View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2013
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, welcomed
everyone and made introductions. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe. Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Etten
had previously advised that he would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting due
to work commitments.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal for comment or question of Consent Agenda Items 7.g and h, respectively
entitled, “Approve Agreement with Ramsey County Bench Program;” and “Receive
2013 Third Quarter Financial Report.”
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Jim Palewicz, 1489 Woodlyn Avenue
Mr. Palewicz presented
neighborhood concerns regarding an absentee landlord renting a single-family
home to students at 1493 Woodlyn Avenue. As a bench handout, Mr. Palewicz presented
written concerns dated September 4, 2013, from the neighbors, attached
hereto and made a part hereof; and their perception that the landlord
was taking advantage of the block and the City of with exceeding the allowable
number of tenants according to City Code.
Mr. Palewicz noted that the
ongoing problem with an excess number of automobiles parked at the home had
been somewhat corrected with several now parked in the garage and not all located
on the street. Mr. Palewicz noted that the landlord had done some remodeling
over the summer, adding egress windows in the basement to apparently include
two additional bedrooms, also against City Code. Mr. Palewicz stated that he
and the neighbors found this aesthetically negative remodel on the front of the
house, the additional traffic, and general situation prohibitive to the
neighboring properties and their values.
Mr. Palewicz respectfully asked
that the City provide assistance to the neighborhood through code enforcement
or other venues.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Palewicz for
bringing this to the City’s attention, and advised that staff would follow-up
on the situation and report back to the City Council and Mr. Palewicz.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting
that he would research the situation with staff and follow-up to determine if
this was already an open case and then provide a report on the situation, and
thanked Mr. Palewicz for bringing it to the City’s attention; and asked that
the neighbors recognize that the City needed to follow due process in addressing
any such situation, but advised that the neighbors would be informed once the
issue had been resolved.
Julie Wearn, Roseville Visitors
Ms. Wearn, Executive Director of
the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) announced and invited the public to
the first annual “Night We Light” at the OVAL on Friday, November 8, 2013 at
6:30 pm at the OVAL, and in celebration of the 20th year of the
OVAL. Ms. Wearn recognized the sponsorship of area businesses in making this
event possible as they sponsored a tree.
Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe congratulated the
Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority (RHRA) for their receipt of a
Twin Cities Community Development Award for its Green Remodeling Plan Handbook,
the award recognizing the HRA for its efforts in strengthening local
neighborhoods and communities. On behalf of the community and City Council,
Mayor Roe offered congratulations, noting that additional information was
available at the HRA’s website: Livingsmarter.org.
Mayor Roe announced upcoming events
including a Community Education sponsored discussion “Community for a Lifetime”
scheduled on October 24, 2013 at 6:30 pm at the Little Canada City Hall; and
again on November 16, 2013 at 10:30 am at the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey
County Library. While the events are free, Mayor Roe noted that RSVPs were
necessary to ensure adequate space; with additional information available by
calling 651-604-3535 (Library) and RSVPs directed to 651-297-2704; with
additional information also available on the Community Education website.
Mayor Roe announced free HRA
sponsored seminars to assist in retaining home values, with the next seminar
scheduled for October 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm at the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey
County Library, and entitled, “Aging in Place” by Access Solutions, also
requiring registration by calling 651-792-7078 or by contacting the City’s HRA
or City Hall phone numbers.
Mayor Roe noted the great turnout
on Saturday, October 12, 2013, for the new Fire Station Open House, estimating
there were over 2,000 attending for the open house and ribbon cutting
ceremony. Mayor Roe stated that it was a great event and provided wonderful
opportunities to see various aspects of the new station.
Councilmember Willmus concurred,
encouraging this as an annual opportunity for residents to tour their fire
Mayor Roe echoed that suggestion
for an annual open house of City facilities as a future consideration.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred
with the kudos for the event, stating that it provided a great opportunity for
talking with fire staff; and congratulated them all on a great job.
Mayor Roe noted that it was a great
event for Roseville families and firefighter families as well.
Councilmember Laliberte recognized
Roseville resident Ed DeRose for his artwork selection for the 2014 State of MN
Pheasant Stamp; with his painting reproduced on the statewide stamp.
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
Approve Minutes of September 23, 2013 Meeting
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the September 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes and the September 27, 2013
Special Meeting Minutes as presented
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; and Roe.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim
City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Check Series #
71500 – 71707
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; and Roe.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the
Tiffany Rassat; Massage Xcape
1767 Lexington Avenue N
Theresa Anastasia May
Roseville Acupuncture and Massage
2201 Lexington Avenue N, Suite 103
Eva Blankenship; Lifetime Fitness/LifeSpa
2480 Fairview Avenue
Gary Sarppo; Massage Rejuvenation
2218 County Road D
Elizabeth Kaul-Bjornson; Kairos Center for Well-Being, LLC
2301 Woodbridge Street, #103
Leroy Tschida, Jr.; Colleen & Company
3092 Lexington Avenue N
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases
and contracts for services presented as follows:
Budget / CIP
Ford F-150 (replaces similar 11-year old vehicle)
Chevrolet Malibu (unmarked vehicles replaces similar
10-year old vehicle)
TC Lawn Care
Pathway wall repair (result of 06/21/13 storm event at
2323 Terminal Road)
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as follows:
Item / Description
2002 Ford F-150: $4,000 estimated resale
2003 Chevy Impala: $4,200 estimated trade-in
Approve Final Payment Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11097___ (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance
– Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements;” initiating the one-year warranty
period; and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $3,070.54.
Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County Elections
As a part of the
packet, a spreadsheet (Appendix C) spreadsheet entitled “Proposed Capital
and Annual Operating Costs for New Voting System.”
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11098___ (Attachment A) entitled,
“2013 Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment B) for Replacement Elections System.”
Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Sprint Wireless for Additional
Space on the Civic Center Campus South Tower
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of a lease amendment (Attachment A) between the City of
Roseville and Sprint Wireless for additional space on the Civic Center Campus
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve Agreement with Ramsey County Bench Program
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 14, 2013.
advised that she had received comments from several residents as users of the
benches already installed, that they were mounted on large cement slabs, which
they found to be singularly unattractive to people. Councilmember McGehee
questioned if there was some other way to mount them going forward.
advised that the slab had been required as part of the benches installed at
Langton Lake to provide inset bricks with donor information. However, moving
forward, Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would not be a requirement, and noted
that he would follow-up to see if they can be made more attractive, while
remaining safe and secure.
Laliberte seconded, approval of an agreement between the City of Roseville and
Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department (Attachment A) for the
acquisition of twelve (12) benches; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager
to executive the agreement, subject to final approval by the City Attorney.
Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Receive 2013 Third Quarter Financial Report
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 14, 2013; noting
that this is only a snapshot and subject to change.
advised that she had no questions; however, since this was a Consent Item, she
wanted to ensure that the public and City Council was reminded that the Water
Fund was only afloat due to internal loans from the Storm Sewer Fund.
Councilmember McGehee noted that the Storm Sewer system would be doing a lot of
improvements going forward. Councilmember McGehee also noted that, while the
Golf Course Fund seemed to be sufficient, it was not allowing for any additional
funds for a new club house as requested as a priority by the community. While
the Operating Fund appeared to be doing fine, Councilmember McGehee noted that
the CIP Fund was still not at a level of sustainability to provide maintenance
for new buildings and pathways, and asked that the public pay attention to the
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, receipt of the Third Quarter Financial Report as presented by staff
for informational purposes.
Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Receive B-2 and Victoria Pathways Presentation and Public Comment
Staff available for this
presentation included Interim City Engineer Kristine Giga; Public Works
Director Public Works Director; Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke;
and Recreation Program Supervisor Jeff Evenson.
Mr. Brokke provided a brief
introduction and overview of the proposed joint project, as detailed in the RCA
dated October 14, 2013; and a summary of public meetings held to-date with most
often heard concerns regarding tree preservation and drainage issues. Mr.
Brokke advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Public Works,
Environment, and Transportation Commission (PWETC) recommended moving forward
with the project.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the numerous
Pathway Master Plans, as well as the most recent Parks & Recreation Master
Plan process, and concerns in addressing this route for much-needed safe
connections to area schools, churches, and its proximity and connection to
Central Park. With several iterations over the years, Mr. Schwartz noted that
this route had been identified as a priority for over twenty (20) years.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, due to
impacts of the project, the original project intended to extend from Rice to
Walnut Streets had been reduced in scope. Since 2005, Mr. Schwartz noted that
this corridor had been subject to two (2) grant applications, both subsequently
unsuccessful; and more recently identified as part of the Parks Master Plan.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City’s PWETC was currently reprioritizing remaining
projects needing build-out for an update to the Pathway Master Plan. While
that reprioritization is nearing completion, Mr. Schwartz noted that this
corridor continued to score very high in the overall picture, but simply had
experienced a lack of funding options until included as part of the Parks Renewal
Program providing an opportunity.
Ms. Giga reviewed preliminary
project specifics for various segments as detailed in the RCA, including
existing trails and sidewalks, the four (4) school within proximity of the
project; and recommendations for each segment. Those segments included: County
Road B-2 Lexington Avenue to Rice Street (north side of the street); Victoria
Street to County Road B-2 to Central Park (east side of the street);
Victoria Street to County Road B-2 to Central Park (east side of the street or
west side of the street); and Victoria Street to Central Park to County Road
Ms. Giga noted the comments and
feedback – both for and against – received at various informational meetings
and on-site visits with property owners to-date. As detailed in the RCA, Ms.
Giga noted most design concerns were related to drainage, trees and
landscaping, retaining walls, and driveways, specific to drainage issues.
Ms. Giga noted that a major part
of the project involved addressing existing drainage issues and engineering
designs to provide significant piping, structures, and grading to alleviate or
mitigate those issues.
Regarding tree preservation, Ms.
Giga advised that staff continued to work with the City’s Forester to minimize
impact to healthy trees and identify those that were not as healthy and may
require replacement in the near future whether or not they were removed as part
of this project. Ms. Giga noted that staff would continue to work with
individual residents throughout the design process, especially in those areas
of significant impact.
Ms. Giga advised that, part of the
final design aspects of the project would be where retaining wall specifics
would be addressed, as well as other design aspects and area aesthetics.
Ms. Giga reviewed estimated
construction costs – per segment and estimated construction costs for each
segment as detailed in the RCA, noting that additional consulting engineer
assistance would be required to work through various drainage issues and
If the City Council authorizes
proceeding with a Feasibility Study, Ms. Giga reviewed the proposed project
schedule, with October 2013 through January 2014 for final design;
January/February of 2014 advertising for bids; award of bids in March of 2014;
and actual construction in May through October of 2014. Ms. Giga advised that
the construction timeline would also require phasing work around transportation
needs and key dates for the School District (e.g., last and first day of
school); Rosefest; Minnesota State Fair and Back to the Fifties events; and
As part of the multi-faceted final
design process, Ms. Giga advised that this would require continued coordination
with various agencies, including Ramsey County for cost-share and signal light
upgrades or replacements at several intersections; Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District for storm water permits to meet their requirements; private
utility relocations (phone and power pedestals); individual property details:
drainage improvements; tree replacement and other landscaping; driveways as
they relate to the drainage improvements; and retaining walls as applicable.
This concluded staff’s
presentation as they addressed City Council questions prior to public comment.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
those areas with 8’ wide pathways that were constricted and went all the way
to the curb, opining that they were very unattractive (e.g. Fairview from
Roselawn to B-2); and suggested plantings or prairie plants that would be more
aesthetically pleasing, such as those done by the City of Falcon Heights (e.g.
Roselawn from Snelling to Hamline). Councilmember McGehee also questioned the
advantage of an infiltration trench and why that is preferred by the Watershed
District rather than a ribbon curb and drainage to direct water into that
instead of directly into the storm system.
Mr. Schwartz responded that 6’ was
identified as a standard width for concrete installations in the Pathway Master
Plan; especially on County Road B-2 with its high traffic volumes and
identified shoulders for on-street bikers, as existed today. In response to
the plantings on Roselawn Avenue, Mr. Schwartz advised that this was done at
the request of the City of Falcon Heights, and appeared to work well if draught
tolerant plants were used, and could be a consideration with this project as
well. However, Mr. Schwartz clarified that there concrete is curb on Roselawn
Avenue, while there is not on this street, but simply more of an extension of
the street itself. Mr. Schwartz advised that the main goal is to minimize that
type of section on this segment due to safety concerns for elementary aged
school children using the corridor.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this should speak even more to providing a visible plant buffer and not allow
the sidewalk so close to the street when there was no curb; further opining
that she didn’t understand the rationale for that safety aspect at all.
Mr. Schwartz responded that this
was the intent; however, there were some challenges with drainage, but where
possible the sidewalk would be moved back.
Regarding the 6’ width,
Councilmember McGehee questioned if this was simply the standard width selected
twenty (20) years ago when the original Pathway Master Plan was done; and how
that width compared to surrounding communities.
Mr. Schwartz advised that width
varied; however, he noted that one thing driving it and not part of the Master
Plan, was due to the width of the machines used to clear sidewalks during the
winter months without damaging curbs or turf, with that primary standard width
being 6’. Mr. Schwartz clarified that in Roseville, the City plowed all
residential sidewalks, unlike the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul where
residents were responsible for doing so.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that most sidewalk machines require a minimum of
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that pervious surfaces had not been tried for
the pathway itself, as permeable pavements were typically more expensive, and
would therefore be used as a last resort unless that technology was deemed best
for drainage. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that there were currently other less
expensive means, such as infiltration tranches where water can be directed
between the sidewalk or roadway.
Ms. Giga advised that, in that
situation, the City would over-excavate the area with engineered soils allowing
for infiltration, or install a “belt and suspenders” for the pipe to allow
water in the stormwater system. Ms. Giga noted that the goal was to have water
infiltration methods in place before it reached the storm sewer system; or at a
minimum to delay and pre-treat it before it reached the system.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the City did not pay the Metropolitan
Council for volume or quality of storm water.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
staff remain cognizant that, on the stretch of Victoria Street between County
Road B and Lovell Avenue, if striping was the final decision, there was a fair
amount of southbound traffic; and suggested that with the timing of the light,
a situation not be created for traffic stacking if the final design was down to
a single lane.
Mr. Schwartz recognized that
concern, and advised that when staff spoke with Ramsey County staff, they
agreed to perform a study of the intersection. With the City’s proposed 2014
project at Victoria Street south of County Road B, Mr. Schwartz noted that this
may be an opportune time to upgrade the signal at that time. However, Mr.
Schwartz noted that Ramsey County would study all aspects during the study, and
identify turn lane and other issues.
Mayor Roe noted that, driving the
Victoria Street corridor frequently, visibility was a concern at the crest of
the bridge and connecting streets on either side of the bridge to allow their
safe access into a turn lane.
Mayor Roe noted that $2 million
had been designated for pathways in available Park Renewal Bond funding,
recognizing that this corridor could take a major portion of that funding.
At the suggested preference of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz advised that an option would be to supplement the cost
from the Stormwater Fund for drainage improvements and mitigation, versus
utilizing all funds for the Parks Renewal Program.
Ken Jewett, 2389 Western Avenue
Mr. Jewett advised that the back
windows of his home provided a good view of the upper portion of County Road
B-2 approaching the Western Avenue stop sign; and since 2000, he had noted the
increased traffic – vehicular, baby strollers, pedestrians, and bicyclers – and
lived in abject fear that someone was going to get hit before this corridor was
completed. Having been struck by a car in 1945 and lived with the consequences
since then, Mr. Jewett expressed his appreciation to see the project finally coming
to a nice conclusion, and expressed his hope that the minor issues could be
resolved to allow its completion soon.
Mary Chapman, 2409 Oxford
Street N (Twinhome at County Road B-2 at Oxford intersection)
Ms. Chapman expressed her concern
with the proposed sidewalk as it related to her existing decorative fencing,
and limited area for snow removal and/or storage during winter months, opining
that it would only be exacerbated with the addition of a sidewalk. With the
proposed location of the sidewalk, Ms. Chapman expressed additional concerns
with its proximity to homes and land and interference with their privacy.
Ernie Willenbring, 832 Lovell
Avenue (3 houses off Victoria Street)
Mr. Willenbring opined that this
is a long-overdue situation now being addressed by the City, and he applauded
them for doing it now and his perception that a sidewalk would be installed on
both sides of Victoria Street from B-2 to Central Park Mr. Willenbring
recognized that minor grading and retaining wall issues will be problematic for
some residents and the City to address, but noted that this happened with any
construction project. While everyone would not be satisfied, Mr. Willenbring
encouraged the City Council to do their best; and regarding snowplowing, he
noted that many residents were required to shovel more than once after snow
removal equipment came through; but could and should be addressed by each
While the actual location of
sidewalks on Victoria Street was still to be determined, Mayor Roe clarified that
installation would be one side or the other, but not both sides.
Joe Wozniak, 718 Sextant Avenue
Mr. Wozniak asked for the City
Council’s support in moving this project forward. Having followed the repeated
efforts over a number of years, and having children who could not currently
bike along County Road B-2 with any degree of safety to access their schools,
or without having dangerous build-ups of snow on the shoulder of the road when
attempting to walk it, Mr. Wozniak opined that the current situation was simply
too dangerous to continue. Mr. Wozniak further opined that kids should be able
to walk or bike in the area with some degree of safety; and this should allow
As a bike commuter, Mr. Wozniak
referenced too many examples of children he’d observed along the County Road
B-2 corridor who were riding against traffic, even though he continually
pointed out to them their error in riding on the wrong side of the street. Mr.
Wozniak opined that a separated bike lane or pathway was the only solution to
alleviate these safety concerns; as well as allowing adults in the community to
move around more than currently able to do and in a safe manner. Mr. Wozniak
asked the City Council to proceed with this project, and thanked them for
Dennis O’Keefe, 325 County Road
B-2 (hill between Western Avenue and Rice Street – north side)
Mr. O’Keefe recognized that this
had been discussed for a long time; however, personally he did not want to see
the pathway, as it would eliminate 11’ of his driveway, and with allowing an
additional 2’ to avoid abutting the sidewalk, it would actually eliminate 13’
of his driveway. With no off-street parking available without confined traffic
east and west on County Road B-2, Mr. O’Keefe noted that the only other parking
would be halfway up the hill to Western or Matilda, with his home being right
in the middle. If the City proceeded with the project, Mr. O’Keefe opined that
he would like to see the sidewalk stop at Central Park School.
Another concern expressed by Mr.
O’Keefe included snow melt and refreezing on the sidewalk, questioning who
would sand/salt it or be responsible for liability issues during those
thaw/freeze cycles after plowing.
Mr. O’Keefe suggested a better
option for the City to consider was to put the $874,000 into a nice clubhouse
at the golf course, or in new warming houses as city parks; and invest in those
rather than a B-2 pathway that would be used by few people. Mr. O’Keefe asked
that the City not proceed with the proposed project.
Gary Falberg, 341 West County Road
Mr. Falberg noted that this
project would go right in front of his house, and similar to Mr. O’Keefe, he
would also lose two (2) parking places and 13’ of driveway. With adult
children currently living in his home, Mr. Falberg opined that this would
create a hardship for him.
Regarding snow plowing, Mr.
Falberg opined that the existing pathway on Victoria Street by County Road B-2
doesn’t get plowed right away, and while not complaining about that in particular,
he questioned how children would walk to school if the new pathway was not
plowed before 2-3 days after a snowfall, opining that it gets slippery with the
many hills, and would become a hazard.
Mr. Falberg noted that several of
his neighbors would be losing quite a bit of landscaping in their front yard if
the project proceeded; in addition to one significant Elm tree in the line of
the sidewalk; and asked that the sidewalk be realigned to save that tree if the
project went forward.
Joel Murray, 651 County Road B-2
Mr. Murray opined that nobody on
County Road B-2 wants this sidewalk; and referenced an informal survey he had
conducted between last Friday and today of residents between Lexington Avenue
and Rice Street, with only 4 people of those he polled being in support of the
Referencing the safety comments of
Mr. Wozniak, Mr. Murray questioned why the side streets couldn’t be used
Mr. Murray questioned the
expertise of the engineers in addressing existing drainage problems, and
questioned how trees were categorized as to their health. Mr. Murray noted
that the setback was not the same for each house, and noting that the culvert
most significantly impacting his home filled with water attracting ducks at
times, and if a sidewalk was installed, opined that if will become problematic
for him and probably cause water to come into his yard and/or basement.
Regarding a buffer, Mr. Murray advised that he would like to see something practical,
even though opining that nothing would grow other than weeds. Mr. Murray also
noted the need to move some fire hydrants if this project went forward.
Mr. Murray opined that he had a
real problem with money to finance this coming from the Parks and Recreation
Department when a number of items at Central Park had been halted due to a lack
of money; and expressed his preference to complete those items and pathways in
Mr. Murray referenced a petition
of 80 signatures against this project that had been presented in that past, and
his additional 40 signatures against it. However, despite the invitation of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Murray declined to submit his petition as he had not presented
it to those signing it as being an “official” petition. Mayor Roe offered to
accept the petition at their discretion and with the permission of those
Thomas Gerbansky, 712 West
Court___ County Road B-2
Recognizing that this pathway had
been on the agenda for some time, and that even though federal money for
pathway construction, drainage, grading, sewer improvements had been available
in the past, since someone petitioned against it at that time, the City Council
had thrown the project out. While having raised 6 children while living on
County Road B-2 and them walking along the corridor, Mr. Gerbansky noted that
traffic at that time was not the same as it is today; and opined that there
would be a serious accident soon.
Mr. Gerbansky recognized the
concerns expressed by those speaking before him and Ramsey County deciding in
the past that the street wasn’t wide enough, eliminating several parking spaces
in his driveway. However, as a former firefighter, Mr. Gerbansky advised that
his family had been able to work out a solution to their inconveniences.
Mr. Gerbansky opined that many
residents don’t actually realize where their property line is in relation to
the center of the street and right-of-ways. As a resident on the south side of
County Road B-2, Mr. Gerbansky noted that there was a water problem there, and
numerous utility poles and mailboxes, and opined that he would have loved to
see the sidewalk come down his side of the street, as well as sharing that
opinion with many of his neighbors. As petitions are distributed throughout
the neighborhood, Mr. Gerbansky questioned if the proposed project was actually
understood by the neighbors, at least based on his conversations with them.
In reviewing where students walked
to school now, Mr. Gerbansky opined that the proposed sidewalk location would
be further away from and safer than the current situation; and further opined
that it had been way too long in getting this pathway installed.
Mr. Gerbansky opined that most
trees had a certain lifespan, and after that age, became unsafe, as evidenced
by the many trees lost during the July 2013 storms, not the first time it had
While no one is going to like the installation, Mr. Gerbansky noted that many
of the homes, estimated by him between 55% to 60%, had changed ownership over
the last twenty years.
John Harris, 591 County Road
Mr. Harris questioned if there was
any distinction between “pathway” and sidewalk” and how Roseville City Code
applied to snow on either or both of them.
Luke Heikkila, 2500 Matilda
As a family with young children,
Mr. Heikela expressed his hope that the City Council would give those families
consideration and provide a safe access to schools along the corridor.
With no one else coming forward to
speak, Mayor Roe concluded public comment at this time, and requested that staff
respond to questions and comments for further clarification as applicable.
Distinction of Pathway/Sidewalk
Ms. Giga concurred with Mayor Roe
that there was no distinction in sidewalks or pathways other than sidewalks
were typically constructed of concrete and pathways of asphalt; however, she
noted they were also interchangeable terms at times.
Mayor Roe clarified that, except
in commercial areas where maintenance was the responsible of business owners,
the City was responsible for maintenance in residential areas, with this
corridor treated no differently than areas with existing sidewalks.
Street Parking on County Road
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
audience was correct in their interpretation that parking was allowed on most
segments of County Road B-2, other than closer to Lexington Avenue.
Mayor Roe recognized that some
driveway parking area may be lost, but noted his observation that he frequently
saw people parking across sidewalks, even though it wasn’t encouraged.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
City had an ordinance prohibiting parking that blocked pathways, and while it
still occurred, it was illegal.
Tree Removal Process and How
Ms. Giga advised that while some
trees had been preliminarily identified for removal by the City’s Forester,
with conversations begun with affected property owners, the Elm tree referenced
had been identified and removal of it was trying to be avoided. However, Ms.
Giga reiterated that this was part of the final design process, yet to occur,
and determination of those trees that were diseased or having issues. Ms. Giga
assured the public and City Council that staff would continue to work with
individual property owners on their specific areas of concern.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Giga advised that the cost of replacement trees was paid by the City of
Roseville and included in project costs.
Ms. Giga noted that some hydrants
would need to relocated or adjusted outside of the project area.
Ms. Giga reiterated that staff
would continue to meet with and be available to individual residents to address
Mr. Brokke reviewed the current
procedure in clearing snow on sidewalks, typically performed by the Parks &
Recreation Department with a 6’ snow blower machine. Mr. Brokke admitted that
it was a continual challenge and effort, especially along County and City roads
when snow plows threw snow onto those pathways and sidewalks from the roadways
as well. Due to the school connections, Mr. Brokke noted that County Road B-2
sidewalks would be on the higher priority list and one of the first pathways
cleared. Mr. Brokke advised that the City’s current policy would continue to
remove snow initially, then go back to clean and re-clean as deemed necessary.
Mr. Brokke clarified that the City did not sand or salt pathways as a general
rule, unless in areas with hills where spot sanding or salting may be done.
Mayor Roe opined that use of a snow
blower rather than a plow should help to alleviate piles from
Mr. Schwartz admitted that there
were some areas lacking space to plow snow; and advised that the City worked
with Ramsey County to monitor areas to haul snow piles when there were visibility
issues or other concerns needing mitigation.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte,
Mr. Brokke noted that those hilly areas were a continual effort and more
difficult to handle with freeze/thaw cycles. While the machines had V-blades
that could help manipulate plowing, without use of chemicals, the freeze/thaw
cycle was hard to address.
Mayor Roe noted that he understood
that the City concentrated follow-up in those spots where problems were most
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Schwartz noted that permeable pathways may help in those
freeze/thaw cycles. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the most challenging area
on pathways in the winter was with winter rain events, rather than snow events,
with the pathway often becoming a reservoir and filtering under snow further
complicated when the temperatures drop again but the water keeps drainage and
refreezing. In sections where a typical section may indicate drainage may
collect there, Mr. Schwartz noted that permeable pathways may be an option to
consider and staff could continue to look at it for those areas. Mr. Schwartz
reminded all that final drainage strategies had yet to be completed, but would
be part of the final design process.
Mayor Roe noted that silt deposits
and vegetation growth along the edge of pathways often exacerbated the drainage
Storm Water Drainage Design
For the benefit of the listening
audience, Mayor Roe asked staff to address watershed district requirements that
any improvements not make a situation worse, and the permitting and approval
process before a project can proceed.
Ms. Giga advised that, for all new
impervious surfaces, the City was required to address the volume from the first
1.8 inches of rainfall through a storage or place for the water to go and the
quality of the water (e.g. removal of pollutants and sediments) before it
reached the Stormsewer system, and eventually lakes and ponds. Ms. Giga
explained that this was part of a watershed district’s requirements to grant
approval of the permit allowing construction. Ms. Giga advised that the City
was required to provide calculations that would address any additional Stormsewer
volume or needs.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Giga addressed any issues that may come forward after construction that would
be addressed in the maintenance agreement signed by the City with the watershed
district to maintain the stormwater features and continue monitoring and
mitigation as applicable. Since the City had always met those requirements
to-date, Ms. Giga advised that she was unsure of the consequences if the City
did not meet them.
Mr. Schwartz reiterated staff’s
willingness to meet with individual residents to review final design plans,
once they were completed, or to visit on-site; with staff willing to share
plans to correct situations or concerns.
Mayor Roe clarified for the public
that any projects done by the City were required under its Stormwater
Management Plan to not make any situation worse, but to try to improve it as
part of the project.
Ms. Giga, referencing the previous
petition submitted as part of the 2005 proposed project, advised that staff had
been unable to locate a copy of that petition against the project at this time
to include in the packet materials, and invited that resident to speak to the
petition tonight if she chose to do so.
Councilmember Willmus requested
staff to provide the different design elements for the project at this time and
how they differed from previous plans.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the 2005
project had to be designed to meet federal requirements to qualify for the
multi-use trail grant, with the pathways having to be at a minimum 8’ in width
on one side of the street, with the option for an on-street bike path as well.
Mr. Schwartz advised that part of the rationale in declining to proceed with
the project at that time, even with some federal funding to assist, had been
due to the significant impacts on private property due to the required width.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, at that time, there had been some willingness by residents
for staff to bring back a single sidewalk on one side of the street, similar to
this, which may make this proposed project more acceptable to them.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Ms. Giga clarified that most of this corridor had either no curbing or bituminous
versus concrete curbing, except for a small segment located mostly east of
Central Park Elementary School.
Mayor Roe noted that there was
also some bituminous curbing on Victoria Street.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
when those areas were proposed for reconstruction and if that would include
curb & gutter installation with associated storm sewer.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, given
the County Road B-2 volumes, Ramsey County only foresaw maintenance (e.g. mill
and overlay) projects over the next twenty years. Based on discussions with
the County at the staff level on the upcoming 2015 project south of B-2, and
potential replacement of the signal, Mr. Schwartz advised that they had expressed
some willingness to coordinate that project with the City’s for installation at
the same time. As those discussions continue, Mr. Schwartz advised that
staff’s final recommendation may be to not construct that area south of B-2 to
incorporate all aspects in the 2015 City Project.
Willmus moved, Roe seconded,
authorizing staff to prepare final plans and specifications, and advertise for
bids; with the preferred Victoria segment using the existing structure on
Councilmember Willmus stated that
he had no question whether or not to do the project; opining that it should go
forward. Councilmember Willmus noted that this was a heavily travelled pedestrian
corridor and any efforts to move those people from the shoulder or road to a sidewalk
is advantageous. While being sympathetic to concerns expressed with the
position of sidewalk installation, Councilmember Willmus encouraged staff to
minimize that 5’ boulevard to a 2’ strip with other vegetation as suggested by
Councilmember McGehee, and used in other areas of the City and in the City of
Falcon Heights, as a more aesthetically pleasing option than having concrete up
Councilmember McGehee noted that
she was also sympathetic with aesthetic and safety concerns expressed; however
she was more concerned with providing safety for pedestrians and bikers. While
many back streets could be utilized in some places, Councilmember McGehee
observed that County Road B-2 was a long stretch accessing several schools.
Councilmember McGehee admitted that she was still on the fence whether to go
forward with this project, and awaited further dialogue with her colleagues before
making her decision. Councilmember McGehee advised that she favored not having
people ride their bikes in the street, she also recognized the difficulties
with pathways in Minnesota winters, expressing her interest in walking during
the winter months, but the condition of pathways preventing her from doing so
safely due to the difficulty of the City being able to keep them in shape, creating
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that she also had concerns with the project, but safety was a larger concern
and the need to recognize the difference in the community today compared to
when it was originally built, with the need becoming greater as streets became
busier. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was leaning toward supporting
the project; however, she was concerned with the segments suggested at 8’; and
also in providing a safety/buffer zone for those using the sidewalks versus a
situation or perception of a situation of being right against the street.
Mayor Roe stated that he supported
the project; and echoed fellow Councilmember comments in staff meeting the
needs of residents and addressing their concerns regarding trees and landscaping.
Mayor Roe opined that a buffer/barrier was preferable versus an 8’ width right
up to the curb edge. Mayor Roe opined that he would also prefer using the east
side of Victoria, Mayor Roe opined that a connection on Victoria was very
important, given his experience in driving that section frequently, and the
number of pedestrians using that corridor and the safety issues. Recognizing
that the project will return to the City Council for final approval and allow
one last look and opportunity for residents to weigh in on final designs, Mayor
Roe expressed his willingness to support the motion.
In an effort to provide unanimous
agreement, Councilmember McGehee advised that she would support the motion.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she observed sufficient flexibility with
property owners; the desire for a buffer; more 6’ versus 8’ segments; and
attempts to preserve long-term trees that were important to the neighborhood.
With the final plans coming back before the City Council and continued work by
staff with the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that the majority should
either have their concerns resolved, or feel that they had been listened to and
were able to share their feedback. If that was not the case, Councilmember
McGehee asked that residents alert the City Council to that as well.
Roe moved, seconded by Willmus, to
direct staff to consider use of the City’s designated Stormwater Funds for the
drainage portions of the project as applicable.
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:56 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:05 pm.
Approve Contract with Eureka Recycling for Recycling Services
Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated
October 14, 2013; and provided a review of contract negotiations since the last
City Council directive was provided to staff.
addressed adjustments made to the original schedule and potential for
reconsideration and the late start in negotiations with Eureka; and resulting response
for three (3) options provided by Eureka, mostly concerning their meeting the
January 1, 2014 rollout timeframe and risks to Eureka in determining cart size
preferences for residents and minimizing their cost impacts. As noted in the
RCA, Mr. Schwartz advised that any and all of the three options proposed by Eureka
still remained below the costs of the second bid received by the City.
reviewed the preliminary financial analysis of the three options provided by
Finance Director Chris Miller, also outlined in the RCA.
advised that another area having received considerable discussion during
negotiations was the “termination clause (lines 208-209) of the draft agreement
(Attachment A) with staff recommendation in conjunction with the City Attorney,
to delete “or without” from lines 208 and 209 respectively so the first
sentence would indicate that the agreement may be terminated at any time by the
City “with cause…”; and to delete the entire shaded area indicated on lines 214
– 217 of the draft. Related to the latter portion of the recommendation, Mr. Schwartz
advised that the review committee felt that a longer term to amortize carts was
indicated given their expected 10 year life expectancy versus their advertized
5 year life expectancy; and that the cost should therefore be realized within
the first three years.
At the request of
Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Mark Gaughan opined that based on
negotiations to-date, if Eureka did not meet the February 17, 2014 rollout,
unless there was a valid reason for them not doing so, it could be deemed a material
breach of contract.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, who opined that there were a number of people who
would not respond to a survey, and whether Eureka would then supply a
pre-determined cart size, Mr. Schwartz suggested that representatives of Eureka
Recycling in the audience respond to that question.
Goodwin, Eureka and Tim Brownsell, CEO of Eureka Recycling
Mr. Goodwin noted
that a survey was sent by postcard asking residents to mail it back to Eureka,
as well as a bin note, providing 2-3 opportunities to receive the information.
Based on the responses received, Mr. Goodwin advised that Eureka would create
an estimate of those responses in relationship to the overall community, with
those not responding receiving a default cart size, with a certain percentage
automatically built in to address changes in cart sizes in the future.
Mr. Brownsell advised
that Eureka’s experience with survey responses had been very good; and beyond
that, they would build into the model how many carts to order and provide the
default cart size unless otherwise requested by residents. Mr. Brownsell
advised that the survey provided a smaller risk to Eureka in not falling
outside that ratio; but without the benefit of a survey, they would need to order
carts of one size or the other.
At the request of
Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Goodwin advised that it would be easy to have
samples of cart sizes available at City Hall for a more visual review by
residents. Mr. Goodwin noted that it was Eureka’s intention to also have
pictures available on their website with people standing beside the bins to provide
additional perspective on their size, and also providing ways for residents to
calculate their current volume even without the additional plastics that would
be added to curbside collection, and their considerable volume. Even though
the cart sizes are different, Mr. Goodwin noted that their footprint was not
actually that different, facilitating storage concerns.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Goodwin confirmed that part of their bin drop
would include communication with residents on the change from weekly to
every-other week pick-up. As part of that bin drop, Mr. Goodwin advised that Eureka
wanted to encourage people to continue separating out their plastics until
Eureka could upgrade their facility and begin to accept them, and advising
residents how to proceed until that change was initiated.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brownsell confirmed that the only reason for
Eureka requesting the delay from January 1, 2014, was due to performing the
survey and ordering the carts, not due to a delay in truck availability or
noted a comment he heard from a resident at the Wild R ice Festival who was
under the impression that the City would no longer seek to have “zero waste
events.” While not aware of where that misinformation was coming from,
Councilmember Willmus asked that Eureka mention that in their communication
efforts, advising the public that those events would actually be expanded in
Mr. Goodwin duly
noted that request.
As a point of
information, Councilmember Willmus asked the number of trucks servicing the
community to pick up recyclables. Mr. Brownsell responded that different days
will determine the number of trucks based on the route split.
At the request of
Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Brownsell advised that the C city should not have
any interruption of service if a truck is out for repair, as there were several
other trucks available as backups within their fleet to meet that capacity,
even with two trucks dedicated to Roseville.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of a three-(3) year “Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services” between
the City of Roseville and Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka
Recycling as presented (Attachment A); with a cart roll-out in February of 2014,
and pricing effective January 1, 2013; under Option 1, and amendments to
the agreement as follows:
Lines 208 – 209 (strike “…or
Lines 214-217 (strike entire
sentence as highlighted in the draft); and
Lines 59 – 82 (strike
Options 2 and 3 in their entirety).
While expressing her
disappointment that things could not start earlier, Councilmember McGehee recognized
staff for their excellent job in negotiating the contract; and also expressed
her appreciation to Eureka Recycling for their economic concerns in not wasting
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
Receive Update on June 21 Storm Recovery Efforts
Fire Department Battalion Chiefs
Dave Brosnahan and Greg Peterson provided a brief video presentation of the
storm recovery efforts; and were joined by Parks & Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz who participated in the
Chief Peterson recognized the huge
response from staff throughout the night of the storm and following days; with
significant call volumes to the Police and Fire Departments, with the Police
Department fielding 120 calls in the first three hours of the storm. Chief
Peterson expressed thanks that there were not too many significant or
life-threatening calls during that time; opining that the City had been
fortunate to dodge some of those bullets without having to also address such major
emergencies during that same time period.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
positives found throughout the process, providing a good response and recovery
effort made better than past situations and not having that early-on damage assessment
and a defined course of action available to the City. Components of that
included having initial City Council decisions; a prompt damage assessment;
defined debris strategy; pre-determined tree contractor; and rapid mobilization.
In addition to the comments of
Chief Peterson, Mr. Schwartz added further observations and positive general
feedback from the community on the City’s material processing/hauling; mutual
aid; encouraging resident rapport; inter-department cooperation; and committed
staff working cooperatively. Mr. Schwartz also noted that, after talking with
Ramsey County Waste Energy, their contractor provided material processing and
hauling at no cost in order to have those materials available for their energy
plant, saving the City $35,000 - $45,000 from original estimated.
Mr. Schwartz noted that there were
significant and obvious impacts to the City’s regular programming, with the
Public Works Department putting in over 2,500 hours and the Parks & Recreation
Department over 1,600 hours.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update of
total storm-related costs:
Total storm costs originally estimated at $461,000
City and private debris removal = $362,500
Park debris removal = $94,300
Police & Fire response = $4,200
Total contractor costs – above those normally budgeted for =
(included in above costs) with remaining
costs absorbed in normal budget
In conclusion, Mr. Schwartz noted
several lessons learned during this latest event that included the need to refine
debris clean-up bids in future budget cycles; and provide “storm chaser” forewarning
to residents about reputable contractors after such an event. Mr. Schwartz
noted that related specifically to the power outage, it had become apparent to
staff that the CIP needed adjustment to have more stationary power at lift
stations so they were not so vulnerable with future widespread events.
Specific to the Parks &
Recreation Department, Mr. Brokke noted that staff had just completed brush
removal in parks due to the storm; and expressed thanks that there were no
building damages, even though there were hundreds of trees lost, and resulting
stump removals. Mr. Brokke noted that, for the first time in its history, the
Rosefest Run had to be cancelled.
Mr. Brokke thanked staff for
working together in the overall response, making the clean-up go really well.
Mr. Brokke recognized the City’s part-time Forestry Technician, who put in an additional
300 hours and provided significant help in coordinating tree status
determinations, and also to having a very responsive contractor under contract
for diseased and hazardous tree removal, with storm damage included in that
contract. Mr. Brokke also recognized the considerable help from residents,
whether individually, through the adopt-a-park program, or park users, and the
organized effort in accomplishing that. Mr. Brokke expressed pride that 80% of
the City’s parks were adopted out, making those connections available and
providing a real benefit to the City. Mr. Brokke noted that future CIP’s
needed to address replanting new trees to replace those many lost.
As part of the lessons learned,
Mr. Schwartz added that staff had spent hundreds of hours in training for this
type of event, and opined that the training had really paid for itself during
and after this event.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that
the training the City Council had undergone had also been beneficial.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
publically thanked staff present tonight, the Police and Fire Chiefs, staff on
the street, and all those public emergency responders for their efforts. Even
though many of the efforts were new to staff, Mr. Trudgeon noted that many of
those efforts were performed naturally and by instinct, and thanked staff for
their extra efforts, duly noted by Roseville residents and the entire
Councilmember Willmus echoed the
comments of Mr. Trudgeon, and gave credit to the Department Heads, Battalion
Chiefs Peterson and Brosnahan; and their efforts in coordinating the response
and making it happen.
Councilmember McGehee concurred;
noting the many comments she’d heard from citizens appreciating staff’s
response and their assistance to residents.
Having lived in this area all his
life, Chief Peterson opined that outside of the 1981 tornado, this was the
biggest event he was aware of; and even with a lot of staff new to emergency management
procedures, further opined that under the circumstances, everything had gone
well. Chief Peterson expressed staff’s appreciation to the City Council for
their openness in seeking answers and hearing the advice of staff.
Based on the lack of FEMA funding
received, and as part of staff’s after action report, Chief Peterson suggested
that the City Council consider the City’s available contingency funds, how much
was available, and how they should be used or reserved for such a situation.
Mayor Roe opined that it was
important to note that there was a significant amount of damage concentrated in
Roseville versus the overall Ramsey County area or surrounding communities,
which created the situation where FEMA funding was not available. However,
Mayor Roe further opined that it was good to not be dependent on FEMA
assistance by having funds set aside for such an emergency in the community.
Consider Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 306: Cigarette and Tobacco
Mayor Roe advised
that, since there were members in the audience seeking to speak to this item,
it would be moved forward on the agenda.
Chris Miller reviewed the recommended amendment to City Code Chapter 306 from a
regulatory standpoint and ability to enforce the ordinance as this industry had
evolved over the years, as detailed in the RCA dated October 14, 2013.
Anderson, representing the local non-profit: Ramsey Anti-Tobacco Coalition
noted the number of types and flavors currently available and continually
evolving, creating for their completely unregulated sale and manufacture; which
had created a booming business, with use among young people having doubled in
one year and increased adult use as well. Ms. Anderson advised that it was
anticipated that e-cigarettes will overtake regular cigarettes sales and use.
Donnelinger, Resident of Roseville and attending at request of Coalition
provided his perspective as a child psychiatrist dealing with addictions, and
the dangers of e-cigarettes and the naive impression of teenagers, as well as
adults, that these products were actually less addicting. Dr. Donneling noted
that this was inconsistent with the actual amount of nicotine in e-juice and
similar products, with their purpose to get people addicted to nicotine; and
indications that there were actually more instances where these products will
harm even more people than regular smoking. Dr. Donneling opined that, in his
practice, these devices that were created to heat the product and then
aerosolize it, were prevalent; and in his research of no longer than five
minutes earlier today, he was able to find on the internet simple instructions
of how to extract marijuana (THC) in to the same products as these. Dr.
Donneling encouraged regulation of these products that were geared by their
manufactures to a younger audience, of great concern to him.
Roseville resident, working in the Public Health arena
advised that she had been at the City Council meeting when they revised their
ordinance eighteen months ago; and provided a bench handout entitled,
“Electronic Cigarettes: Background” prepared by the Association for Nonsmokers
– MN (www.ansrmn.org); attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Ms. Edmond, and
her assistant, provided sample products available in interactive lounges using
socializing, and provided several examples currently in Roseville of these
lounges, most close to schools. Ms. Edmond advised that the FDA had cessation
devices available free of charge to MN residents that were effective. Ms.
Edmond asked that the City take a stand and protect its kids and community.
among the presenters and Councilmembers on other communities and their
decisions for updating tobacco ordinance to prohibit sale of these items to
young people any legal challenges of those ordinances to-date; Minnesota Clean
Air Act provisions; use of these products in public places; and previous
revisions to address Huka lounges in Roseville.
referenced proposed ordinance revisions (Attachment A), recommended from a regulatory
standpoint; and referenced Section 306.05 (Attachment B) related to retail
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller offered to research and provide information
at a later date on the number of licensed tobacco establishments in Roseville.
suggested getting the City’s definition up-to-date may be the first step
discussion included retail establishments versus all work places and public
places; and no limit at this time on the number of licenses available for
retail tobacco licenses.
expressed interest in updating the definition at this time as recommended by
staff, and continuing discussions regarding other aspects at a later date.
McGehee also expressed interest in updating the language now; and discussions
in the near future about further updates. Councilmember McGehee stated that
she was a big proponent of work place and retail space being free from materials
one didn’t intend to be exposed to; with one example bystanders being exposed
to and inhaling these vapors.
Mayor Roe sought
clarification from City Attorney Gaughan on the language in Chapter 306 about
retail tobacco establishments; and how broadly “retail” applies.
Gaughan responded that the intent of the provision was to apply to all tobacco
retail establishments and at the time of its passage, language provided only a
sampling of places where tobacco may be sold.
what was determined about the definition, Mayor Roe suggested that these
aspects be considered as part of future discussions; and this request from the
public to take language even further; whether smoking in public complexes; and
reports from staff and the Police Department on how that would be enforced.
Laliberte expressed her interest in updating the definition; however, she was
not in favor of having vaping/sampling lounges; and was not sure about
extending it to other facilities (e.g. restaurant and e-cigarette and white vapor)
if someone is 18 years old and is legal to sell and buy these items, she opined
that she wasn’t sure she was ready to legislate people’s behavior by their own
Gaughan addressed how difficult this issue is, and for the City Council to keep
in mind, that their authority to enact this comes from the Minnesota Indoor Air
Quality Act, with the City allowed to be even more stringent about second hand
smoke. City Attorney Gaughan advised that the questions include:
What is second hand smoke?
What product(s) constitute smoking even if containing nicotine,
even if they’re not lit?
Gaughan noted that his point was that there is going to be a lot of uncertainty
in what a city can or cannot do regarding these regulations.
In just considering
the definition itself and the proposed amendment, Mr. Gaughan questioned if it
included or banned any device or substance, and whether this included or
excluded nebulizers; or if it just applied to water vapor without any other
chemicals. Mr. Gaughan noted that it was getting into an area of products that
were unknown and which area of the Minnesota Clean Air Act framework could the
City impose. Mr. Gaughan noted that several cities had enacted amendments to
their ordinances regarding e-cigarettes and those not containing nicotine; but
it was important for the City to keep in mind the uncertainty of whether or not
those ordinances will be effective or be held up in a court of law.
Mayor Roe questioned if the City of Roseville wanted to be one of those test cases
or not. Mayor Roe questioned if there was any problem in the definition as
proposed or in adding a use component, except for items used for medical reasons,
or whether the City should get into it or not.
Gaughan advised that he didn’t know what to suggest for appropriate language
at this time.
Mayor Roe stated
that he was fine with the proposed language as recommended.
advised that their organization had information about exemptions for
FDA-approved inhalers for tobacco cessation and nebulizers if requested.
Mayor Roe asked
that she provide that information to staff for the next City Council meeting
when the definition was under consideration.
discussion included how and when to ban or regulate products for people under
or over age 18 who purchase these products; products that may be a feeder
program for smoking later on; how to address he indoor air aspect; research by
staff of other adjacent communities and what they have in place, and why these locations
in Roseville have popped up along Larpenteur Avenue and whether this is a
ramification of adjacent communities to the City of Roseville’s borders; and
other websites providing additional information.
objections from the council, Mayor Roe directed that staff return to the next
meeting with a proposed definition; with further discussion scheduled at a
Receive Overview of City’s Information Technology Function
Chris Miller provided a presentation (Attachment A) with an overview of
Roseville’s Information Technology (IT) function and distinctions between that
function and a history of the Metro-INET and its business model, benefits to
participating organizations, and current and future IT staffing plans specific
to Roseville as well as to the Metro-INET.
Even with a
highly dedicated staff, Mr. Miller advised that the current business model was
not sustainable; and even though the Metro-INET had created that need,
long-term staffing had not been addressed sufficiently, and serious consideration
needed to be given to remedy that imbalance. Mr. Miller noted that Roseville’s
specific IT needs had been highlighted over the last few years and previously
presented to the City Council as part of strategic plan and budget presentations.
At a minimum, Mr.
Miller recommended the establishment of two (2) new positions specific to
Roseville’s needs, consisting of System Engineers to reduce the staff workload
to 45 hours/week plus emergency situations. Mr. Miller advised that other
cities in the Metro-INET had committed to establish two (2) non-locally-funded
positions to reduce service ticket backlogs and service response times.
elaborated on the need for the proposed two System Engineer skilled staff
persons, as the Roseville need was already there and only getting bigger. Mr.
Miller noted that, when Department Heads came before the City Council seeking
funding and approval for new technologies and software to make them more
efficient, the City Council needed to consider the impacts those new technologies
and software programs have on its IT staff. While that conversation just
doesn’t happen easily, Mr. Miller took responsibility for not being more
proactive in introducing that aspect; and assured that he would be more disciplined
in doing so in the future as those staff proposals come forward.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller addressed how locally-funded IT positions related to
standby capabilities or if they were distinct in nature; and whether or not those
non-local-funded positions could address the City of Roseville’s needs. Mr.
Miller advised that they could address needs to some extent; however, he noted
that the staff shortage was specific to Roseville technology items and users
along, not the Metro-INET system; and in all fairness, should they pay more
because Roseville continued to grow in its technology needs. While some of the
expenses and staffing needs could be borne by all, Mr. Miller opined that it
was ultimately up to Roseville to make some financial commitment to the
technology items it had approved and applied.
At the request of
Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that approximately 9 or 10 of the 29
member cities in the consortium employed their own IT staff on some level.
Also, Mr. Miller reported that, in only one situation with the City of
Maplewood to a limited degree, the others take care of their own IT needs, with
the City of Roseville supplementing those needs.
As part of this
IT model, Councilmember Willmus questioned if adjustments to the model had been
considered as additional cities or agencies came on board, that they hire staff
to service the broader consortium to get as some of Roseville’s needs. While
appreciating the presentation, Councilmember Willmus opined that it wasn’t the
City Council’s desire for Roseville to be a standalone for IT needs; but he
supported a deeper look at how partnerships are billed in general to step
beyond the current model for relief of the City’s employees through additional
staff on their part or having a greater level of funding from the consortium.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller provided information on the logistics of
each Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with member organizations and categories of
services provided specific to each user. Mr. Miller explained that each JPA
was open-ended and cancellable by either party. As far as the funding
allocation, Mr. Miller noted that representatives of the user group met 4-5
times/year and discussed funding allocations; using a methodology or formula to
show how costs are determined, with the total cost of the system allocated
accordingly. Mr. Miller advised that a number of things provided were of general
support in nature (e.g. network access, desktop trouble-shooting) and costs
based on their number of users; typically done on a proportional basis. Mr.
Miller advised that each user group was billed monthly, with conversations held
in the spring and fall, so commitments were available early in the budget process
to determine their acceptability; and address any increases and their
Laliberte asked for a list of the twenty-nine member organizations in one list;
their number of users; and the services they utilized; with Mr. Miller duly noting
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller advised that no one had yet left the user
McGehee thanked Mr. Miller for the presentation; and expressed her more clear
understanding of the business model and her continued support for it.
suggested that it would be helpful to have this information more publically
available under the City’s IT section of the website, so the public had a better
understanding of the consortium, its purpose and how it was funded.
Mr. Miller noted
that the City did not advertise or market this service, but its growth had been
strictly by word-of-mouth; and even though it has created extra work for the
City’s IT Manager Terre Heiser, the millions of dollars saved for participants
was felt to be worth it.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller noted that there were not many grant
opportunities available for this IT area, other than several years ago in
extending the fiber network. However, Mr. Miller advised that staff needed to
do a better job of looking for those grant opportunities, even though this consortium
expressed interest in seeing if other communities would be willing to pick up
direct costs for standby personnel and fund them within their organizations
(e.g. workers compensation, etc.).
Mr. Miller noted
that he liked the concept, and it was currently being done on a limited basis
with the City of Maplewood; however, he questioned how you provided work direction
to an employee you didn’t supervise. Mr. Miller advised that the Cities of
Roseville and Maplewood had only been doing this trial for 6-12 months, and he
would want to review the various aspects more carefully.
Willmus opined that it could be defined in the JPA, but recognized it as a
For the benefit
of the listening audience, Mayor Roe clarified that this Metro I-Net terminology
was more of a network of participants as opposed to a physical network like a
fiber optic network, another institutional fiber network (INET) provided to the
City of Roseville as part of its cable franchise, currently with Comcast, and
part of ongoing discussions for the renewal of the franchise agreement with
them. Mayor Roe sought to provide distinction between the two areas.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 pm; with Councilmember
McGehee having left the meeting at approximately 9:55 pm.
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and