to further review that issue, whether designated as a flood “way” or “fringe” (i.e., A.E. or A.A.) the specifics of FEMA’s terminology.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned how this floodplain map would change the City’s zoning map.


Mr. Paschke opined that the floodplain map would become an overlay district to the City’s zoning system.


Councilmember Ihlan noted, and Mr. Paschke confirmed, that future structure construction would not be a permitted use in a flood way.


Mayor Klausing questioned, and Mr. Paschke clarified, that the deadline for adoption by FEMA was June 4, 2010; and suggested that the City Council table adoption for staff to clarify those questions raised.


Mr. Paschke suggested that there was no need to hold up adoption given the relatively insignificant information needing clarification and not changing the intent of the ordinance.


City Attorney Bell-Beckman concurred with staff; and advised that the italicized language related to the DNR (lines 74 – 81) could be removed, based on her experience with other municipal clients enacting similar mandatory ordinances, and suggested that it be stricken.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1394 entitled, “An Ordinance Adding Title 10 Section, Chapter 1021 – An Ordinance Establishing Floodplain Regulations in Accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Attachment A);” as amended at line 304 to remove the word, permit” related to Conditional Uses; and lines 74 – 81 to remove italicized language referencing to future annexation requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.


Councilmember Roe, with Council consensus, requested follow-up from staff on utility location considerations.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1394 entitled, “An Ordinance Summary for Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) of the Roseville City Code.”


Mayor Klausing noted that summaries were used as a way to save publishing costs for more lengthy ordinances, and further noted that approval for publication of a summary ordinance required a super majority vote to do so.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Motion carried by super majority.


10.         Presentations


a.            Joint Meeting with the Ethics Commission

Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers welcomed Ethics Commission Chair Melissa Weldon and Commissioner Margo Fjelstad; and thanked them for their service on this City Advisory Commission.


Chair Weldon suggested three topics on which to focus tonight’s joint discussion or on which the Commission wished to report:

1)    Their charge for an annual review of the City’s Ethics Resolution, and the Commission’s subsequent recommendation that no changes were indicated;

2)    Their charge for hearing and review of formal or informal requests, with no ethics complaints or requests received over the last year; and

3)    Their charge to provide input on Ethics Training for the City; and the Commission’s recommendation for changes in that training procedure.


Chair Weldon noted that the Ethics Code called for annual “seminars” be held for all new public officials; however, she questioned what the intent was of a “seminar.”  Chair Weldon further noted that the Code required trained experts from outside city government, as well as the Commission’s input on that training.  Chair Weldon noted that this training has been conducted annually in November.  However, Chair Weldon, on behalf of the Commission, recommended revising that annual training schedule to occur in April to facilitate those new Advisory Commission members coming on board in March each year, and logistically being a better time for training rather than around the holidays.  Chair Weldon requested special dispensation from the City Council for the next in-person training for 2010 to be deferred until April of 2011; and requested further definition by the City Council on the intent of what a “seminar” entailed.  Chair Weldon advised that all new public officials received a copy of the Ethics Code, and that they were provided by the City Manager with a copy of last year’s training via DVD.


Chair Weldon thanked Commissioners Schmidt and Fjelstad for their work on the Commission’s first ethics e-mail, noting that a monthly e-mail was planned in the future; with other options being considered to put the Code in front of public officials by e-mail, by table tent or other opportunities.


Chair Weldon noted that the Ethics Commission currently had an annual budget of $500, and while recognizing the City’s budget constraints, opined that this was not an adequate sum to bring in an outside speaker, and requested an increase in the budget for 2011, or to forego in-person training in 2010, and apply those funds to the 2011 budget for an in-person speaker.


Mayor Klausing questioned whether the Commission’s question on what constituted a seminar was based on whether e-mail notification would be in compliance with the Ethics Code resolution as adopted, with Chair Weldon responding affirmatively.


Mayor Klausing advised that he had no definitive response on the intent of what constituted a seminar, and expressed his personal support of an annual training event in April rather than November, and concurred that April was preferable to accommodate those new Advisory Commissioners coming on board, as well as not being held close to the holidays.  Mayor Klausing further opined that, with newly-elected officials coming on in January, training in April would allow them to be involved in a few meetings and deal with practical rather than abstract issues.


Councilmember Johnson noted the convenience of ethics webinars currently available, and the ability for individuals to make time within their schedule for those options rather than a scheduled training date, and suggested that this may provide for more participation.  Councilmember Johnson noted the merit of meeting as a group, but suggested other available options also be considered; and spoke in support of the practical sense of deferring 2010 training until April of 2011.


Chair Weldon noted the cost of webinars with the current budget constraints, but offered the Commission’s review of available options to consider their content and applicability, as well as enticing participation.


City Manager Malinen noted information suggested by Chair Weldon that was available through “,” and advised that the City would be adding a link to the City’s website for access to their monthly articles, allowing for more regular exposure on ethics issues.


Chair Weldon noted that this would provide ethics training on the “big e-level” and offered general guidance, but noted that the Commission was required to train specific to the City’s Ethics Code, and that the Commission would ensure that such training continued.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of changing this year’s training to April of 2011; and opined that, if the intent of the training was to teach the City of Roseville’s Code of Ethics, it didn’t make sense to hire outside presenters, but suggested in-house trainers be used.  Councilmember Ihlan further suggested that training could be provided through the local academic community on various topics, probably for a modest honorarium as part of their pro bono activities, and could provide for some interesting and timely topics.


Councilmember Johnson concurred.


Mayor Klausing concurred with suggestions for outside speakers from the local academic community; and advised that the original intent of for speakers outside the in-house government realm was to provide an independent perspective.   However, Mayor Klausing noted that he found that requirement for outside government training, to be confining and that it may make sense to have training in-house.  Mayor Klausing suggested, in the Commission’s annual review of the Ethics Resolution, that they consider potential revision if they deemed prudent.


Councilmember Roe concurred with comments heard so far, and suggested that, if “seminar” was not defined in the resolution, the City is free to interpret as appropriate, and if alternative means were available to accomplish similar training.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the training date change; and suggested that the Commission do some research on potential costs for speakers prior to the City Council’s upcoming 2011 budget discussions.


Chair Weldon assured Councilmembers that the Commission would seek volunteer speakers, but noted realistic costs for outside, paid speakers on such a minimal budget.


Mayor Klausing suggested that the delay and deferral for outside speaker training may be a way to address the financial aspect, in not doing that type of training annually, but only every third year, and utilizing other options in other years, providing a balance.


In general, Mayor Klausing noted the ever-increasing expertise and commitment of Commissions over the last few years, and their valid and productive suggestions and comments during these joint meetings; and offered sincere appreciation on behalf of the City Council and the community.


Councilmember Pust left the meeting briefly at this time.


b.            Presentation and Acceptance of the 2009 Financial Audit

Finance Director Chris Miller introduced Mr. Jim Eichten, CPA with MMKR, to present their firm’s independent auditor’s report of the City for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009.


Mr. Eichten reviewed the role and purpose of this annual requirement in accordance with U. S. Government Approved Auditing Standards (GAAP), and submitted to the State Auditor as per law.  Mr. Eichten noted that this audit including testing of internal controls and compliance with those controls; internal control findings; and overall opinions and findings related to that audit.


Mr. Eichten provided, through his Management Report, an unqualified clean opinion on the financial statements, with no substantive findings to report, as he noted has been the case in Roseville for many years.


Mr. Eichten reviewed and elaborated on suggestions for the following components of his Management Report.


Audit Results

§  Tested internal controls: segregation of duties within internal controls over purchasing card (P-card) transactions

§  Legal compliance in the timely payment of invoices, in accordance with State Statute.

Mr. Eichten noted that this was a common finding due to delays in the process for determining accuracy, approval and payment within and among departments to the Finance Department, with most findings eliminated once documentation was confirmed on specific invoices.

§  Signed declarations for payroll transactions for electronic payments, based on state law, as well as for vendors receiving electronic payments.

Mr. Eichten noted the common difficulties in meeting this requirement, and the work of a committee consisting of CPA’s with the State Auditor, and a more systematic verification for vendors in receiving electronic payments, by verifying that all future invoices are true, just and correct by submission on one form for that future invoicing.  Mr. Eichten advised that his firm would coordinate with staff to provide a model or sample form to use.


Mr. Miller noted, related to payroll declarations, that the City uses physical time forms, and that those timesheets were required to include that declaration as well, for verification of actual hours worked.


Audit results

Mr. Eichten reviewed staff’s follow-up and resolution to prior year findings, with the five findings from 2008 resolved and now eliminated, opining that this was the intent of the audit to provide learning and corrective opportunities for staff, all of which had been accomplished.

§  Skating center segregation of duties;

§  Monitoring of grant- and contract-related costs;

§  Prior period adjustment on loan program accounting;

§  Bids received didn’t have appropriate performance or payment bonds from the contractor; and

§  One audit adjustment (journal entry).


Mr. Eichten further reviewed the audit summary in his Management Report, making one other suggestion that the City’s Information Technology Contingency Planning be formally documented.


Mr. Eichten highlighted challenges being experience by cities with declining market values and tax capacities; budget cuts; and additional reporting and controls the state and federal government upon receipt of grant funds; and reductions in taxable market values impacting local tax capacities and tax rates.


Mr. Eichten further reviewed Government Funds Revenue on a per capita basis and comparables with other jurisdictions; commended the City on their debt service ration; and briefly reviewed Individual Fund Descriptions and Financial Positions, noting that the City’s General Fund was at 31% of operations, with the City’s policy reflecting reserve capacity of 50%.  However, Mr. Eichten noted that this was within the State Auditor’s, as well as his firm’s recommendation of between 30-50%.  Mr. Eichten noted that the 50% is recommended, based on the City’s receipt of property tax payments only twice per given calendar year.  Mr. Eichten noted decreased revenue during 2009, mostly related to state cuts to intergovernmental aid; and less than budgeted related to the unallotment process and substantially reduced investment income.  Mr. Eichten commended the City on reacting to those cuts at 4.2% reduction from the prior year, and the end results of being $72,000 under budget at year end, and for doing an exceptional job in meeting standards for budgetary compliance.


Mr. Eichten concluded by reviewing the City’s major financial operations (i.e., Enterprise Funds), those showing positive results with income before depreciation and those showing dramatic declines due to impacts of rate changes (sanitary sewer and water funds); and significant increases in operating expenses in the water fund, mostly related to the increased rates in purchasing water through St. Paul Regional Water.  Mr. Eichten noted the need for the City to react in the near future to these overall financial results.  Mr. Eichten noted the increased overall results in the Golf Course due to expenditure cutbacks and the number of rounds played; the economic impacts and less revenue sharing generated by the recycling contract in the Solid Waste Recycling Fund; and positive operating results in the Storm Drainage Fund.


Mr. Eichten noted new accounting standards being implemented in 2011; and encouraged that the City continue with their ongoing assessment of financial projections for the General as well as other operations and enterprise fund activities for any evident and significant areas of concern.


Discussion among Mr. Eichten, Councilmembers and Mr. Miller included confirmation that staff was working on a formal disaster plan for the City, in conjunction with the other 23 Information Technology (IT) partners; compliments to staff in addressing and eliminating the five findings from 2008; confirmation by staff of an improved procedure for authorizing and monitoring purchase card transactions through the addition of several additional steps; and different foci recommendations and alerts provided each year by the State Auditor.

Mr. Eichten advised that a committee from the Minnesota Society of CPA’s worked closely with the State Auditor’s Office to highlight inconsistencies and identification of best practices that are practical and applicable (i.e., e-cards; payroll declarations).


Mayor Klausing noted that, due to the management and leadership of Finance Director Chris Miller and City Manager Bill Malinen, citizens could take it for granted that expenditure of public tax money was receiving significant oversight and was based on the fundamental way the City of Roseville operated.


Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, acceptance of the 2009 Financial Audit as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


11.         Public Hearings


a.            Hold Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution Approving the Construction for the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project)

City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the proposed Fairview Pathway Project in conjunction with the most recently-adopted Roseville Pathway Master Plan in 2008, identifying Fairview Bike/Pedestrian Pathway facilities as an important connection for the area pathway network; and detailed in the RCA dated May 17, 2010.


Ms. Bloom reviewed the goals of the project in providing “Complete Streets;” a description of the project itself; and the purpose of tonight’s meeting to receive public input on the project.  Ms. Bloom reviewed previous meeting opportunities in 2008 through 2010, both individually and group meetings, as well as on-site meetings with adjacent property owners; and the most recent public meeting held at the City of Falcon Heights last week.  Ms. Bloom advised that, at that meeting, the Falcon Heights City Council had authorized proceeding.


Ms. Bloom highlighted various segments of the pathway and their locations to make this area pathway connection; noting that the roadway would remain a rural roadway to convey storm water to ditches as opposed to an urban roadway with curbs and gutter.  Ms. Bloom noted that this construction would also incorporate existing drainage issues, and any potential drainage issues; and noted that tonight’s requested Council action was for ordering the construction, allowing staff to pursue final designs for the project for construction of bike lanes, parking where applicable, pathways and boulevard.


Councilmember Pust returned to the meeting at this time.


Ms. Bloom highlighted those other corridor improvements during this construction, including storm sewer catch basins, curbing where it assists drainage, and alleviating existing drainage issues for individual property owners.  Ms. Bloom further noted that, due to federal funding guidelines, ADA pedestrian countdown timers/audible, ADA pedestrian ramps, crosswalk striping, and benches would be incorporated, with street trees where applicable would be included through cooperation with the University of MN.  Ms. Bloom advised that each partner in the project would be responsible for maintenance (i.e., snow removal) consistent with their specific policies.


Ms. Bloom reviewed the tentative schedule with May and June for finalizing easements and plans, including working with Macy’s at Rosedale and Gibb’s Farm for easements, and completion of survey work; July for submission of final plans to the State of MN for review; advertising for bids in August; and construction start in September.  Ms. Bloom noted that construction during the State Fair for this approximately three miles of pathway would be avoided, but completion yet this fall should be feasible.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the project included bike access to Rosedale on the Fairview side.


Ms. Bloom advised that this project did not include any pathways on private property, only public right-of-way.


Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment.


Public Comment

     Clarence Harris, 2030 Fairview Avenue

Mr. Harris spoke in opposition to the project, opining that it would not improve the livability of residents along Fairview Avenue.  Mr. Harris expressed disappointment that more affected residents weren’t in attendance, since the October 2008 meeting at the Falcon Heights City Council building was packed with residents expressing overwhelming opposition to the project at that time, and he was of the impression that the project would die due to that strong opposition. Mr. Harris questioned the actual work between staff and the public, given his lack of meeting notice between October of 2008 and the next meeting in March of 2010; and also questioned how the street would become more livable with 2 – 3,000 more bikes and pedestrians using it every day as indicated in a survey presented at the October 2008 meeting.  Mr. Harris opined that it would be more accurate to state that less than 100 people may use the pathway on a given day.  Mr. Harris suggested that Agenda Item 12 for tonight might be misleading and account for no more concerned residents being in attendance, making the assumption that the project was inevitable.  Mr. Harris expressed concern with litter on his property from those using the pathway.  Mr. Harris, while having no opposition to a pathway connecting to the U of MN, suggested use of the large, open field belonging to the U of MN Farm Campus.  Mr. Harris concluded his comments by opining that it was the primary responsibility of the Mayor and City Council to improve the quality of life of residents of Roseville, but by putting this in place, people in surrounding communities were benefitting at the detriment of adjacent residents, and they should go elsewhere (i.e., Como Park) to enjoy biking and walking.


Joan Jacobs, 2690 N Oxford (1 block over)

Ms. Jacobs expressed concern with bikers using walkways, not riding with traffic rather than against, and being disruptive or disrespectful to those walking on pathways and not obeying signage.  Ms. Jacobs spoke in support of additional bike patrols in the parks to alert walkers to bikers and roller bladders.  Ms. Jacobs opined that bikes belonged on the road.


Skip Wolverton, 1946 Fairview (3 houses north of Roselawn on east side of street)

Mr. Wolverton noted that he was a 30 year resident at that location; and thanked staff for their discussions to-date and most recent review of more-developed plans, in addition to Ms. Bloom’s on-site visit at his property to address his concerns and existing drainage issues.  Mr. Wolverton spoke in support of the overall concept that would benefit the entire community and provide more safety for bikers and walkers, but that it may have a negative impact on individual property owners, specifically encroachment into his and other property owners’ yards.  Mr. Wolverton expressed concern with the width of 8’ for the pathway, while recognizing federally-mandated guidelines and funding.  Mr. Wolverton noted the difficulty in maintaining boulevards without curb and gutter due to winter salt and sand applications; and people not observing the edge of the road and leaving tire tracks on the boulevard.  Mr. Wolverton noted that his biggest concern was that relocation of the catch basin affecting his property, and currently located in the middle of the pathway, sine his sump pump drained into that through an agreement with the City when their home was originally constructed. 


Lucy Hulme, 1720 W Eldridge

Ms. Hulme spoke in support of the project, noting that her husband had biked for years between their home and Luther Seminary; stating that she had longed for a place to walk and be connected to Rosedale safely.  Ms. Hulme opined that if a bikeway could be accommodated, it was a wonderful thing and should be a “no brainer,” and would be a wonderful project and a benefit to the City.


Ann Berry, 1059 Woodhill Drive

As a forty-nine year resident of the City of Roseville, Ms. Berry advised that she was representing the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Roseville, Maplewood and Falcon Heights, and speaking with the consent of their Board of Directors, and spoke in support of the Northeast Suburban Campus Connector, Non-Motorized Transportation Corridor.  For the record, Ms. Berry read a written position statement from the LWV summarized as follows:

“Since 1983, our chapter of the LWV has consistently maintained a position in support of safe, non-motorized pathways.  At that time, our chapter conducted a formal study of the issue and our position was adopted as a result of the consensus of members.  This position has been re-endorsed annually thereafter at the annual meeting of our chapter, most recently at our 57th annual meeting held on May 6, 2010.  Our position is as follows: ‘We support policies, procedures and programs that promote safety and reduce hazards to non-motorized traffic; support non-motorized pathways, either on or off road, along high-volume and high-speed thoroughfares likely to generate non-motorized traffic where no other access is possible.’  The proposed Northeast Suburban Campus Connector, Non-Motorized Transportation Corridor project is exactly the type of program that our position contemplates, and the LWV respectfully urges the Roseville City Council to implement, in whole or in part, the project that has been proposed or a similar project.’”


Karen Schaffer, 2100 Fairview Avenue (immediately adjacent to Evergreen Park, south of County Road B)

Ms. Schaffer advised that she had been Vice Chair of the original Non-Motorized Pathways Committee, and spoke in support of the project.  However, Ms. Schaffer  noted that it did create safety concerns with the use of driveways, making backing onto Fairview Avenue even more complicated than currently with the need to look for pedestrian and bike traffic and use more caution; but opined that this was part of life in the big City.  Ms. Schaffer concurred with Mr. Harris on the procedures used for public notification and information with this project, noting that when she attended the October of 2008 meeting in Falcon Heights, the project was at that time quite unformed, creating fear and hostility in the large crowd, which was eventually shut down, with the project being too vague at that time.  Ms. Schaffer noted that, at the meeting in March 2010, staff indicated that the final plan was being presented, and questioned where the communication had been between those two meetings.  Ms. Schaffer noted that pathway projects were always challenging, with complex viewpoints, and upsetting to those adjacent property owners most impacted by such a project; and opined that people needed time to adjust and should be aware that they could request a private meeting with City staff.  Ms. Schaffer spoke in support of the project, but urged the City to revisit their procedures for this type of project.


Francie Reitz, 2009 Aldine

Ms. Reitz spoke in support of the project, noting her long-time desire for such a pathway on Fairview, and expressed appreciation for the plan and her full support of it to connect Brimhall and the Fairview Community Center.  Ms. Reitz expressed safety concerns going south on Fairview and cars passing on the shoulder at her property, and asked that the City consider that area further for a potential solution.


Steve Gjerdingen, 2553 Fisk (on PWET Commission)

Mr. Gjerdingen spoke in support of the project to further enhance the bike corridor and any pathway along Fairview and adjacent to Rosedale, as a great addition to the community.  Mr. Gjerdingen concurred that every trail didn’t need to be 8’ wide, but he didn’t want to derail the project for possible redesign, and the overall project was a good one and should move forward.


Jim DeBenedet, 808 Millwood Avenue (Chair of PWET)

Mr. DeBenedet, an original member of the Non-Motorized Pathway Committee, and current Chair of the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission, spoke in full support of this project to get pedestrians off Roseville’s busy streets and into a safer designated area for them; and spoke in support of constructing all of the proposed non-motorized pathways indicated in the Pathway Master Plan.


Mary Parks, 2066 Fairview Avenue

Ms. Parks indicated that she had provided written comments by e-mail to the  City Council; opining that safety was the most important thing.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg noted there appeared to be no uniform consensus in this neighborhood, with many supporting it as a vital link to the neighborhood, especially in the winter, with no thru-streets between Snelling and Fairview Avenues.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was an important project and spoke in support of it to connect his own southwest Roseville neighborhood.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed his favorable impressions with the individual attention and sensitivity of City staff to individual property owners; and encouraged that such communication continue; noting that staff went above and beyond in ensuring that plantings and trees were replaced if their removal was necessary during construction.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was a great project, and thanked Councilmembers for allowing the neighborhood to speak to it.


Gene Gjerdingen, 2553 Fisk

Mr. Gjerdingen spoke in support of the project, noting that this had long been a problem area for bikers in Roseville, and expressed his anticipation of the improved safety in all seasons.


Mr. Harris

Mr. Harris questioned who would be responsible for the costs for relocating portions of underground sprinkler systems if necessary when they were installed right up to the street.


Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.


Mayor Klausing requested staff’s response to some concerns raised during public comment.


Opportunities for public information

Ms. Bloom noted that each meeting notice includes a statement encouraging residents to attend or to contact staff for an individual meeting, with staff making every attempt to be accessible to the public, recognizing that they couldn’t always be available to attend a scheduled meeting.  Ms. Bloom noted that she always made time to meet with residents individually on-site, at City Hall, at meetings, or after the formal meetings during the process for any project, a concept inherent to the Public Works Department’s philosophy. 


Ms. Bloom concurred that the original meeting held in October of 2008 upon notification of the receipt of the grant for both the Cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville was a boisterous meeting, but had provided some great questions and raised some valid concerns, at which time it was determined that a number of those concerns needed to be addressed specific to each City to facilitate funding mechanisms for the project. 


Ms. Bloom noted that at this time, many of those concerns had been addressed in the preliminary designs, which were at approximately 80% finalized, and clarified that tonight’s requested action was not for authorizing bids, but for the City Council to authorize staff to proceed to final plans before staff expended any more resources on the project, both staff and monetary resources.  Ms. Bloom advised that, if the City Council thought this was a good project, they so direct staff to finalize the plans and resolve any remaining issues, both those previously expressed and those noted tonight.


Pathway Width Requirements

Ms. Bloom advised that, when written, the grant was for a multi-purpose facility, consistent with recommendations of the Pathway Master Plan and neighbor requests, and that a multi-purpose facility in Roseville did not prohibit bikes from using pathways or sidewalks, requiring an 8’ minimum width to facility bikes in both directions, ADA accommodations for safe wheelchair/stroller passage; and in line with MN Department of Transportation guidelines, and needing to comply for funding mechanisms, with no potential for variance based on distance requirements and to accommodate power poles, mailboxes, with variances only available for signal poles.


Boulevard Maintenance

Ms. Bloom noted that boulevard maintenance would remain as it is today, with residents maintaining it (i.e., mowing) up to the edge of the road.


Parking for Special Events

Ms. Bloom advised that “no parking” signs could be covered for special events, but that not for more than a day or weekend for special events.


Underground sprinkler systems / private items in the public rights-of-way

Ms. Bloom noted that, as per City Council policy for any and all Public Works construction projects and during her 12 year tenure with the City, if the City took it down (i.e., trees, shrubs, or larger vegetation), they replaced it, with the exception of intense plantings or perennial beds, where the City worked with the resident on restoration.  Ms. Bloom noted that for invisible fences, sprinklers, and similar items, it was the responsibility of the homeowner to pull those items out of harms way, and then to replace them once construction was completed, as well as any modifications to those items if they could not be returned to their original location.  Ms. Bloom noted that this was consistent with any other utilities located within the right-of-way corridor (i.e., Xcel Energy power poles, cable phone boxes).


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included on-site meetings held to-date with some residents and staff’s availability to meet with others on-site or at their preference, even if on a Saturday; infiltration basins rather than rain gardens for storm water drainage based on a lack of interest expressed by residents to-date in rain gardens; rationale to not install curb and gutter based on existing and potential drainage issues in the area due to grades; and further planning in this next phase to consider those areas for other options to facilitate that drainage and reduce encroachment on private property.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City should seek a variance to the grant conditions to reduce the pathway from 8’ to 6’ where applicable and to reduce infringement on private properties.


Ms. Bloom clarified that the City retained a 20-25 foot right-of-way and reiterated staff’s willingness to meet individually with property owners to address their specific concerns.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the funding for this project as part of the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, as drafted by Congressman Oberstar for federal grant funds in the metropolitan area, with the program designed to demonstrate how to create these corridors with consistent facilities.  Mr. Schwartz advised that, when the grant review committee scored applications and area systems, a high priority was that they be multi-purpose and meet all needs; and opined that he didn’t see the project receiving a variance from the original proposal based on that scoring criterion.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the project as a safer way along Fairview Avenue, provided it could be designed to fit the City of Roseville’s unique circumstances.  Councilmember Ihlan also expressed interest in receiving more information about connectivity with Rosedale, and safe bike access, noting the current challenges for walking or biking along County Road B-2 adjacent to Rosedale; and suggested staff work with Rosedale to determine if there was any interest in partnering to facilitate that access.


Further discussion among staff and Councilmembers included volume and speed of flow in the drainage ditch based on existing and proposed design; safety concerns that not too steep of a drop be adjacent to the bike lane; finalization of drainage plans following City Council authorization to do so; and conveyance of current drainage by ditch to catch basins to the pond at Fairview and County Road C.


Mayor Klausing responded to concerns raised by Mr. Harris on the wording of this item on the agenda, explaining that he did not personally come into meetings with his mind made up; and that the purpose of the hearing was to provide input on issues possibly not considered already, allowing Councilmembers and staff to be aware of issues and concerns of the public.  Mayor Klausing noted the number of past projects that may have been controversial at their inception, and proven to be of benefit to the community once accomplished.


Mayor Klausing advised that he had come into the meeting in support of this project, and that he had not heard anything to convince him to the contrary.


Councilmember Johnson, having sat on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, noted that pathways were a big topic, and that this project was consistent with the Pathway Master Plan.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of this as a good project and a responsibility of the City to provide a safe pathway system for the community; expressed his interest in seeing similar projects come forward in the future; and thanked staff for procuring this grant.


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt Resolution Approving the Construction for the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project)

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10813 entitled “Resolution Ordering the Improvement for the Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project;” ordering construction of the Fairview Pathway Project.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would support the motion, but strongly urged that ways to reduce impacts on property owners be pursued by staff, and that staff alert the grant makers of the unique circumstances in Roseville while still allowing the City to meet grant criteria through various options.


Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, and concurred with Councilmember Ihlan on potential impacts to property owners. He clarified that the interpretation on the number of potential users was based on the entire corridor, not just this segment, which may mitigate some neighbor concerns.  Councilmember Roe noted that the increased usage also provided additional “eye” on the neighborhood from a public safety point of view.


Mayor Klausing thanked everyone for their input and expressed appreciation for citizens’ willingness to express their views as part of the process, whether in agreement or not.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:02 p.m.


b.            City Manager Evaluation

Mayor Klausing reviewed the previous meeting on May 10, 2010 in Closed Executive Session, for the City Manager’s annual performance evaluation, at which time the City Council reviewed topics and priorities established in 2009; and results of a survey of the City Council, Department Heads, randomly-selected City employees and community members for their input related to job performance categories, with indications that Mr. Malinen was meeting or exceeding job performance standards, making him eligible for a step salary increase, pursuant to his employment contract.  Mayor Klausing noted that City Manager Malinen agreed to forego that step increase in consideration of current budget constraints, and that the City Council agreed to an additional seven (7) days of Paid Time Off (PTO) in place of that step increase, representing savings to the City, while putting Mr. Malinen behind a step by deferring that potential wage increase.  Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council and Mr. Malinen agreed on performance targets for 2010, including continued emphasis on the goals and strategies established through the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process; city-wide performance measurements systems; and demonstration of measurable improvements in community engagement.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the annual performance evaluation of City Manager Bill Malinen.


Councilmember Roe clarified that, in foregoing the step increase for 2010, and putting the City Manager one year behind in the step program, the intent was not to recover that delay all in one year.


Mayor Klausing noted that this would be a decision for next year’s City Council and Mr. Malinen to address.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that, as she’d previously advocated during last year’s budget process, the way to approach this and her preferred method would be to freeze all salaries for the next budget year. 


Mayor Klausing noted that the City retained an employment contract with Mr. Malinen, as well as various contracts with its labor unions that would not facilitate a unilateral step increase freeze without a breach of those contracts.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            2030 Comprehensive Plan Implementation – Review of Master Plans

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized this item as detailed in the RCA dated May 17, 2010.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10814 entitled, “Resolution Addressing Pre-2009 Master Plans in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan;” determining that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adequately addresses those plans adopted prior to 2009 that meet the definition of a Master Plan as set forward in the Comprehensive Plan.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that she understood that the City would be viewing language similar to that of the City of Bloomington model; and until that was addressed more directly, she was not supportive of this action.


Mayor Klausing advised that his recollection, in his support of Councilmember Ihlan’s suggestion related to the Bloomington model, was that such language would involved a change in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if the City were to modify the comprehensive plan, it would require approval by the Metropolitan Council.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that the suggestions of Councilmember Ihlan were worth reviewing when considering future Master Plans, but further opined that he wasn’t sure if the distinctions were that great that would indicate a change for the pre-2009 Master Plans, adequately addressed in the comprehensive plan.


Councilmember Roe noted the three specific Master Plans and where they were addressed in the comprehensive plan as part of the official controls for decision-making, accomplishing the same thing as the Bloomington model provided.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


b.            Receive Revised Departmental Strategic Plans

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the RCA dated May 17, 2010; noting that the department-specific narratives offered different approaches and formats at this time, and that staff had not yet attempted to make them into a universal-looking document, but that the plans provided the perceptive of each department and their general direction.  Mr. Miller suggested that the City Council review the documents over the next few weeks, as part of the 2011 budget process, to ensure that each department and the City as a whole were on the pathway outlined by the City Council, and encouraged feedback.


Mayor Klausing expressed his general observation, specifically highlighting that of the Public Works Department, and his pride in their obvious “can do” attitude as evidenced in their vision statement.  Mayor Klausing opined that, in his discussions with residents, it was obvious that when they contacted staff, staff attempted to solve problems for those residents.


Discussion included updating of comparable analyses (page 5 of Administration Department Strategic Plan); specific outcomes or performance measures currently in-process; benchmarks and goals to achieve defined measurable outcomes; and clarification to connect goals and accomplishments or objectives with any additional positions listed as part of action plans and strategies.


c.            Receive the 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)

Finance Director Miller highlighted the CIP as included in the RCA dated May 17, 2010 for 10 rather than 5 years as had been past practice, and specific details for each department and collectively.


Discussion included projected impacts; financial and sustainable realities for those items funded and those items without a revenue source (40% funded); purpose of the document for the public and City Council to reconcile that lack of funding and decision-making to identify and revise priorities and to create action steps to put the City back on a path of sustainability, with larger and more definitive steps beginning in 2011 and beyond.


Councilmember Roe suggested that spreadsheets be included as an appendix, or accomplished in Section 3 for each major capital item summary, with more detail provided in the narrative for larger items (i.e., roofs on facilities in certain years; fire vehicles); and cross-referencing by-division summaries for major capital items; as well as outlining a plan to get funding in place through savings, maintaining fund balances to replace assets, or bonding to fill those funding gaps.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Roe, and suggested – rather than the bar graphs – a master or comprehensive overlay to allow him to look at the 10 year plan to determine which year would be emphasizing which major expenditures by department and across the board, for a year-by-year aggregate and overall number per year, and then broken into detail to guide annual budgeting.


Councilmember Pust questioned why staff additions were included in the Police Department Plan (page 14); and in the fiber master plan (page 42) how that came into existence.


Mr. Miller advised that there was not a City Council-adopted fiber master plan, but that it was internal as part of incorporating Imagine Roseville 2025 goals to bring alternative and affordable broadband to the community if not done so eventually by the private sector.


Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council needed to have serious discussions and flag what levers they could affect in this overall plan to determine resolution as applicable, or this annual update became a report without a purpose, and to determine how annual spending was going to be allocated to meet long-term needs.


Mayor Klausing opined that a serious discussion needed to move forward at the City Council level, not a staff level, rather than the annual line item discussion as opposed to the large picture discussion.  Mayor Klausing suggested asking staff to make specific recommendations to the City Council to reduce this CIP projection by 10% based on staff’s perspective.


Councilmember Pust opined that the City was running a business, and should adequately document how they proposed meeting the needs of that business by talking through specific proposals to meet that need or remove them from the picture.


Councilmember Roe suggested that those items that are unfunded needed to be teed up for a City Council discussion item by item as to their funding priority, whether to fund them, and how those decisions should be made for recommendation to future City Council’s through this City Council setting policy guidance.


City Manager Malinen suggested a future, separate meeting to focus only on capital items, what is not funded, and how to fund the 40%.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, receipt of the 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan (CIP).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Discussion on the 2011 Priority-based Budgeting Program Ranking Methodology

Finance Director Miller summarized suggestions detailed in the RCA dated May 17, 2010 on the priority ranking system for the 2011 budget process.


Discussion included consistency among Councilmembers in that ranking process; ranking of mandates that are obligatory, but not necessary to excel at; those items that are considered essential specifically to Roseville’s quality of life and service level expectations of the community; cost-effective allocation of resources away from priority mandates to things that our city priorities (i.e., election staffing); and identification of program categories currently in-process at the staff level to provide the City Council with current levels of service and their associated costs to balance demands and priorities.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm.