City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 17, 2017


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m., welcomed Independent School District No. 623 School Board Members to tonight’s meeting.  While recognizing that there would be additional staff participants from both bodies during the meeting who would be introduced at that time, Mayor Roe asked each participant currently at the table to introduce themselves for the benefit of the viewing audience.


Present were Councilmembers Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Mayor Roe; and School Board Chair Traynor and Members Gogins, Anderson, Boguszewski, and Shaw.  School Board Superintendent Aldo Sicoli and City Manager Pat Trudgeon were also present. 


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, the addition of a special closed session at the conclusion of tonight’s joint meeting, to consider potential property acquisition at 2719 Lexington Avenue; and subsequent approval of the agenda as amended.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment


5.            Joint Meeting with Roseville School Board


a.            School District Facility Needs Study Update

Mayor Roe turned the meeting over to City Manager Trudgeon and Superintendent Sicoli; with Mr. Trudgeon welcoming all and providing a synopsis of tonight’s presentations to provide updates to respective policy boards and for interaction between and among those bodies informing future staff directives as applicable. 


Superintendent Sicoli concurred with City Manager Trudgeon and thanked the Roseville City Council for hosting this joint work session; and expressed his anticipation of tonight’s discussion.


Superintendent Sicoli presented an update and overview of the School District’s long-range facility planning process to-date; various criteria team meetings and subsequent affirmation by the community; the outlined approach being followed; preliminary review of the District's Finance Committee; and next steps intended for the process.


School District Business Manager Shari Thompson concurred with Superintendent Sicoli’s summation; advising that additional documentation and more detailed financial information could be found online at website.


Board Chair Traynor noted the involvement of Councilmembers Etten and McGehee and others with the Option Committee, and City Manager Trudgeon and other members of City staff involved in community-wide efforts to better understand facility needs.  Chair Traynor noted the similarities for the School District and City with meeting the challenges of first-ring suburbs and infrastructure needs; and expressed the Board’s appreciation of the City of Roseville’s support and participation in the process to-date.


Specific to the financial information presented, Councilmember Willmus asked if it had been broken down with all needs by category (e.g. deferred maintenance and community needs).


Ms. Thompson responded with a brief overview of the School District’s levy authority for long-term maintenance, and the portion (approximately $120 million) needed for that specific category and consideration of short-term bonding as an option with bonds issued every other year to obtain better interest rates and complete projects in phases.  While the School District didn’t need voter approval, Ms. Thompson advised that for the benefit of transparency in the communities making up the district, long-term facility maintenance (LTFM) had been separated from other projects addressing capacity, enrollment and community programming needs as detailed in the slide presentation.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Thompson advised that while the exact logistics and scope were yet to be determined, if the decision was made to proceed with the first phase, she anticipated sale of bonds in January or February of 2018 for construction that summer.  Due to the number of buildings involved and classes and programs scheduled, Ms. Thompson advised that the School Board would need to schedule while remaining cognizant of more pressing enrollment issues at the High School.


Superintendent Sicoli further noted that the LTFM was a ten-year plan that would be reviewed and updated annually; and if a decision was made to raise the levy to address deferred maintenance, it would be folded into the long-term plans accordingly.  Superintendent Sicoli concurred with Ms. Thompson’s observation that there was no additional space to house students during construction, requiring that projects be undertaken and completed during the summer months or when buildings were available or their use limited, thus creating the need to facilitate those projects in a tighter and shorter timeframe.


Board Member Shaw noted that a detailed breakdown of school versus community-centered amenities and uses had yet to be determined beyond the considerable interest in a pool option and joint needs or interests.  With some of those interests in a pool kept at a higher temperature for community and senior citizen use, such as the existing pool at the Fairview Community Center, Board Member Shaw noted other interests included an additional gym option to be used as a community resource, such as those receiving heavy use at the Middle School and Fairview Community Center.


Board Chair Traynor noted interest in another auditorium as a community resource for theater use.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if there would be sufficient auditorium use available for the community given the highly active and enthusiastic theater groups in the community.


Board Chair Traynor advised that this would need to be determined, including whether a community-oriented theater could be extended further or if a second theater was indicated; with the option still under consideration for two theaters at the High School location.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification if the intent was that the ultimate number of available gyms would be built primarily for community use versus school programming.


Ms. Thompson clarified that the current plan being considered was for three gyms, but reiterated that it remained under discussion with no decision made at this point, or whether to locate them at the Middle School or Fairview Community Center.

Superintendent Sicoli noted it could be both at this point of the discussions, but clarified that the intent of the gyms would be for school and community use.  While it remains unclear whether an additional gym would be necessary for school use with the present enrollment and the need was stronger at this point for community use, Superintendent Sicoli recognized that would and could change based on enrollment and changing demographics of the community and school district over the long-term.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Thompson reviewed discussions for planning two pools and their uses for the swim team and the community; including serving as a back-up.  Ms. Thompson advised that interest levels on the community use aspect were still being reviewed for clarity; including taking into consideration the age of both existing pools and whether the best option would be for repair or replacement.  Ms. Thompson reported that the School Board was awaiting results of a feasibility study on the physical state of both pools.


Superintendent Sicoli advised that, as part of this process, the School District had held not only community meetings, but through their participation on criteria committees throughout this process, Roseville senior citizens using the Fairview Community Center pool had been consulted for their feedback.  Given the small number of pools in the Twin Cities area with warm temperatures, Superintendent Sicoli reported that the consensus was that those citizens felt strongly that the School District shouldn’t go to one pool for the swim team, but to take the community into consideration before proceeding into the future; and recognized that both existing pools needed considerable work.


Board Chair Traynor stated that, one thing he’d personally learned through this process, was that many other school districts may not have as many facilities devoted to the broader community.  Instead, those facilities may be run by cities or other localities.  While it varies across communities, Board Chair Traynor noted that the School Board continues to support the tradition of our school district by focusing on providing those community services.


With that historical perspective, Board Member Boguszewski suggested that one thing that could come out of this discussion was whether the current alignment was relevant in addressing both the needs of the district and city.


From her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that the district had a lot of resources used by the community, and while the city has a considerable amount of infrastructure it’s currently updating, in recognizing the importance of the school district and its available resources for community needs, it was of major importance to address that partnership.  Councilmember McGehee noted the city’s ongoing and recent updates to the pathway structure, skating center and Oval, and other amenities, but lack of a pool.   Councilmember McGehee noted the resources provided by the school district including the senior center at Fairview and the pool, together with the resources provided by the City comprise nearly a complete “community center” offering.    Acknowledging Councilmember Etten’s description of a distributed concept when planning for the Parks Renewal, Councilmember McGehee opined that to her it seemed that a pool  and possibly a gym were the only “community center” pieces missing pieces.


Moving back to the priorities identified by the Criteria Committee and their decision-making as detailed in the slide, with their core criteria for safety and basic functions, Board Member Gogins noted that a pool was at the bottom of the list before addressing the great needs of higher priority.  Board Member Gogins noted that realistically all could not be delivered or expectations fulfilled, but any areas where partnerships could help meet those community needs area obviously very desirable.


Mayor Roe noted the good partnership history between the district and city over the years; and as evidenced during the 2010 Park Master Plan process, many of those community center elements were scattered throughout both entities, whether in a school district or city facility, making the decision-making challenging at that time on whether or not to include a community center as a community priority.  While the school district serves a larger area than the City of Roseville, Mayor Roe opined that the same constituency supported the community and should be continued, enhanced or added to for the good of all.


Councilmember Willmus opined that was unique to Roseville and how it had addressed the whole community center issue, was through a decentralized model with gathering spaces spread throughout the city.  With other communities having more or better amenities than those offered in Roseville, Councilmember Willmus noted that they were now finding those facilities unsustainable and were partnering with other groups (e.g. City of Maplewood Community Center partnering with the Y) and asked if such a private/public model had been considered by the school district, not specifically for academic purposes but for community purposes.


Board Chair Traynor reported that this had been a discussion of the Options Committee and consideration to centralizing resources at one site, including pools and gyms and having multiple ones at one location; and thus exploring partnerships to support that larger option.  However, Board Chair Traynor reported that the committee had decided not to go in that direction as they determined that those amenities should be offered at several sites for easier access throughout the community versus one centralized location.


Also, Mayor Roe noted that, as a fully-developed city and school district, it would be challenging to find a site to accomplish such a centralized location.


Ms. Thompson noted another challenge heard from the community and the Options and Criteria Committees was the need to address the basics for school and community uses.  While this may include a pool set at a warmer temperature for community use versus that of the swim team or for swim lessons, and gyms for both school and community use, Ms. Thompson noted the community was very clear on its preference for good value and basic programming.  Therefore, Ms. Thompson opined that it didn’t seem viable for the school district to seek out private partnership, since there wouldn’t be a lot of opportunities for their use.


Mayor Roe suggested looking at partnering with local non-profits that could help support programming at some point.


Board Chair Traynor stated his first experience when coming onto the School Board and meeting a maintenance staffer who, as former Superintendent Dr. Thein explained, was the only maintenance staffer able to coax a particular, now obsolete, boiler to run on a cold day.  Board Chair Traynor noted that this exemplified the incredible and basic issues needing to be addressed.


Mayor Roe recognized that need, noting that the city could relate to it as it had finally been required to address its outdated city-wide infrastructure.


b.            Review City/School District Partnerships

City Manager Trudgeon noted the memorandum prepared by Superintendent Sicoli and him outlining existing partnerships between the city and school district.


Karen Schaub, Director of Community Education, noted that the only thing missing in the memorandum detail was the shortage of after school space and needs of the city’s Parks & Recreation Department to serve their programs and gym time.  Therefore, Ms. Schaub reported that city and school district staff had initiated a task force between them to talk about available space and after school uses.


Superintendent Sicoli echoed the comments of City Manager Trudgeon, advising that it was atypical for the school district and city to work together; and noted the importance of recognizing what was currently available and being partnered on, that vastly exceeded that of other communities.  When Dr. Thein first toured the community and school district with him, Superintendent Sicoli noted his surprise with the partnering done beyond the High School, and into the Elementary buildings, as well as with gymnastics.  Superintendent Sicoli noted that was very unique and appreciated by the school district with that partnership over the years.


Another thing not yet highlighted, but an important asset to the community, Mayor Roe noted the city’s contribution to the Roseville Area Senior Program in partnering with the school district in meeting those needs.


Board Chair Traynor advised that he had learned from the inventory of partnerships detailed in the memorandum, and along with Board Member Gogins expressed appreciation for that information.


In terms of programming, other than gym and pool issues that were not a crisis, Councilmember McGehee suggested that until more details were available from the pool study, the city and school district consider historical partnerships and what additional partnerships should be considered and/or pursued.


In serving basically the same constituency, Mayor Roe suggested looking at duplicative areas (e.g. personnel or equipment) and potential cost savings that could be addressed.  As an example, Mayor Roe noted turf maintenance performed on both city and school fields and if there were ways that one entity could contract with the other to provide services through attrition of employees or retirement of aging equipment.  Mayor Roe suggested looking at areas beyond education and/or recreation, but partnering of programs in partnership or growing out of these facility use conversations.  Mayor Roe expressed his interest in hearing if that was of interest to the school district or whether they felt it wasn’t applicable.


Councilmember Willmus agreed that was an interesting concept; and added that since the school district and city had developed a really good model, suggested bringing other municipalities within the school district on board in similar capacities.


Board Chair Traynor reported that the school district had been reaching out to other communities within its parameter, but had mostly focused to-date on youth and community utilization for youth sports and activities (e.g. City of Maplewood).


Board Member Anderson concurred, noting that the school district’s link with the City of Maplewood was the Edgerton School.


Councilmember McGehee suggested other communities, such as Falcon Heights, Lauderdale and Little Canada, be approached as they didn’t have similar facilities and may be more approachable on that aspect.


Board Chair Traynor stated his interest in Mayor Roe’s idea to review and compare activities to see if some synergy could merit further conversations.  While the school board members were not in the best position with those day-to-day operations, Board Chair Traynor opined that they were worth respective staff explorations.


Board Member Gogins stated her appreciation of the city’s willingness to work with the school district and expand after school programming; and working together to maximize efforts outside standing agreements or lack of agreements in place.


Board Chair Traynor noted the big public topic seemed to be a community center; and based on his understanding it had been explored by the city, community surveys and interest to-date had not established a timetable or firm direction for the city to go.  Board Chair Traynor opined that, given the necessary focus of the school district needs, at this time they were not in a position in the process to lead the process for a Roseville-focused community center.  While it has been thought about and discussed, Board Chair Traynor opined that it didn’t appear to be a viable approach at this point for the school district.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that there had been interest in a community center expressed in community surveys, but that it had not risen to the level of financial support.  Councilmember McGehee noted that Ms. Thompson had spoken to the more basic values of Roseville; and opined that the general constituency didn’t need something similar to the Shoreview Community Center and even though they may like it, didn’t necessarily want one built in Roseville.  As pointed out by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee noted that the community had gathering places, athletic facilities and gyms spread throughout the community; and opined that this more diverse arrangement seemed to suit the Roseville constituency well.  


Councilmember Willmus noted that the community center interest has been around a long time, but that the concern continued to be funding, and significant community preference that it be funded through operating receipts, which was not feasible as the City of Maplewood was now finding out.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was important to be candid with people at the front end, recognizing that a community center is not a revenue generator and operationally would lose money; raising the question as to whether or not the community was willing to pay for it long-term, a point at which the conversation seems to pause repeatedly.


Board Chair Traynor noted the city’s leadership with their Park Renewal Program and providing meeting space throughout the community; with the school district focusing on basic needs, with accessibility for the community and located in sites that make sense for the entire school district constituency and with a regional draw. 


With the community unwilling to pay for a community center, Board Member Boguszewski suggested this gave the school district pause in any consideration of adding to its referendum as an alternate funding source for such a community center.  Board Member Boguszewski noted that any perception that the school district’s referendum was moving beyond meeting basic needs would cause public concern and therefore he cautioned considerable thought in pursuing anything beyond those basics.


Councilmember Etten referenced those things listed in #6 beyond a community center, but things being used by students during the day and as the city considered with its Parks Master Plan process and subsequent facilities, the backlog that needed to be addressed.  Councilmember Etten noted those included community use of facilities after school hours (e.g. pool, auditorium) and the different groups wanting use of those over-booked facilities, whether by the community or school.  Councilmember Etten noted the need to take care of those basics and those community assets based on their importance in the community for students and citizens.


Board Member Boguszewski agreed with that perception as addressed by Councilmembers Willmus and Etten, and identification line by line what is considered “expansion” and “new” versus what is “replacing” those core needs to further the education of area children.


As the city experienced during its Park Renewal Program process and reviewing existing infrastructure needs, Mayor Roe noted that language affected how the community responded; with the lesson learned not to present an inaccurate message but be clear on what you were saying and what you wanted to be heard.


As the Options Committee discussed, Councilmember McGehee noted their concern and care in making sure the whole package was palatable to the community and in meeting both community expectations for school and community programming needs.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that it appeared that the school district was hearing what the city heard during the Parks Renewal Program process, that the community preferred assets located close to them.  Councilmember Laliberte asked if the school board had heard anything from other area communities that they always needed to come to Roseville for programming and would prefer facilities closer to their communities.


Board Chair Traynor stated that the school board had heard that communities wanted gyms and schools accessible to the entire district; with indications that people were used to traveling to get to their destination that was focused in one particular area of the district.


Board Member Anderson advised that a considerable amount of discussion had been held to make sure facilities were not centrally located, but that resources were spread out.  Board Member Anderson reported that this led to a lengthy discussion when talking about the Middle School’s location on the eastern side of the district and pulling people in that direction, causing thoughtful discussions in distributing things throughout the area.


As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the Early Childhood Education programming now at Parkview and Fairview, with Harambee suggested as an alternative option.


In conclusion, and with presentation by Superintendent Sicoli and City Manager Trudgeon of the exhaustive list of partnering opportunities already in play, Mayor Roe and Board Chair Traynor recognized that those opportunities continued to evolve with staff interaction.


c.            Connecting with the Area Business Community

Todd Olson, College and Career Readiness Administrator at Roseville Area Schools, presented a synopsis of work to-date in connecting students with area businesses.


Mayor Roe commended Mr. Olson in pursuing the great idea and encouraging the interest in exposing students toward various career paths.


Mr. Olson expressed his appreciation to City of Roseville’s Housing and Economic Development Manager Jeanne Kelsey and other city staff who had supported this program initiative.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the need for trade and skilled labor, something that had been missing for too long; and opined that it needed to not only be included in middle and high school curriculums but possibly late elementary as well.


Board Member Boguszewski noted the school board’s excitement in seeing the interest of trade unions, not just employers, when Mr. Olson approached the business community, and their comments that they had been waiting to be asked for their participation.  Related to manufacturing, Board Member Boguszewski noted that with today’s equipment, students needed computer programming skills, and once students became aware of that, they became more interested in that field.


Councilmember McGehee agreed, using the example of computerized metal work; and expressed her appreciation in the interest being shown by trade and construction companies.  Councilmember McGehee noted the skill set of retiring baby boomers having the time and interest in sharing their skills, not only in the schools, but also in their neighborhood, often becoming independent business people in their retirement years.


Mr. Olson agreed those retirees provided a great opportunity for the school district to partner with teachers, and become part of the pipeline in mentoring students along with employers.  Mr. Olson advised that many businesses were also paying for their employees to work with students during the school day and partner with teachers and share their skills and areas of expertise.  Mr. Olson noted that the wonderful and innovative ways to partner continued to evolve.


Mayor Roe noted that the city had over 5,000 businesses; with Mr. Olson encouraging more participation to allow career counselors at the school to increase student participation as the opportunities came forward.


As a board member, Board Member Anderson recognized the networking of Mr. Olson and the career pathways program and the partnership and communication between teachers, businesses and students, using practical applications as employers share what they need (e.g. keyboarding skills).


Mr. Olson noted that business partners were willing to invest in the program even by providing equipment to build the programs.  Mr. Olson noted the unique opportunities available with area colleges, and students’ ability to earn college credits for some of the classes.  Mr. Olson opined that the program could continue to grow, and provided several recent examples.


With District 623 on the leading edge, Councilmember Etten suggested sharing that model with other school districts.  Councilmember Etten cautioned that the core quality education pieces needed to be built into the career training and tied together and not only focusing on work-based learning for credits that many schools may have.  Councilmember Etten suggested offering non-credit ways or a way to maximize credits for students during the school day for those unable to go out but still able to obtain that credit experience.


Mr. Olson responded that he had recently been approached by an architectural engineering firm interested in a pilot program for 10-15 students after school that would be tasked with designing an entire building using software.  Mr. Olson also noted that the Department of Natural Resources had recently contacted the school with interest in connecting with the career training program.  In response to Councilmember Etten, Mr. Olson assured that the STEM program helped connect the core learning from elementary through adult education, including finding unique ways for students to interact with new technologies.


Mayor Roe noted his experience in unpaid, non-credit job shadowing as a small-town late-elementary school student in the late 1970’s where he was able to experience technical and engineering fields that had led him to his engineering career.  Mayor Roe noted the importance of seeing the available opportunities to see possibilities and areas of interest.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten in the need for the education system to provide the basics, and for students to be very aware of the expectations of future employers in the workforce that their employees have those basic reading, math and problem-solving skills that would be applicable to any number of careers and vocations.  Mayor Roe opined that the key to remember was that the workforce was looking for success with basic skills and abilities as well in following specific career paths.


Board Member Gogins stated that the exciting part for her was in engaging students with those core studies as they come to understand from these business partnerships how useful they area and their value when students are shown their practical applications.  Board Member Gogins noted that this helped motivate and engage students that may have missed that in the current curriculum.


Board Member Boguszewski agreed that teaching students how to apply those practicalities at a younger age was important.


Mr. Olson noted the current “silver tsunami” leaving the workforce and with a diverse group of students needing to fill those roles with business partners in mind and creating equitable situations for all.  Mr. Olson advised that this included leading employers in how to work with those diverse groups (e.g. business partners taking ESL students and paying for their education enhance their markets) creating community partnerships.


Chair Traynor thanked Superintendent Sicoli for getting this program started, and noted the progress made to-date with Mr. Olson only having been in the position since July of 2016; and expressed his excitement with this evolving opportunity.


Mr. Olson again thanked the city for their willing partnership and seeking ways to get internships for students; and stated his interest in further conversations down the road as the program continued to evolve.


d.            Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update

City of Roseville Community Development Director Kari Collins provided a brief summary of the current update of the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan and staff’s work with WSB lead consultants Lydia Major and Erin Purdu in navigating through the process.  Ms. Collins advised that for more information on the process, those interested could seek out as well as the city’s website:


As to areas of interest for the city and school district, Ms. Collins advised that would include the city’s land use policy; transportation; environmental protection policy; parks and recreation policy; pathways; and conservation. 


Ms. Collins advised that the public engagement portion of the update was in full swing, including two Planning Commission meetings each month, one specific to the comprehensive plan update; feedback from and participation with the Roseville Area Middle School “Future Cities” program held in January, and provided highlights from a summary prepared by Planning Commissioner James Daire based on his attendance and observation of that discussion by Seventh grade students.  Ms. Collins also noted that the public kick-off of the update had been held in early March and summarized some of the over-arching themes heard from citizens that paralleled those of the “Future Cities” students.  Ms. Collins further advised that an online survey would remain open for anyone’s participation until the end of April (at  Ms. Collins advised that intercept boards were located throughout the city; with focus groups scheduled yet in April.


Mr. Olson advised that he had briefly reviewed the plan, and understood it was updated every ten years.  However, Mr. Anderson sought clarification in the differences in the 2030 and proposed 2040 plans.


Ms. Collins clarified that there were few changes other than planning for demographic changes that had occurred over the last ten years; and the Metropolitan Council’s required new chapter on resiliency; with a close look intended at the city’s and region’s water and natural resources. 


At the request of Board Member Gogins, Ms. Collins advised that, as directed by the City Council, and with good, rich information remaining relevant for the most part from the 2030 plan, there would be a minimal change for the 2040 update beyond minor tweaking.  Ms. Collins opined that the goals and aspirations of the 2030 plan would remain mostly intact.


Mayor Roe concurred, opining that the update was intended basically as a check-in to ensure the 2030 version was still viable.


Board Chair Traynor stated his appreciation that the community continued to feel things were going well; and with recent issues suggested by the school board and city, overall feedback was that they were satisfied with how things were going.  While unable to predict that this would also apply to the 2040 comprehensive plan update for the city, Chair Traynor noted that that community satisfaction level had served as affirmation for the school board.  While recognizing that there remained challenges and changes ahead, Chair Traynor noted that the facility planning process was following a similar process to that used by the city. 


Even though periodic check-ins were good, Mayor Roe agreed, based on feedback received by the city in recent community surveys indicating that the general consensus was that things were going well.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this was also indicated by those residents having lived in Roseville long-term and their excitement as they saw their homes turning over to their children or their children coming back to Roseville to purchase a home.


Chair Traynor agreed, based on demographics that the school district was also aware of that organic growth entering the district, not simply due to open enrollment from outside Roseville, but also based on those demographic updates in Roseville with younger families moving into the community.


Ms. Collins agreed that the intercept board comments, along with other sources, were supporting the theme that Roseville is a fantastic place and how it can be taken to the next level.  While some comments have indicated that there is more need for diversity of businesses (smaller versus bigger) to meet community needs, Ms. Collins noted that the feedback so far didn’t indicate that there were any huge gaps needing filling.


Given the ongoing feedback that both the city and school district continued to receive, Mayor Roe suggested that it could be used for promotional commercials about why Roseville remains an attractive place to live or move to.


Councilmember Etten noted work to-date of the Community Task Force on Safe Schools and their focus on future opportunities.  While the group is currently more focused on school-related issues, Councilmember Etten noted other community partnerships to be considered; and encouraged that those ideas be brought forward to make both the communities and school district healthier.


Mayor Roe thanked the school board for coming to “their house” for tonight’s meeting; and expressed his appreciation of the conversations, anticipating that they would continue at the staff and leadership levels.  Mayor Roe advised that the relationships he’d developed with the school board during his tenure as a councilmember and then as mayor had helped him to understand the school district better and had been helpful to him in representing the community in those roles.  Mayor Roe stated that he looked forward to other opportunities moving forward.


Chair Traynor concurred, opining that was well-stated; and expressed his interest in continuing the conversations as well.  Chair Traynor recognized that both the city’s and school board’s interests aligned; and together they could continue to make Roseville a great place to live.


Board Member Anderson expressed his appreciation for the involvement of several of the Councilmembers in the school district’s facilities planning process.  While there was still a long way to go, Board Member Anderson encouraged continued involvement in both groups working together and staying involved.


Board Member Boguszewski recognized the roles of City Manager Trudgeon and Superintendent Sicoli as the practical recipients for funneling comments and information through.


Mayor Roe concurred; and referenced recent and upcoming opportunities where he and Superintendent Sicoli, as well as city and school district staff were partnering throughout the broader district.  Mayor Roe noted future multi-partnership opportunities as well with other municipalities and counties.


Board Member Boguszewski also noted that Mr. Anderson would be making a presentation at the next Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) meeting.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:52 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:57 p.m.


Mayor Roe noted the additional item added to tonight’s meeting and announced that, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 13.D.03 and exceptions to Open Meeting Laws, he would entertain a motion to move into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of discussing development of a potential offer for acquisition of property located at 2719 Lexington Avenue.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 7:58 p.m. and convening in Closed Executive Session, per State Statute.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 8:00 p.m.  In addition to the Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan were also present.


At approximately 8:22 p.m., McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and reconvening in Open Session.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Summary of Discussion in Closed Session

Mayor Roe briefly summarized consideration of property acquisition, advising that staff had been directed accordingly by the City Council.


6.            Adjourn

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:23 p.m.

                                  Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

            Nays: None.