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
|
$736,793.38
|
|
58427-58502
|
413,415.91
|
|
Total
|
$1,150,209.29
|
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:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
IT
|
CDW-G
|
Wireless in-building Wi-Fi routers (10)
|
$6,115.65
|
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.
- 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
“cityethics.org,” 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.
Recess
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.