View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
August 8, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for August: McGehee; Pust; Johnson; Willmus;
and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
Mayor Roe advised that staff had
removed Item 12.a entitled, “Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations
of City Code at 681 Lovell Avenue,” from the agenda subsequent to the packet
delivery as the issue had been resolved.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Pust;
Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. Tom Hadlick, 2782
Mr. Hadlick reiterated his
previous request to the City Council for removal of the utility pole directly
in front of his home as part of the current Dale Street Project. Mr. Hadlick
noted that there were four (4) such poles in the middle of front yards along
this stretch; and provided photographic evidence of the situation. In discussing
his request with City Engineer Debra Bloom, Mr. Hadlick advised that when
approached, Xcel Energy had declined to move the poles; and staff had advised
that the only recourse available to Mr. Hadlick would be a resolution requesting
their removal to Xcel Energy from the City Council.
Mr. Hadlick asked for an update on
the City’s current discussions for undergrounding utility poles; advocating for
such a policy city-wide.
Mayor Roe advised the issue had
not come forward for action yet.
City Manager Bill Malinen advised
that the City Council’s Advisory Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Commission was currently studying undergrounding of utilities and would be making
a recommendation to the City Council upon completion of their analysis.
Mayor Roe advised Mr. Hadlick that
the city-wide underground utility study was currently without a firm timeframe;
however, he noted that it was on the City Council’s and staff’s work plan and
in process. Mayor Roe asked that City Manager Malinen include the Dale Street
Project update on undergrounding utilities on a City Council agenda in the near
future, preferably August 22, 2011; and a report from staff or recommended City
Council action at that time.
City Manager Malinen advised that
this was often the situation when a new home was platted on an older street
with utility poles already in place; and noted there would be staff review and
background including a history of lot lines, associated costs for
undergrounding the utilities, all included in the staff report that will come
forward at that time.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the status of the Dale Street reconstruction; opining that if any
undergrounding was to be done, it should be scheduled before paving to avoid
removing any new construction work.
Mr. Hadlick noted that the undergrounding was usually accomplished through bore
holes, and shouldn’t interfere with any new construction on Dale Street.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
primary issue are relocating/undergrounding of the four (4) utility poles, as
requested by Mr. Hadlick, with a staff report and recommended course of action
tentatively scheduled for the City Council’s August 22, 2011 regular business
Lorraine Hansen, 1411 Woodlyn
Ms. Hansen, as a retiree from McGough
Construction, noted her desire to give back to her community and her interest
in youth as well. Ms. Hansen expressed her disappointment in reading an
article in last week’s Roseville Review related to recommended budget
cuts, especially from the Parks and Recreation Department. As an active
volunteer with the annual Rose Parade and related Rosefest activities, Ms.
Hansen opined that this and other community events were what made Roseville
unique. Ms. Hansen noted the number of volunteers who worked diligently to
make sure the annual parade went well, and the many benefits to Roseville
beyond the community through interaction with high school bands from across the
region and the interest derived through this interaction.
Ms. Hansen opined that the parade
wasn’t that large of a drain on the City’s budget, given the extensive and
active volunteer committee work. Ms. Hansen advised that she wanted to continue
volunteering for the community and youth; and cautioned that if the parade were
eliminated, it would be hard to get it back again.
Ms. Hansen asked that the City
Council seriously consider the community’s youth; and the need to stick by this
future generation and recognize them for their place in the larger community
picture. Ms. Hansen advised that, in her state-wide travels looking for high
school bands to participate in the Rose Parade; and the interest from many of
those groups in returning again and again based on their comments about the
inviting and personal atmosphere they fine in Roseville; as well as their
families and friends who travel along with the groups and are also exposed to
Roseville and bringing in additional revenue to the City.
Barb Obeda, 2910 N Asbury
While thanking her and recognizing
how heartfelt Ms. Hansen’s comments were, Mayor Roe respectfully asked that
further comments, including those of Ms. Obeda, be held until the time in the
meeting slated for that discussion.
4. Council Communications, Reports and
Mayor Roe noted that the City
continued to seek applicants for the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA); briefly outlined their function; and reviewed how to obtain applications
prior to the deadline for those applications on Friday, August 12, 2011 at 4:30
Mayor Roe announced ongoing
organizing group meetings of the “Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” in the northern
suburb area, with those meetings scheduled for August 18, and September 15,
2011 at 7:00 pm at the Roseville City Hall; and encouraged citizens to get
Councilmember McGehee suggested that
residents review their homeowner insurance coverage related to recent
substantial rainfalls and flood insurance.
Mayor Roe announced the upcoming
Open House for Public C-TV, Channel 15, scheduled for August 20, 2011; and the
opportunity to tour their new facilities on Arthur Street, the same location
where the temporary Ramsey County-Roseville Library was located during their
recent remodeling and construction project.
City Manager Malinen announced
that, given the large number in attendance at tonight’s meeting, staff was
bringing in additional chairs to the Council Chambers; and advised that the
lobby monitors had been activated to facilitate those outside the Chambers.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
Proclamation of Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day
Mayor Roe invited Kiwanis
representatives to the front prior to his reading of the annual Golden K
Kiwanis Peanut Day Proclamation.
John Sweeney, President of the
North Suburban Golden K Kiwanis Club introduced himself as well as other Club
members in the audience. Mr. Sweeney addressed the perceptions of the “aging
of Roseville,” and provided a background of the ninety (90) retirees serving
with the Club averaging 80 years old and spanning a variety of careers. Mr.
Sweeney noted that it was a very energetic group; and that the annual Peanut
Day was only one of the Club’s many fundraisers.
Mr. Sweeney advised that donations
to the Club allowed them to provide leadership training programs for area
youth; donations to the City’s Parks and Recreation Program; recent donation of
a park bench for the OVAL; equipment and book donations for the Children’s
Section of the Library; cash donations to organizations serving the community;
the purchase and donation of food to area food shelves; and youth scholarships.
Mr. Sweeney advised that the
Club’s “Gifted Geezers” also provide non-monetary services to the community,
including delivering flowers, parking cars at the Saint’s ballgames; tutoring
at local schools; and a Key Club in schools for youth serving the community.
Mr. Sweeney advised that other activities included a toy repair program for
Head Start; annual pancake serving at the Harriet Alexander Nature Center
(HANC); selling of Rosefest buttons; Salvation Army bell ringing; and ushering
at University of MN events.
Mayor Roe read the proclamation
and recognized the dedication of the North Suburban Golden K Kiwanis,
headquartered in Roseville, in helping community youth educationally and spiritually;
and proclaimed Friday, September 23, 2011 as Roseville Golden K Kiwanis Peanut
Day as a day set aside for the Club to raise funds for its many and varied programs.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, proclaiming
Friday, September 23, 2011 as Roseville Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day as a day
set aside for the Club to raise funds for its many and varied programs.
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of July 25, 2011 Meeting
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
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the July 25, 2011 meeting as amended.
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
63398 – 63589
Approve Business Licenses
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those
applicants as follows:
Type of License
Ashley Johnson at Rocco Altobelli
1655 County Road B-2
Crystal Lenzen at Serene Body Therapy; 1629 County Road C
Katherine Seitz at Colleen & Company
3092 Lexington Avenue
2218 County Road D
Approve One-Day Gambling License for St. Rose of Lima
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima Church to conduct raffles and bingo
on September 17, 2011 at St. Rose of Lima Parking Lot, located at 2072 Hamline
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services
presented as follows:
Upper Cut Tree Service
Diseased and Hazardous Tree Removal
Formally Authorize a Temporary Inter-fund Loan between TIF
At the request of Councilmember Pust
regarding whether this action was based on a change in law or practice, City Manager
Malinen advised that it was a very recent law change.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10917 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving
the Terms of Up to a $500,000 Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment
Financing (Economic Development() District No. 19 (Applewood Pointe Senior
Cooperative Housing Project).
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10918 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Approving
the Terms of Up to a $6,000,000 Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment
Financing District No. 17.”
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Receive Public Comment on the Traffic Study and Discuss the
County Road C-2 Traffic Study
Given the large number in
attendance for this issue, and the potential number wishing to provide public
comment, Mayor Roe reviewed the City Council’s ground rules for public comment,
and thanked all of those attending to voice their opinions. Mayor Roe advised
that his natural bias was to make sure everyone was allowed to speak, no matter
what they had to say; however, in the interest of time, he noted that the City
Council Rules limited speakers to no more than five (5) minutes per speaker to
allow everyone to be heard. Mayor Roe noted the suggestion of Councilmember
Pust at a previous meeting that speaker representatives for larger groups be
chosen to address the City Council to avoid repetition and to facilitate timely
comments. Mayor Roe advised that, for those representing a larger group, he
may be more lenient in the time limits; however, he asked speakers to be
concise as possible in respect to everyone’s time.
Mayor Roe reviewed the public
speaking process, sign-up sheet, and available chairs for identifying speakers
for the record. Mayor Roe advised that any written materials submitted as part
of their public comments, would be copied and distributed to the City Council
and public as available. Mayor Roe advised that any questions raised during
public comment would be duly noted and responded to by staff and the City
Council at the end of public comments to avoid interruptions.
Mayor Roe reminded citizens of the
need for their continued courtesy and respect of each other; and asked that
conversations in the audience be refrained, as well as any interactions with
those speaking. Mayor Roe reiterated his belief that everyone had a right to
be heard; and that personal conversation or commentary is discouraging. Mayor
Roe asked that all cell phones be put on vibrate or turned off; and that
comments and/or questions be addressed directly to the Mayor and City Council.
Related to the numerous signs
being displayed in the audience, Mayor Roe advised that they would be allowed
as long as they were not disrupting anyone’s view; and encouraged those nervous
about public speaking to simply relax and make their comments in their own
words. Mayor Roe advised that every attempt would be made to ensure that both
sides were given time to speak and make their cases.
Mayor Roe opened the meeting for
public comment on this issue at approximately 6:35 p.m.
A neighborhood petition dated June
of 2011 supporting permanent closure of County Road C-2 at Griggs Street; and
opposing changing County Road C-2 to a through street between Hamline and
Lexington Avenue was presented as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a
part hereof. The petition was based on safety concerns; lack of evidence
indicating established east/west through-roads being at or near capacity;
potential devaluation of properties on and adjacent to County Road C-2 should
it become a through street; and cost to taxpayers for a project that is not
necessary nor wanted.
David Miliotis, 1128 County Road
Mr. Miliotis advised that he had
been asked to speak as the representative of a large group supporting keeping
C-2 closed. Mr. Miliotis thanked City staff and the Traffic Engineering
Consultant firm, SRF, for their work to-date; and opined that the data gleaned
from the recent traffic survey served to remove the emotions and results spoke
Mr. Miliotis reviewed that data
and current 2011 traffic as well as 2030 projections in the area; and the
findings that at neither time do or will traffic volumes exceed capacity. Mr.
Miliotis referenced the staff comments in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated August 8, 2011, and supporting documents (Attachment A-Traffic Survey),
and staff responses (Attachment B) to public questions to-date regarding the
County Road C-2 Traffic Study. Mr. Miliotis opined that opening up County Road
C-2 didn’t make sense from a traffic volume, safety or financial perspective.
Mr. Miliotis opined that by keeping
County Road C-2 closed, it underscored the fact that the collecting arteries
were operating well-below their capacity and specifically addressed questions
49 and 50 in the staff responses related to regional traffic and who would
potentially pay for connecting County Road C-2 as a thoroughfare for regional
traffic. Mr. Miliotis noted that the City and State were already facing
significant cuts in needed funding for other vital infrastructure and community
needs; and opined that, beyond the data actually supporting the benefits for
not connecting County Road C-2 based on safety and financial issues; there was
an ethical consideration.
Mr. Miliotis opined that the
residents of Josephine Road requesting this connection had a poor grasp of
facts; and were based on myth rather than fact. Mr. Miliotis advised that
comments that County Road C-2 was once a connecting road and should therefore
be reconnected were false; and that it had actually never been connected. Mr.
Miliotis advised that the width of County Road C-2 was not accurately
portrayed, and that instead of being 66’ wide, it was actually only 35’ wide.
While Josephine Road residents arguing that there had been an increased volume
of traffic, Mr. Miliotis noted that there had only been an increase of 200
vehicle trips per day in the last six (6) years. Mr. Miliotis noted the
argument that there were not engineering reasons to not open County Road C-2,
which had now been disputed with the traffic study.
Mr. Miliotis displayed a copy of a
flyer received by area residents, encouraging them to sign the e-petition to
open County Road C-2; and reviewed, in his opinion, the inane comments and
rationale for opening County Road C-2 that it provided.
In conclusion, Mr. Miliotis opined
that there was no factual evidence provided by those supporting connecting
County Road C-2 through existing established neighborhoods; and that it would
only serve to destroy those neighborhoods to accommodate a handful of self-serving
citizens. Mr. Miliotis reviewed City Code defining a “cul-de-sac” indicating
their purpose to provide a permanent termination of vehicular traffic. Mr.
Miliotis expressed his personal astonishment at the lack of respect by other
residents for his neighborhood; and provided a demographic overview of his
neighbors of all ages and situations, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists
using the roadways as well. Mr. Miliotis asked that the City Council
completely overlook this entitlement request to open County Road C-2, noting
the hours spent by him and his neighbors on this issue based on a misguided attempt
to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. In the strongest terms possible
and on behalf of his neighbors, Mr. Miliotis asked that the City Council display
stewardship of their neighborhoods to permanently close the cul-de-sac on
County Road C-2 to avoid this issue coming up again in the future.
Stuart Shwiff, 1233 Josephine
A letter signed by Pam Newcome and
Stuart Shwiff, dated July 15, 2011, as a cover to the petition from concerned
citizens living or working in Roseville, believing that fully opening County
Road C-2 would be in the best long-term interest of the greater Roseville
community was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
Mr. Shwiff advised that he was
representing a large group of residents of Josephine Road, Lydia Avenue and
adjacent side streets, 140 who had signed the petition to-date, to fully open
County Road C-2 between Lincoln Drive and Victoria Street in Roseville. The
petition included a statement that since County Road C-2 is funded as a state
aid rod, but not benefitting the broader community since it is not fully
connected between Hamline and Lexington Avenues. The petition was based on
there being no engineering reasons why County Road C-2 could not be opened; and
supporting it being fully connected to provide an additional east/west
collector road to share a portion of increased traffic levels projected for the
area; and in the best interest of Roseville to more efficiently utilize
existing roadways to more evenly distribute traffic versus overburdening a few
streets and neighborhoods.
Mr. Shwiff advised that he had
been privileged to serve on the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Committee; with goals and strategies of the Plan based on the foundation established
by the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and documents;
and commitments of the City of Roseville to the Metropolitan Council’s
mandates. Mr. Shwiff referenced a portion of the Situation Analysis from the
2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Section related to east/west routes in
the community. Mr. Shwiff specifically referenced Goals 2, Policy 3.1 and
Policy 3.2 of the Imagine Roseville 2025 document; noting that opening
County Road C-2 was exactly a solution that would occur. While recognizing the
numerous positive revitalizations and revisions in this immediate area, including
zoning changes to medium density and the upcoming Josephine Woods Development
by Pulte Homes, Parks and Recreation Department renovation of Autumn Grove
Park, and other neighborhood positives, Mr. Shwiff noted that those all aggregately
incurred additional traffic. Mr. Shwiff further noted the Hamline Center and
its current zoning for HDR and the entire Snelling corridor north of Highway
36; in addition to retail shopping near the Byerly’s mini-mall and projected
development at Twin Lakes; including other development occurring north of
Highway 36 in Roseville and the east side of Lexington Avenue that would
further demand opening County Road C-2 to other neighborhood collectors to
avoid compounding the traffic burdens for Josephine Road.
Mr. Shwiff opined that this issue
went far beyond residents of Josephine Road, and was a wider Roseville and
regional issue. Mr. Shwiff displayed a map showing the location of those
signatures on the petition, and their locations throughout the community. Mr.
Shwiff referenced an August 7, 2011 Star Tribune opinion poll, with responses
to two (2) questions related to the County Road C-2 issue resulting in 32/4 and
32/7 respectively in support of opening County Road C-2.
Mr. Shwiff referenced projected
vehicles projected between Hamline and Lexington Avenues; and asked that the
citizens represented by this petition be treated equally and not be asked
unfairly to carry this huge volume of traffic; but that it be shared equally
today and in the future.
Jeannie LaPalm, 2891 Merrill
Mr. and Mrs. LaPalm were present
with their children, representing the “Save C-2” organization; and Ms. LaPalm
spoke on behalf of this, those present and those unable to attend, and in
support of keeping County Road C-2 closed. In noting the presence of her
children, Ms. LaPalm noted that the major concern was obviously one of safety
for those children living in this neighborhood. Ms. LaPalm thanked the City
Council for authorizing the traffic study, opining that it had been very
informative and specifically addressed page 20 of the study related to the
rolling terrain and short vertical curve, located just east of their property
and deficiencies in design and the existing configuration not meeting design
standards for 30 mph traffic. Ms. LaPalm noted that some residents were
requesting that County Road C-2 be opened because it was a state aid road and
therefore funds generated for that road were not being used; and to that end,
she quoted a portion of the study as it addressed MnDOT’s state aid manual for
minimum vertical curve lengths at 90’ with significant mitigation required from
Merrill to Griggs to just meet that safety standard for a state aid road. Ms.
LaPalm asked if such mitigated safety standards would include recessed roadway
and sidewalks for their neighborhood; and asked that the City Council was
prepared to address potential vehicular/pedestrian or vehicular/bicycle
accidents and deficiencies if County Road C-2 was to be connected. Ms. LaPalm
quoted comments of the City Attorney related to the City’s limited liability
with existing conditions and those that would be realized if County Road C-2
were opened up and design and deficiency mitigations along that stretch of
Ms. LaPalm noted that she lived on
County Road C-2, that it was her yard; and with their active family she asked
that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department consider, if any state aid
funds went toward County Road C-2, consider turning the vacated right-of-way
on County Road C-2 into a dog park or a new play area for families in the
immediate area. Ms. LaPalm respectfully asked that the focus not only be on
the motorized traffic portion of the report that may overshadow the safety
Mr. Chris LaPalm, 2891 Merrill
Mr. LaPalm opined that County Road
C-2 between Merrill and Griggs was “not ready for prime time” and noted his
delivery by e-mail to the City Council of a video showing the actual and realistic
dangers at the intersection of Merrill and County Road C-2 with a blind
approach from both the east and west; and visibility of oncoming traffic
unavailable unless you were at the top of the hill. Mr. LaPalm opined that
this created a huge safety issue, especially at their driveway due to the grade
of the hill. Mr. LaPalm asked that the City Council take that into
consideration when making their decision.
Morgan Kempton, 2891 Merrill
Street (13 year old daughter – 8th grader)
Ms. Kempton, daughter of Mr. and
Mrs. LaPalm, expressed her personal concern regarding potentially opening
County Road C-2, particularly her concern for the safety of her brother and
sisters and others in the neighborhood. Ms. Kempton commented on her personal
review of the traffic study and potential traffic around her home if County
Road C-2 were opened; preventing her brother and sisters from playing outside
safely; as well as concerns for those walking or walking their dogs in the
area. With school starting soon, Ms. Kempton noted that there would be more
walkers and more school buses; and if County Road C-2 were opened, she
questioned how traffic changes would impact County Road C-2 and how long the
construction period would be that would also impact motorized traffic. Ms.
Kempton advised that she didn’t want to walk around a lot of construction work
for a long time. Ms. Kempton advised that she and her family really
appreciated their peaceful neighborhood and had many friends in the neighborhood
that were like their extended family. Ms. Kempton asked that the City Council
consider the viewpoints of someone her age, wanting to make a difference in her
community, and believing that County Road C-2 should remain closed.
Dennis Dietzel, 2954 Hamline
As an avid biker and pedestrian
along both County Road C-2 and Josephine Road, opined that, in all fairness,
the perception that this was a broader community issue didn’t necessarily ring
true. While appreciating both routes for walking, and the amenity of County
Road C-2’s quiet access into the neighborhood around Griggs and Merrill, Mr.
Dietzel opined that the neighborhood would be significantly changed if County Road
C-2 was opened, and that it would impact the neighborhood negatively. Mr. Dietzel
further opined that he didn’t feel limited in his options for east/west access
through the community; and asked that, if opening County Road C-2 was the
decision of the City Council, that they give serious consideration to safely
accommodating bicycles and pedestrians in that area.
Mr. Yi He, 1144 County Road C-2
(just east of Lexington) – developer/manager of online petition
Mr. He expressed his pride in
living in a great and diverse neighborhood; and the continuing sense of
neighborhood in resolving this issue. Mr. He reviewed the actual 137
signatures of the e-petition representing 80 households either on or across the
street from lakes; with 60% outside the neighborhood. Mr. He opined that
opening County Road C-2 provided a limited and disproportionate benefit for
lake front homes.
Mr. He addressed the petition with
215 handwritten signatures from 150 households, 97% from the neighborhood and
expressing major safety concerns at multiple intersections along County Road
C-2, the costly construction to connect County Road C-2 and correct grade
issues; and destruction of an established neighborhood, should it be
connected. For those advocating connecting County Road C-2, Mr. He questioned
if the statistics provided by Ms. Pam Newcome, with 60% outside the neighborhood,
took into consideration safety issues, or simply based their responses on
Mr. He addressed several items he
didn’t think were addressed sufficiently in the traffic study, including turn
actions onto roads (Lexington Avenue) with higher speed limits (40 mph) and
difficulty with visibility and access from cross streets (left from County Road
C-2 onto Lexington and Victoria and County Road C); and steep banks requiring
Irene Erickson, 1251 Josephine
Road, very new resident (as of Saturday) to Roseville and former Shoreview resident
commuting through Roseville
Ms. Erickson noted her long-time
questioning why County Road C-2 was not open as an optional route rather than
curving around other roadways; and opined that County Road C as a county road
did not just exist for a single neighborhood.
Ms. Erickson further opined that,
as the City considered further development in the community, and in this area
particularly, this became a much broader issue than just the neighborhood, but
for residents throughout the county. Ms. Erickson opined that she didn’t see
much reason to keep County Road C-2 closed; however, if there was going to be
more traffic on the road, consideration of safety provisions for walking and
parking should be given. Ms. Erickson encouraged the City Council to open
County Road C-2 for the benefit of the region and those using roads beyond
those two (2) neighborhoods.
R. J. Newcome, “Share C-2”
Mr. Newcome advised that his group
had attempted to say as upbeat as possible; and from his perspective their
group had done so.
Mr. Newcome addressed safety
comments brought forward by those wanting to keep County Road C-2 closed;
noting that people needed to understand that anyone living on a collector road
had to deal with those safety issues on a daily basis. Mr. Newcome referenced
comments made tonight regarding the need to re-grade a section of the roadway
versus comments made by SRF Engineer Vaughan at a previous meeting and mitigation
options available. Mr. Newcome noted the many comments he’d heard, as well as
his own surprise before moving into the neighborhood, as to why County Road C-2
was not connected.
With respect to Mr. He’s comments
related to voting on various petitions being circulated, Mr. Newcome advised
that the “Share C-2” petition had 156 signatures at the present time; in
addition to some written comments submitted previously and/or yet-to-be
submitted to the City Council. Mr. Newcome reviewed the locations of
interested signatories to the petition and their strong interest in seeing
County Road C-2 opened, with over 60% of those signing not on Lydia Avenue or
Mr. Newcome referenced Figure 12
from the traffic study, and specific question from his group to the SRF
consultant on base traffic counts for County Road C-2 and those projected in
2030; seeking an explanation in the apparent 37% reduction from current to 2030
for keeping it closed or connecting it. Mr. Newcome noted that surrounding
roads didn’t have a corresponding drop projected for 2030; and opined that his
group did not feel they had received a reasonable or sufficient answer yet.
Mr. Newcome provided comparisons for other area roads and east/west connections
and projected impacts for connecting or not connecting County Road C-2.
Mr. Newcome further referenced a
question put forth by Councilmember Willmus at a previous meeting and
discussions over the last few months between the City Engineer, City Council
and Consulting Engineer from SRF; and state aid dollars being received for
County Road C-2. Mr. Newcome opined that Ramsey County at one point, according
to a recent map he’d obtained showing it as a collector road, apparently felt
it necessary to have another east/west corridor; even though not done but
Roseville continuing to receive dollars to support such a collector road.
Mr. Newcome referenced and
displayed information on state aid roads taken from statutory definitions from MnDOT
Rules, subpart 2 or 3; municipal state aid streets posted October 15, 2007; and
statutory authority references: MS 161.082, 161.083, 162.02, 162.09, 162,.155;
L 1983 c17
Mr. Newcome sought rationale in
not receiving this funding for all these years; and opined that County Road C-2
should be open and should have been opened years ago. Mr. Newcome respectfully
summarized the petition of his group that, based on the mechanism for funding
and definition of state aid roads, that designation should have also been
Suzanne Sancilio, 1221 West
County Road C-2 (immediately west of Josephine Woods Development at bottom of
Ms. Sancilio thanked the City
Council for the opportunity to address costs for connecting County Road C-2 at
Griggs Avenue. Ms. Sancilio opined that it may sound inexpensive to connect
the road through laying of concrete and removal of a few trees to those signing
the petitions to do so without having fully studied the traffic study. Ms.
Sancilio noted that state aid funds could be designated for other city
neighborhoods; and while the study didn’t address specific dollar amounts, she
noted that it did give the community a glimpse of tax dollar expenditures. Ms.
Sancilio noted the impacts including destruction of Heritage Oaks in the way of
a new section of roadway, construction costs for 175’ of roadway where none
currently existed, narrowing of the cul-de-sac, installation of traffic
signals, street lights, bike lanes and sidewalks; all in order to be consistent
with the Roseville Master Plan. If that additional cost wasn’t enough, Ms.
Sancilio noted the significant risk for motorists passing through and residents
of County Road C-2 with the vertical hill. While not asked to design a road,
Ms. Sancilio noted that the traffic research team had addressed potential
options for mitigation that would be required.
Ms. Sancilio referenced Question
#30 in the staff and City Attorney responses addressing City liability if
County Road C-2 was connected; and need to mitigate design deficiencies if
there was a connection. Ms. Sancilio opined that these could be considered
additional costs as well. Ms. Sancilio noted additional costs in lowering the
hill at County Road C-2 and moving it west; removal/replacement of the existing
retaining wall at County Road C-2 by approximately one foot (1’) during this
extensive construction project; addition of three feet (3’) of fill in low
areas of County Road C-2 near Fernwood Avenue; and reconstruction of numerous
driveways along County Road C-2, Josephine Woods, and Merrill, if not
elsewhere. Ms. Sancilio noted additional costs for relocating or revising
storm drainage, water main and other infrastructure in changing roadway
profiles; costs to move the hill and flatten the slope; requiring many
residents to re-grade and/or replace their driveways; and reconstruction of an
established residential street and disruption of infrastructure.
Ms. Sancilio suggested that
petitioners and casual observers should consider fully the hardship they would wreak
on this neighborhood; and opined that this was not a simple project, nor was
the City in any position to incur these costs; and urged that the City Council
keep County Road C-2 closed.
Donna Miliotis, 1128 County
Ms. Miliotis noted her advocacy in
keeping County Road C-2 closed. Ms. Miliotis clarified some misconceptions
presented from her perspective.
Ms. Miliotis clarified that County
Road C-2 was not a county road and had not been one for over thirty (30) years;
and that it did not extend over the boundaries of Roseville. Ms. Miliotis suggested
that the City rename the road to avoid confusion. Ms. Miliotis reviewed and
clarified Roseville roads and their status as MSA (Minnesota State Aid) funded road,
at 25%. Ms. Miliotis quoted from the state aid manual, noting that traffic
projections for the future continued to decrease; and noted that the levels of
service are not currently, nor would they become deficient at County Road C-2
and Lexington, but were only projected to diminish slightly. Ms. Miliotis
noted that the use of MSA funds required social, safety and environmental
criteria to determine impacts of any project; and further noted that it was her
understanding that Roseville’s portion of MSA funds had been used for a number
of years; and questioned how the City could even justify using those funds for
a roadway not even wanted or needed.
Ms. Miliotis advised that she had
been advised by City staff that, while zero dollars had been used to maintain
County Road C-2 between Lexington and Hamline Avenues, at the same time, MSA
funds had been used for the beautification of Josephine Road during its
reconstruction, in addition to $22,000 for private driveway work. Ms. Miliotis
asked citizens to imagine costs adjusted for inflation for construction between
Snelling Avenue and Victoria Street, to meet MSA design standards; with 25% of
those costs assessable to homeowners on MSA roads.
Unless misunderstanding the
situation, Ms. Miliotis questioned why Josephine Road residents got by without
paying a dime; while if County Road C-2 was connected, those homeowners would
pay 25% for actually deconstructing their own neighborhoods, in addition to
paying 10)% for driveway reconstruction. Ms. Miliotis opined that this was not
only unfair but completely outrageous. Ms. Miliotis stated that she could
agree with Josephine Road residents on one point brought up by Mr. Shwiff in
his letter to Mayor Roe and the City Council: that if County Road C-2 is not
opened as part of the Josephine Woods development, it would only create
stronger advocacy to keep it closed.
Joan Carrier, 1040 County Road C-2
Ms. Carrier advised that her main
concerns were related to taxes and safety. While it may seem enticing to use
MSA funds, Ms. Carrier asked if that sufficiently addressed capital improvement
and budget needs versus actual resources, specifically those needed for the
woefully underfunded park system and proposed fire station. Ms. Carrier asked
how residents could be asked to pay for a roadway addition versus other more
vital City needs and priorities.
Ms. Carrier, in her personal
review of property tax data, opined that average property taxes along County
C-2 had declined while Josephine Road resident taxes were increasing. Ms.
Carrier suggested this could impact home values and those purchased on
non-through streets, as well as impact sales of homes in the proposed Josephine
Woods development as well.
Ms. Carrier further opined that
the City Council was charged with responsible use of taxpayer money; while also
having an obligation to protect neighborhoods and the quality of life of its
residents. Ms. Carrier noted the apparent importance by individual
Councilmembers for quality of life if their recent election campaigns and
platforms were accurate. Ms. Carrier opined that people in Roseville should
want to stay, not just drive through; and that Roseville should remain
committed to attracting and retaining residents based on that quality of life,
not to accommodate regional traffic needs through established neighborhoods.
Ms. Carrier noted impacts to the
east side if County Road C-2 was opened; and opined that those residents were
in solidarity with those residents on the west side. Ms. Carrier encouraged
Councilmembers to personally drive all sections of County Road C-2 to review
the situation themselves if they had not already done so.
Ms. Nilanjana Baneroi, 1303 W County
Ms. Banerio, as an Indian
immigrant now considering Minnesota to be her home - more specifically
Roseville – encouraged the City Council to take a look at her neighbors, some
having lived in Roseville for 50 years or more. Ms. Banerio proceeded to introduce
some of those diverse neighbors in attendance, and expressed her passion for
keeping County Road C-2 closed.
Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue
Mr. McDonald advised that he had
originally moved to Roseville for its livability and an environment as good as
any in the state. Mr. McDonald opined that this issue was causing negative divisions
and costing taxpayers’ money; and further opined that it needed to end. Mr.
McDonald opined that there was a potential cost beyond actual road
improvements, and that opening County Road C-2 would have many negative
impacts. Mr. McDonald noted that one positive had been pointed out and asked
that the City Council consider it by keeping County Road C-2 permanently closed
and ending these frequent and unproductive discussions.
Marie Hammond, 1200 Josephine
Ms. Hammond addressed safety issues
for her and other retirees on Josephine Road as well as families with young
children. While everyone would like to live in a neighborhood without traffic,
Ms. Hammond opined that it was not realistic. Ms. Hammond referenced living
through reconstruction of Josephine Road and installation of new sidewalks
making it safer for those going to the area beach. As a retired nurse, Ms.
Hammond referenced the numerous times she’d provided first aid to bikers
crossing traffic to get to the beach.
Ms. Hammond opined that residents
of Josephine Road would like to be able to live in a neighborhood such as on
County Road C-2; however, they were forced to encounter and deal with traffic
all the time. Ms. Hammond opined that, when people stated that it was unfair for
Josephine Road residents to request that County Road C-2 be opened, it was fairer
to everyone in Roseville to have it opened.
Meggan Gardener, 1321 County Road
Ms. Gardener, having move to
Roseville about 18 months ago with her family, noted their desire to move from
the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul to Roseville, after having looked at over
forty (40) homes. While initially not interested in even looking at the home
on County Road C-2 that they subsequently purchased, based solely on its
connotation as a county road, Ms. Gardener advised that she finally agreed to
look at it and it had resulted in a fantastic purchase for their family, once
she had found that the road was actually closed. After extensive remodeling,
Ms. Gardener advised that they had purchased the house knowing that County Road
C-2 was closed, just as those residents on Josephine Road had purchase their
homes with the full knowledge that it was a through street. Ms. Gardener asked
that common sense be used by residents that when a neighborhood or street is no
longer meeting their specific needs, they move elsewhere, similar to the
decision made in full faith by their family in moving to Roseville.
Chuck Stokes, 2875 N Griggs Street
Ms. Stokes noted that the City
Council had a monumental decision before them, and he didn’t envy their having
to make it; however, he expressed his trust and confidence in them making it.
Mr. Stokes noted that City Council had asked for facts all along, and time to
digest the data received from the consulting engineer. Mr. Stokes opined that
the information provided in black and white noted that opening County Road C-2
would create a problem not currently existing; but that through keeping it
closed, it would increase the pain for all over the next 15-20 years. Based on
indications nationwide, Mr. Stokes opined that the figures were not accurate
and most likely would be less than projected, for a variety of reasons,
including changing transportation modes.
Mr. Stokes opined that creating a
“mini freeway” was not the right way to go; and recognized the very special
spot along County Road C-2, Fernwood Avenue, Merrill Street, and Josephine
Road; creating a somewhat unique area compared to other spots in Roseville.
Mr. Stokes noted that the sense of community in these neighborhoods had brought
people together to fight a common cause in a positive way; and opined that is
something the City Council should be proud of since they had set that tone and
reacted accordingly throughout all the meetings related to this issue.
Mr. Stokes provided some
anecdotal, and concluded that if nothing was done there would be no major
problems; however if the road was opened, it could create a problem and impacts
and unintended consequences not fully understood at this time.
Mr. Stokes opined that there was
one in-depth issue not being addressed: that the overall problem of traffic is
overall, not just in a particular neighborhood; speeding is a problem for and
by all. Mr. Stokes opined that there had been no real attempt to-date to look
at that overall Roseville problem and clamp down on what is actually creating
and causing the issues. Mr. Stokes opined that if speeding problems were
addressed and mitigated, most residents and the community overall would have
fewer problems. Mr. Stokes suggested that the City Council look to “do no
harm” and then address underlying problems faced by the broader community; and
address unsafe conditions for children and other pedestrians due to excessive
Mr. Stokes opined that keeping
County Road C-2 closed was the right thing to do; and that keeping the status
quo could be good at times when positive change could not be demonstrated or
significant improvements guaranteed.
Mike Rogers, 2875 Dellwood
As a resident since 1954, over 57
years, Mr. Rogers spoke in support for keeping County Road C-2 closed; and
expressed his opposition to opening it.
Dave Rice, 1195 Josephine Road
Mr. Rice stated that he didn’t
want to bring up the numerous signs on City boulevards or the City not
enforcing its ordinance and allowing it to continue.
Mr. Rice referenced an e-mail from
Councilmember McGehee about closing Josephine Road as an alternative; and
opined that he couldn’t see closing another collector street, even though it
would be a solution to keep traffic off Josephine Road, while diverting it
elsewhere, such as to Woodhill in the vicinity of the playground; or
potentially rerouting vital emergency vehicles away from Josephine Road that
would impact the safety of Roseville residents. As a realtor, Mr. Rice opined
that closing Josephine Road would be a positive for him and his business; however
he noted that everyone’s property was being devalued. Mr. Rice opined that
residents moved to Roseville based on the integrity of the community and its
great school system, in addition to a balanced tax base and overall good
community. However, Mr. Rice cautioned that it was difficult to consider that
there would not be hard feelings and a continuing “them” against “them”
mentality if this issue continued without resolution. Mr. Rice stated that he
would like to see slower traffic by disbursing through traffic.
Darrel LoCascio, 2933 Merrill Street
Mr. LoCascio addressed current
shortcut routes for people accessing southbound Lexington Avenue or Hamline
Avenue, often using Merrill Street, but sometimes taking a right on Josephine
Road or Hamline Avenue. In accessing County Road C-2, Mr. LoCascio advised
that they often took a right on Josephine Road, a left on Fernwood Avenue, and
a right on Merrill Street, directly through a residential area, and right onto
County Road C-2. Mr. LoCascio advised that his main concern, along with
others, was one of safety; and opined that by opening County Road C-2, it would
at least create a straight run. Mr. LoCascio addressed alignment and sight
issues on Merrill; and provided several anecdotal stories related to those
safety concerns, while none had involved pedestrians and vehicle accidents
to-date. Mr. LoCasco noted further concern with additional cars from the Josephine
Woods development also using these shortcuts. Mr. LoCascio opined that, in
speaking or neighbors on Merrill Street, it would be sadly inappropriate if additional
cars from that development area were allowed to go through residential streets
when an east/west collector road was available.
Lars Eber, 1241 County Road C-2
Ms. Eber suggested a possible
reason why County Road C-2 had not been originally connected; and provided
pictorial evidence of eastbound traffic on Josephine Road at Lexington Avenue
and the same view from the south from County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue,
identifying significant viewing differences and sight lines.
Jeff Strobeck, 1297 County Road
With a brief exception, Mr. Strobeck
advised that he and the previous generation of his family had lived in the same
residence since 1957. Mr. Strobeck advocated for keeping County Road C-2
closed. Mr. Strobeck advised that, when his father had originally offered the
family home for sale, his first criteria was that County Road C-2 was not going
to be connected, which he’d been assured at that time by his father as a fact.
Mr. Strobeck questioned if keeping it closed had not been a stipulation for the
construction of Lexington Apartments on the south side of County Road C-2, a
promise made by a previous City Council.
Regarding the traffic study, if
County Road C-2 were connected, Mr. Strobeck opined that Josephine Road would
realize a 25% reduction in traffic, while County Road C-2 would receive a 400%
increase in traffic. Mr. Strobeck noted that this would impact County Road C-2
between Hamline and Lexington Avenues, but also Snelling and Victory; and
opined that it would create additional liability with declining property values
as well as creating safety issues. Mr. Strobeck opined that it would be a bad
decision to open up County Road C-2.
Allen Carrier, 1040 W County Road
Mr. Carrier spoke in support of
keeping County Road C-2 closed. Mr. Carrier referenced his discussions with
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill related to access for emergency vehicles to the
neighborhood, and his assurance that there would be no difference in emergency
vehicle responses to this area, whether County Road C-2 was open or closed; and
the concurrence of Police Chief Rick Mathwig as well.
Derek Luhm, 1190 Josephine road
Mr. Luhm advised that he’d been
asked to speak by his 13-year old son on his safety concerns in not being able
to ride his bike. Mr. Luhm expressed assurance that the neighbors all still
liked each other; however, he expressed concern in the need for addressing the
ever-increasing foot traffic and better safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mike Heffernan, 893 County Road
Mr. Heffernan questioned why the
City spent money on a traffic study during this difficult economic time; and
opined that he was unsure of the impacts of opening County Road C-2 based on
the traffic study data. Mr. Heffernan suggested that more consideration be
given to County Road E access rather than County Road C-2, since it was a
county road and more easily accessible. Mr. Heffernan suggested another
alternative may be access off Snelling Avenue to Hamline Center.
Mr. Heffernan spoke in support of
not seeing County Road C-2 opened up.
Mayor Roe closed public comment on
this issue at approximately 8:11 p.m.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:12 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:20 p.m.
City Engineer Debra Bloom
Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bloom to
provide an explanation on different levels between previous traffic studies,
the recent Pulte Homes traffic study, and this traffic study as referenced.
Ms. Bloom advised that the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Roseville completed in 2008, provided
data projecting 2030 traffic at 2,600 vehicles per day on Josephine Road. At
the request of the community, and as authorized by the City Council, an update
was sought from this most recent traffic study and answered on page 16 of the
study. Ms. Bloom noted that the traffic model used is from 2010, and that the regional
demand model had updated numbers. Ms. Bloom clarified that traffic is not
proportional; and that the most recent information from the Metropolitan
Council was used (new regional traffic model). Ms. Bloom noted that the change
was not changed equivalently; but Josephine Road was less than projected. Ms.
Bloom advised that this was a common finding, and had been experienced on Rice
Street as well. Ms. Bloom noted that traffic modeling is a projecting using
the best information available, the nature of forecasting.
Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bloom to
address whether the City of Roseville was following established rules for MSA
Ms. Bloom advised that one of the
unique parts of the MSA rules and system is that non-existing routes could be
designated as MSA roadways. Ms. Bloom noted that County Road C-2 was a state
aid route from Snelling Avenue to Victoria Street; even though a portion of it
was actually non-existing. Ms. Bloom clarified discrepancies in why the road
was shown on the Ramsey County GIS system and not on MSA records, noting that
there was an existing 60’ right-of-way between Griggs and the cul-de-sac
reserved for public improvements. Ms. Bloom advised that the City was looking at
the existing right-of-way from Lexington to Hamline Avenues for additional
pathway development as part of the Josephine Woods development project. Ms.
Bloom reviewed other non-existent roadway segments that are designated MSA
similar to this one, such as a segment of Twin Lakes Parkway. Ms. Bloom
advised that it was common practice to draw dollars for those non-existing
Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bloom to
address the purpose of MSA road designations and funds.
Ms. Bloom advised that it was tied
to future construction and dedicated funds for county state aid highways
(CSAH’s) and MSA funds received through the 30 cent gas tax dollars paid at the
pump; with receipt of funds based on population and needs; as well as roadway
cycles and annual updates provided to the state by the City.
Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bloom to
address how a road became MSA designated.
Ms. Bloom advised that there were
three (3) criteria to be considered for that designation: higher traffic
volumes, not only a local road, and other criteria. Ms. Bloom advised that the
City recommends roads for MSA designation based on established criteria, and
the Commissioner of Transportation confirmed that designation.
Mayor Roe questioned if the City
could designate portions, but no others.
Ms. Bloom responded affirmatively,
as long as they met the criteria.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Bloom advised that funds would be paid back if deemed applicable, or
a portion thereof.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if there were currently utilities running through that area.
Ms. Bloom responded that sanitary
sewer and a water main were located there from Hamline to Lexington Avenues.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
individuals had brought up the inability to see approaching traffic from County
Road C-2 from both the north and south on Lexington; and questioned if it was
fair to assume that a traffic light could be considered for that intersection.
Ms. Bloom responded that a number
of safety issues had been brought forward from this most recent study, and that
staff was attempting to address them. Ms. Bloom advised that, regardless of
the City Council’s decision on County Road C-2, those sight line issues would
be reviewed. Ms. Bloom noted that some would be simple, such as clearing
trees, or considering a right turn lane; while others may be more complex, such
as grading of the hill looking north at County Rood C-2 and Lexington. Ms.
Bloom advised that staff would determine if there was something physical that
could be done before considering a signal, in an effort to be cost-effective.
In considering whether the situation could be resolved by installing a signal,
Ms. Bloom responded affirmatively; however, she cautioned that she didn’t think
the county would support a stop sign at that location.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
the existence of an agreement with Lexington Apartments and contingencies that
County Road C-2 couldn’t be opened up.
Ms. Bloom advised that, upon
hearing this statement brought forward at a previous meeting when the Pulte
application had first come forward, she had personally researched such a document;,
as well as wanting to ensure that all past City Council actions were in
staff’s, the public’s and current City Council’s possession. Ms. Bloom advised
that her research had found nothing in writing or in the meeting minute records
of any such document or contingency with Lexington Apartments to keep County
Road C-2 closed. Ms. Bloom noted the existence of a 1988 memorandum when
Lexington Apartments was first proposed, that County Road C-2 was intended for
construction; however, based on significant opposition at that time, the plan
was changed accordingly, and a subsequent failed action at a City Council meeting
to vacate County Road C-2 on a 3/2 vote.
Mayor Roe questioned liability
concerns related to road configuration and standard 30 mph construction; and
the City’s exposure to such liability.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised
that City Attorney Caroline Beckman-Bell had previously submitted via e-mail to
the City Council an actual opinion on how discretionary immunity may be invoked
in this type of hypothetical situation; and the opinion that there would be no
City liability for any accidents that may result from opening this area.
Mayor Roe sought clarification of
liability even if a road was not built up to certain standards.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
it was at the discretion of the City Council where to build roads; and that the
City’s intent was not to intentionally hurt people.
Related to assessment questions
and fairness to property owners, Ms. Bloom advised that the City Council had
changed their Assessment Policy in 1991. Prior to that time, Ms. Bloom noted
that residents on state aid roads were not assessed. However, Ms. Bloom
advised that the policy had changed in 1991 to a blanket 25% assessment for all
streets no matter their zoning designation. Ms. Bloom advised that it was
staff’s charge to cite current City Policy, which was currently at 25% for any
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Bloom clarified that residents on Josephine Road had not been
assessed 25%, since the construction occurred prior to the 1991 change in the Assessment
Councilmember Willmus questioned,
if County Road C-2 was opened, would it have to be re-graded to make it safe to
navigate; or could other mitigation measures be used..
Ms. Bloom advised that stop sign
installation at those grades would mitigate the concerns, as determined in her
consultations with the traffic engineer.
Councilmember Johnson noted the
mitigation concerns addressed by Ms. LaPalm on page 20 of the traffic study;
and concerns about a 90’ wide road.
Ms. Bloom clarified that the
traffic consultant had been asked to provide an analysis of what issues would
occur on County Road C-2 as discussed at previous City Council meetings and
possible mitigation options. Ms. Bloom further clarified that the consultant
had provided one (1) possible solution, even though many things had not been
taken into consideration in that one (1) option, including road drainage, the
hill, the vertical curve (not slope), and the high point. Ms. Bloom noted that
the concern of Ms. LaPalm’s was that the vertical curve would need to be 90’
long, not 90’ wide; from the beginning to the end of the curve 170; and 20 mph
for visibility purposes.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Ms. Bloom further clarified that the minimum width required for an MSA
road was 26’ and 32’ to accommodate parking.
Mayor Roe sought individual
Councilmember comment related to direction to staff on this issue, or any additional
Councilmember Willmus noted that
when the issue had last come before the City Council, he had asked Ms. Bloom
for staff’s recommendation on whether to open County Road C-2 or keep it
closed; and staff’s recommendation on whether to vacate the right-of-way.
Ms. Bloom provided staff’s
analysis and recommendation that remained similar to their recommendation when
the Josephine Woods development project came forward: that any need to extend
County Road C-2 was not currently apparent based on today’s traffic and current
levels of operation. Related to whether County Road C-2 should be vacated, Ms.
Bloom advised that staff was not prepared to make that recommendation, based on
the inability to clearly dictate what the future may hold. Ms. Bloom noted
that there may be a future need for pedestrian connections and utilities,
depending on redevelopment at Hamline and Woodhill; but that currently staff
was not looking to vacate that 175’.
An unidentified member of the
audience requested a definition and meaning of the term “vacating.”
Mayor Roe responded and reviewed a
situation when the City retains the right to use a strip of land for road
right-of-way, or utilities; and continuing to retain that right. Mayor Roe
noted that one option would be to vacate a right-of-way by returning the
property back to adjacent property owners and giving up the City’s right to
build a road on it; or retaining a utility easement. Mayor Roe noted that by
vacating the City’s right to use the land for a future road, it would give up
that right for good; and if not, the City could retain the right-of-way for
potential use in the future.
Mayor Roe questioned Ms. Bloom as
to staff’s recommendation on whether to continue designating County Road C-2 as
an MSA road; and impacts to continuing to do so or not to do so.
Ms. Bloom responded that staff
would need to research monetary impacts to the City in whether to continue
designating it as an MSA road; advising that the portion could be
undesignated. Ms. Bloom advised that state aid encouraged removal of
non-existing road segments from the state system, and the City could consider
doing so; however in the City’s overall management of the state aid system, 25%
of the City’s total road miles could be designated, and sometimes segments of a
road were designated as state aid roads. In the City’s overall road grid system,
Ms. Bloom advised that another segment would need to be identified to maximize
the City’s piece of the pie, since the City currently had approximately 1.5
miles of undesignated state aid roadway mileage, based on that 25% state
allowance. Ms. Bloom noted that the current intent was to hold that undesignated
portion in reserve for County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue, which Ramsey
County would like to turn back to the City.
Mayor Roe questioned if that
section of County Road C-2 east of Cleveland Avenue in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area was designated MSA>
Ms. Bloom responded that it was an
MSA route in that location; but had been removed to facilitate Langton Lake
Park, as well as due to road flooding and other problems, and thus removed from
the state aid system.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if the road was not vacated, would the City still retain access that could be
used for a playground or green area.
Ms. Bloom advised that a pathway
was proposed as part of the Josephine Woods project; but noted that this was
ultimately a City Council policy discussion and decision.
Mayor Roe advised that if a
right-of-way was designated for future road purposes, it would be inappropriate
to put a park on such a right-of-way, since other steps would then need to be
Councilmember McGehee opined that
using the right-of-way for green space or a park didn’t preclude its future use
as a road; and the use could be discontinued; and could be used now to enhance
the neighborhood rather than underused.
In order to address comments he’d
heard from the public during the recess, Councilmember Willmus clarified that
some citizens were under the impression that the City Council would not be
taking action on this issue tonight, and therefore had left the meeting
Mayor Roe advised that it was not
his intent that any action would be taken tonight.
As part of her decision-making
process, Councilmember Pust requested information from staff on a potential
cost to construct this segment of County Road C-2.
Mayor Roe questioned the level of
detail Councilmember Pust was requesting.
Councilmember Pust advised that
she was only looking for a range, not such that would be detailed in a Request
for Proposals (RFP) type of situation; but if this construction were to come
forward as a priority at this time, staff’s engineering estimate.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
staff’s recommendation to not vacate the segment of County Road C-2 seemed
somewhat of an ambiguous directive; suggesting more of the same. From his
interpretation, Councilmember Johnson questioned whether fellow Councilmembers
Councilmember Pust opined that her
interpretation was that staff was not willing to say or believed that County
Road C-2 be opened now; however, they were not confident that it wouldn’t be
needed in the future, thus they were not recommending permanently vacating the
Mayor Roe questioned Ms. Bloom on
her projected availability for the additional information requested.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
consult with Public Works Director Duane Schultz to determine current workloads
and a time when the additional information would be available. Ms. Bloom
advised that staff would include this updated timeframe on the City’s website
for public awareness.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if
Councilmember Pust’s request for costs at this time was a sufficient use of
staff’s time in creating additional work for them to cost this out at this
time, if staff’s recommendation was to not open County Road C-2 at this time,
and to not vacate the right-of-way. Councilmember Pust opined that, if the
City Council determined to move forward in the future, the figures provided by
staff at this time wouldn’t mean much.
Councilmember Pust, with all due
respect to staff, stated that she didn’t always follow staff’s recommendation;
and reiterated her request for cost estimates if t County Road C-2 was opened
at this time and a formal vote was proposed at this time.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if Councilmember Pust needed those costs to vote accordingly; with
Councilmember Pust responding affirmatively.
In hearing no other dissenting
support of Councilmember Pust’s request; Mayor Roe directed staff to proceed by
letting the City Council know their projected timeframe to provide this information;
and to also keep the public informed during the process.
Mayor Roe thanked the public for
their interest and attendance; and while recognizing that the City Council
could not make every resident happy; he assured citizens that the City Council
would do their best.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this was the most people she’d ever seen come out for a particular issue in
her seven (7) years of service on the City Council; and while there were
strongly divergent views, she commended residents and neighbors for their
respectful presentations and comments. Councilmember Pust opined that it
served as a fine example of democracy as well as an example to future
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:50 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:51 pm.
Receive Public Comment and Continue Discussion on the 2012/2013
Mayor Roe advised that it was the
intent of this item to continue discussion on 2012/2013 budget, beginning with
a brief presentation by City Manager Malinen summarizing his memorandum to the
City Council distributed today; followed by a Q and A period between the City Council
A Memorandum via e-mail dated
August 4, 2011 from City Manager Bill Malinen related to Market Value Homestead
Credit (MVHC) and proposed 2012 budget reduction adjustments in accordance was
provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
City Manager Malinen addressed a
new change in state law as a result of the Special Session of the Legislature
and budget-balancing programs, basically through elimination of the Market
Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) program as detailed in the memorandum. Mr.
Malinen advised that this would provide additional funds to the City and not
part of the budget programming to-date; allowing for identification of some
options for the City Council to consider for those extra funds, that could potentially
reduce the proposed tax increase from the City Manager-recommended budget to
approximately 1.8%, allowing the City to restore some of the proposed FTE staff
reductions and other programs proposed for reduction or elimination.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
how this one-time adjustment would impact the City going forward in future
budget years; and if future legislative action could put the City in the same
situation if it were to become dependent on those budget dollars annually.
City Manager Malinen advised that
it would become the new baseline going forward as part of the City’s levy,
avoiding the need for the City Council to make the previously-recommended
adjustments and providing incremental costs in the future. Mr. Malinen opined
that he didn’t think the City would be in a similar situate, as he didn’t
anticipate levy limits being renewed, and with the most recent formulaic changes
in MVHC and dramatic changes in Local Government Aid (LGA), of which the City
is not a recipient and therefore not dependent upon, he didn’t anticipate
future impacts to the City.
Mayor Roe noted that one option
would be to reduce the levy by that amount going forward and continue with the
currently recommended cuts, thereby reducing the levy by approximately $475,000,
thus not making the City dependent on those funds going forward.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the City of Roseville was not subject to any reimbursement any longer, taking
that risk out of the equation. City Manager Malinen opined that reducing the
levy was one option.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
having just received the memorandum, it provided some good options for the
City; however, she wasn’t confident that it couldn’t be taken away as easily as
it was given. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City was in unchartered
water federally and state-wide; and when looking at budget materials provided
to-date, this recommendation from City Manager Malinen seemed similar to that
proposed during the 10% reduction exercise, with the same programs and services
being targeted, those that are the most meaningful to this community.
Out of courtesy to the public,
Mayor Roe halted Council discussion at this time to allow time for public
comment on this issue, at which time additional Council discussion could be
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen made additional copies of the referenced memorandum available
for members of the public in attendance.
Barb Obeda, 2910 N Asbury
As a 47-year resident of
Roseville, Ms. Obeda took a moment to talk about volunteerism in Roseville;
opining that the community had the greatest bunch of volunteers of any
community of which she was aware. Ms. Obeda provided anecdotal examples, specifically
those efforts of her husband Ed, who over the last three (3) years had biked
throughout the community picking up garbage, putting well over 1,000 hours and
having been awarded a Presidential Commendation for Volunteerism.
Related to the budget, Ms. Obeda
expressed her concern about budget cuts proposed by City Manager Malinen, since
a lot of those recommendations had direct and/or indirect impacts on her
volunteer work for the City. Ms. Obeda expressed concern about the
possibility, as reported in a recent Roseville Review article, on that
recommendation potentially cutting one full-time employee in the Parks and
Recreation Department, specifically a position assigned to coordinate the
City’s recreation programs, including discontinuation of the City’s spring and
summer entertainment and annual parade. While the employee had not been
identified, Ms. Obeda opined that all of the City’s employees went above and
beyond their call of duty; and provided helpful, smiling customer service; as
well as providing recognition and a sense of appreciation to volunteers
throughout the City. Ms. Obeda opined that she would hate to see the City
loose such a person, as well as hating even more loosing the identified programs,
as many are designed for families.
Ms. Obeda respectfully asked that
the City Council stop and think about what it could do the community to get rid
of these programs, opining that there would no longer be a sense of community
if those things were taken away. Ms. Obeda opined that she wouldn’t move to
Roseville under those circumstances; and that there were already a lot of homes
in Roseville that were for sale, and while young families may consider moving
to Roseville, once they find out that such programs and events were being
eliminated, they would no longer consider Roseville as a potential home.
Ms. Obeda further opined that
proposed reductions in the Police and/or Fire Department staffs could not be
valued monetarily; and talk of eliminating the part-time receptionist would be
one of the worst things possible. Ms. Obeda opined that people needed to feel
welcomed at City Hall.
Ms. Obeda provided her experience
driving home from City Hall earlier this evening and being “tailgated” by a
Roseville Police Officer, and then his apparent lack of courtesy in swerving
around her, whether she was driving too slow or not. Ms. Obeda expressed her
frustration with such flagrant disregard and suggested that his salary could be
eliminated and those funds put back in the budget for better use.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Ms. Obeda
for her continued volunteerism; with Mayor Roe concurring and asking her to
pass that appreciation on to Ed as well.
Zoe Jenkins, 2930 Fernwood
Ms. Jenkins referenced an e-mail
she’d previously sent to the City Council; and concurred with the comments of Ms.
Obeda 100%. While her brief review of City Manager Malinen’s memorandum
indicated that it was positive news, her comments were prepared before that.
Ms. Jenkins addressed the proposed cuts recommended by City Manager Malinen,
opining that she felt strongly that they took the heart right of Roseville;
eliminating what made Roseville the community it is.
Ms. Jenkins spoke in 100% support
of the City’s Police Department and Park Patrol program, of which she is a
member); opining that the first year there may be a limited awareness or any
negative impacts; however, eventually things would start to look tacky and
things become more evident. Ms. Jenkins expressed sincere concern for this
community of which she’s very supportive; opining that the City’s Police
Department was spectacular. As a citizen of Roseville, Ms. Jenkins advised
that she was more than happy to pay her fair share of the increased revenue
needs, even it if meant more taxes for her to pay each month. Ms. Jenkins
opined that “you get what you pay for,” and while cuts could be applied to
little things that didn’t seem important at the time, they would eventually
turn into big things. Ms. Jenkins stated that she was fine with the City
Council raising her taxes and would be proud to pay more; and if necessary,
expressed her willingness to pay for someone else’s taxes to keep things as
they are in the City of Roseville.
Mike Larson, Roseville resident
Mr. Larson advised that in 2009,
he and his wife were house hunting in the City of Edina, but being frequent
supporters of parades, they had come to Roseville for the annual parade, and
ended up living in Roseville based on their favorable experiences with the
community. Mr. Larson opined that the annual parade was “pretty cool,” and to
eliminate it would be yanking the very soul out of the City.
Mr. Larson opined that the
proposed reduction and/or elimination of such events and programs was nothing
less than a grandstand play. Mr. Larson opined that by cutting police services
and programs and eliminating civic pride opportunities, it would only increase
crime in the community; and would serve to require would only serve to require
additional police officers in the future. Mr. Larson stated “What’s money?;”
and opined that he didn’t need it and a lot of people in the community had deep
pockets; and rather than jumping on current national trends, things were good
in Roseville, with good schools and infrastructure, and should be maintained.
Gale Pederson, 929 West Roselawn
When first reviewing the proposed
budget, as part of her role on the City’s Advisory Parks and Recreation
Commission, she expressed her deep frustration with the recommendations of City
Manager Malinen. While recognizing Mr. Malinen’s responsibility to run the
City and the City Council’s responsibility to determine where taxpayer dollars
were spent, she opined that the community of Roseville was a huge tapestry
above and beyond just public safety needs.
As a 37-year resident of
Roseville, and long-time volunteer, Ms. Pederson noted the many budget cuts
she’d observed, a significant number applied to the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department. Ms. Pederson opined that the Parks and Recreation Department could
not afford to lose another full-time employee, with the Parks Supervisor
position remaining vacant for some time as a result of previous budget cuts.
Proposed additional cuts to the Park Improvement Program (PIP) was another
stick area in Ms. Pederson’s opinion; and noted that, at one point during her
tenure volunteering with the City, there was over $250,000 in the PIP unfunded
to meet its demands. Ms. Pederson opined that it was one of the purposes of
the Parks Master Plan process to address those things, in priority rank, which
had been put off for way too long; and she further opined that she was not
willing to take another $140,000 from that fund, further eradicating the PIP.
While not yet aware of the next implementation steps in Phase I of the Master
Plan process, pending City Council action, Ms. Pederson advised that she was
unwilling to back off any more dollars until that City Council decision was
known. Ms. Pederson noted that a lot of activities in the community keep it
going and bring in people and young families into the community. While being cognizant
of other needs throughout the community, Ms. Pederson opined that it was those
very activities proposed to be reduced or eliminated that brought people into
Roseville to experience and participate in those amenities; whether children
using park equipment and facilities, attending various recreation programs, or
families attending community events.
Ms. Pederson noted that the City
was able to continue offering clean and safe parks through the efforts of many
departments, including the City’s Fire, Police and Parks and Recreation
Departments. Ms. Pederson stated that she was willing to pay more for her
taxes; and opined that a lot of people in the community were willing to give
more monthly to keep these programs going and avoid more deep cuts.
Leslie Berry, former resident
at 2835 Merrill Street, Roseville, recently moved across Rice Street to 122
Demont Avenue E, Little Canada
Ms. Berry, while recently moving
to Little Canada, noted her long-term involvement for over twenty-one (21)
years with Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Department; and Chair of the Rose
Parade for over ten (10) years, in addition to being a member of the OVAL Task
Force and Board. Ms. Berry noted that she had been long involved in many
aspects that were of great family importance in Roseville; and opined that it
provided her with a unique aspect to what the City provided to many families in
the community as well as in the region. Ms. Berry opined that these amenities
brought safety to the area and provided multi-generational activities for whole
families, and expressed her concern that it may go away. Ms. Berry noted that
the annual Rose Parade brought 20,000 people into the community, with many
returning based on their exposure to the City at that event. Ms. Berry opined
that the Parks and Recreation programs and services held the major soul for the
community; and cited recent riots in London purported to be caused from a lack
of organization or support of youth in that particular area of London. Ms.
Berry opined that this should serve as a firm example of the need to keep
support systems in place for entire families to keep the community healthy and
the area vibrant, both in specific neighborhoods as well as throughout the
Charles Peter, 407 West County Road
Mr. Peter advised that he had
attended an event at Lake Harriett the previous evening and had been advised by
a friend and resident from the City of Eagan, that he must attend tonight’s
Roseville City Council meeting to address potential cuts or elimination of
music in the parks. Mr. Peter advised that he and friends from a vast area
were frequent attendees of music and dancing in the park; and spoke in support
of continuing those programs, in addition to the July 4th celebration.
Mr. Peter recognized the duties of the City Council and its budget constraints
especially in this current economy; however, he encouraged opportunities to
pursue public and private cooperation, as well as more vigorous volunteer recruitment
to retain these events and programs. Mr. Peter opined that they served to
enhance the quality of life in Roseville; and if the City could no longer
afford them, additional options needed to be found to continue them. Mr. Peter
spoke in support of sponsors for the events, locally and beyond Roseville
borders; along with stepping up volunteerism for them.
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N
Mr. Kysylyczyn provided a total of
four (4) bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, referenced
during his comments. Mr. Kysylyczyn reviewed his personal credentials and
background with municipal government.
Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed his
perceptions from observing a previous Council meeting and the request of
Councilmember Pust to receive additional budget details, and Finance Director Miller
or City Manager Malinen’s comments that that level of detail did not exist.
Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the City Manager-recommended budget cuts were
similar to those scare tactics used by school districts; and that was his take
on the staff memorandum dated August 8, 2011, and included as part of tonight’s
agenda packet materials. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that he found the documents
(Attachments A and B) to be personally insulting, with over half of the numbers
blank, and providing no detail as to what any of the items were for, except in
the broadest sense. Mr. Kysylyczyn further opined that this was worthless
data, while staff provided a detailed list of their recommended cuts, again
signifying a scare tactic prompting public testimony of the programs and
services they don’t want cut; and causing the City Council to try to determine
which expenditure was most important. Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that the only items
listed in detail were those staff recommended cutting, with not detail provided
on those recommended to continue; and expressed frustration that this was the
level of information provided to the public.
Mr. Kysylyczyn advised that he was
distributing budget information that had been presented to the public in 2002
for the 2003 budget, specific to the Police Department, when he was Mayor of
Roseville; with that information providing the level of detail being requested
by Councilmember Pust, as well as data from previous years for comparison
purposes. Mr. Kysylyczyn also provided an even more helpful document, a budget
worksheet for 2004, again specific to the Police Department, providing actual
fund numbers, similar or the same as those used today. Mr. Kysylyczyn advised
that this his bench handout was only ten (10) of the forty (40) pages specific
to the Police Department, but addressing the various categories, and previously
provided during his tenure as Mayor to the City Council and the public to allow
them to make determinations of where the money was going.
Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that, if the
information existed in 2003, he thought the information should be in existence
today; and he subsequently visited the City’s Finance Department, and had found
the information as her presented. Mr. Kysylyczyn provided bench handouts
consisting of budget details for 2008, 2009, and 2010 in the three page
handout; and a more substantial handout that included a general version of the
entire City budget identifying where all the money is going. If this
information as available to the public in 2002 and 2003, Mr. Kysylyczyn
questioned why is was not being used today and provided to the public;
providing for a more informed discussion and examples of where money was being
Given the hour, Mayor Roe asked
that City Manager Malinen reschedule the City Council’s Q and A session with
Department Heads for the August 22, 2011 regular business meeting.
Councilmember Willmus noted that,
two weeks ago, he had inquired about the availability of a greater level of
budget detail, and was told by staff that it didn’t exist; and expressed his
frustration that a member of the public had come forward showing him something
considerably different than provided by staff to-date. Councilmember Willmus
advised that this was the type of information he was looking for; and would
like staff to provide the information accordingly.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Councilmember Willmus’ request; and opined that she didn’t think it was a
problem with staff, but rather one of management. Councilmember McGehee opined
that she had several issues with this: the City Council was not getting the
information they needed; and the City Manager was not looking outside the box
for shared resource opportunities. Councilmember McGehee opined that no bids
for such shared resources were being brought forward to the City Council; or
other options for funding things the community wanted or ways to make the
budget process better. Councilmember McGehee opined that she was very
irritated with this budget process to-date.
Mayor Roe advised that the budget
discussion would continue at future meetings.
Councilmember Pust questioned how
Mayor Roe would like individual Councilmembers to ask questions or staff on the
documents they had provided.
Mayor Roe asked if Councilmembers
had found the most recent information provided by staff helpful (Attachments A
and B) as broken down by program, with actual for each programs in broader
terms for 2008, 2009 and 2010; and whether that information was adequate.
Councilmember Pust opined that she
would not deem information previously provided to be inadequate; but noted that
the detailed attachments were not those categories she dealt with, and while
previously provided, she didn’t retain the information; and needed it defined
for her again; and directed her questions to Mr. Miller accordingly as she
would continue to do during this budget cycle.
Mayor Roe noted again his
frustration in not having had discussions with staff earlier on in the process;
making this first public comment session lacking in sufficient detail.
Councilmember Pust questioned how
the budget process could be amended to be more effective.
Mayor Roe suggested that changes
not be implemented in the middle of this cycle, but that lessons continue to be
learned as the process proceeded.
Councilmember Pust reiterated her
question on how Mayor Roe would like to see individual Councilmembers ask their
questions; if he wanted them addressed before through e-mail with Mr. Miller,
or brought forward at the next meeting.
Mayor Roe opined that it would be
more efficient to bring any questions to staff before the next meeting; and
further opined that the level of information provided in the most recent
General Ledger report from staff added up to previous information in the
packet. If individual Councilmember felt additional information beyond that
was necessary, he asked that they request that information and if the City
Council majority felt it was necessary, that request could be made of staff.
Moving forward, Mayor Roe
suggested that this information would allow the City Council to see where
differences occurred from year to year and in which category, and any apparent
causes of that difference. Mayor Roe opined that this process had allowed the
most transparent budget process to-date, and the problem was in comparing that
data from year to year, as it had not been organized in this priority ranking
in past years. Mayor Roe clarified that staff was not saying the information
was not available, but that it was not organized in this specific format in
past years to this current budget process; and not done by these particular
broad program categories.
Finance Director Chris Miller
advised that, while not being privy at this time to the actual information
provided by Mr. Kysylyczyn to the City Council, he again reviewed how
expenditures are tracked differently than that used for the program-based
budgeting approach. Mr. Miller advised that over 150 programs had been
evaluated over the past six (6) months; and while it was accurate to say that information
for past years on a program by program basis was not available since costs were
not tracked accordingly, he wasn’t sure of what value that information would
serve for the City Council. If the information distributed by Mr. Kysylyczyn
was that cost information, Mr. Miller advised that they would not tell Councilmembers
– or the public – program information as it was not how staff tracked that
information for budget purposes; which the City Council had concurred with up
to this point. Mr. Miller opined that the better way to equate how resources
were allocated for programs was in the City Council’s priority rankings; which
was different than provided for in past budget cycles.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that
the differences were in prioritization budgeting melding with recommendations
Councilmember Willmus, in
addressing the level of detail and whether it was adequate, referenced an
example for the “Recreation Program Coordinator” position and his interest in
determining how much revenue that position generated for the City.
Mayor Roe advised that this was
exactly the type of discussion he wanted to have during the City Council’s Q
and A session with staff.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the City was budgeting in the most transparent light possible, given
Mayor Roe opined that, even with
knowing how much revenue a particular position brought in, the City Council
needed to make determinations by broader categories, not individual employees.
Councilmember Pust advised that
she was not taking any position on which way the numbers should be presented;
but was stymied by continually receiving new numbers from staff. Councilmember
Pust questioned Mr. Miller on the significance of the red numbers in Mr. Miller’s
Attachments A and B.
Mr. Miller apologized for the
confusion, noting that they meant nothing special, but provided a way for him
to track how and which numbers had changed in the last six (6) months; and
apologized that a color copy had been provided in the packet materials, opining
that they should have all been black and white.
Councilmember Willmus referenced Attachments A and B, specifically 2010 actuals
compared with the 2010 budget and apparent significant differences when he went
back to other budget documents available on line; some differences to the tune of
a hundred dollars; and questioned the difference in actual costs and how
resources were reallocated.
Mr. Miller advised that he would
need to review the 2010 Financial Report provided to the City Council in April
or May of 2011 for more detail, and to research areas where specific budgets
came in over or under budget, and the reasons for those differences. Mr.
Miller advised that sometimes grant revenues received during the year offset
costs; and a myriad of other explanations for those differences.
Mayor Roe expressed his patience
to individual Councilmembers in working through this budget process.
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at
681 Lovell Avenue
As previously noted, this item was
removed by staff as it has been resolved.
Consider Request to Issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for
Unresolved Violations of Roseville’s City Code at 1756 Chatsworth Street
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations at this single-family detached home located at 1756
Chatsworth Street, currently owned by Mr. David Battisto, currently residing at
Mr. Munson provided an update,
including pictures, of violations, consisting of an unfinished driveway that
does not have an approved hard surface installed (currently gravel); with the
hard surfaced driveway removed in approximately 2008 as part of a garage
addition building permit; with the garage having been finished, but not the
driveway. Mr. Munson advised that this is a violation of City Code, Section
703 and not a public nuisance, therefore not making the abatement process for
Public Nuisances in Section 407 an option; leaving the court citation process,
with the court anticipated to require the owner to complete the driveway
resulting in compliance with City Code.
Mr. Munson reported on the
homeowner’s response that he had no funds to complete the work; and Mr.
Munson’s observation that, as of today, the driveway work remained unfinished.
Mr. Munson advised that staff was
initially recommending the court citation process; however, new information had
come up providing for other options: 1) City Council delaying action and
allowing another year for compliance by the property owner; 2) the property
owner entering into a voluntary agreement for the City to complete the work and
assessing to the property over a four (4) year period at 8% interest, similar
to the City Abatement action taken for other nuisances; or 3) a combination of
the two for a voluntary agreement for completion of the work yet this season
and no citation issued provided the property owner came into compliance and the
issue was resolved.
Mr. Munson advised that the
property owner preferred option 2; allowing for resolution yet this year as
opposed to court action, a benefit to the City and the neighbors; however, he
noted that it would create financial impacts to the City upfront. Mr. Munson
advised that this option had only recently come up during staff discussions
with the property owner; with staff anticipating that such a resolution would
incur approximately $4,500 in upfront City funds.
Mr. Munson suggested, if the City
Council was receptive to Option 2, that the proposed motion direct staff to
enter into a voluntary, written agreement with Mr. David Battisto, or property
owner of record, for completion of the driveway at 1756 Chatsworth Street, in
accordance with Roseville’s City Code, Section 703.04.B.7, at an approximate
cost of $4,500 assessed to the property over four (4) years at 8% interest; and
if the agreement is not signed within the next sixty (60) days, a Ramsey Count
Citation be issued.
Councilmember Pust questioned City
Attorney Gaughan as to why this was not being processed as a nuisance when junk
in the driveway was considered a nuisance.
City Attorney Gaughan advised
that, upon City Attorney Bartholdi’s review of the issue, he had determined
that there may be some ambiguity in the City’s ordinance speaking to this particular
issue, and whether that section of code applied to commercial versus
Mr. Munson clarified that the
language of Section 407 referred to buildings, not conditions on site,
Councilmember Pust suggested a
change in City Code to provide that clarification.
Regarding this specific request,
Councilmember Pust questioned if the City wanted to become a bank, or use its
taxing powers to back up agreements; and questioned the legality of this
arrangement or the City getting into that type of business; opining that it may
also set a precedent for future situations or attempted negotiations by
violators of City Code.
Mayor Roe questioned if this
expense would go on taxes for payment; with Councilmember Pust responding
affirmatively, based on the proposed voluntary agreement.
Mr. Munson noted that it would be
similar to the abatement process, since it was somewhat of a nuisance, it was
being reacted to by staff in the same way.
Councilmember Pust suggested that,
if it was a nuisance, nuisance tools be used versus the new process.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Councilmember Pust.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that City Code be changed to accomplish this type of enforcement.
Mr. Munson advised that current
City Code limited resolution of this particular issue; and responded to Council
queries that there was no time deadline on this item if the City Council
preferred to delay action.
Councilmember Pust questioned if
the building of the garage, a building, had not in fact triggered the driveway,
which would then be covered by existing ordinance.
Johnson moved, Willmus TABLED
action on this item, with no specific date for further consideration.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, suspending Council Rules of
Procedure for a 10:00 curfew; and extending the meeting until 10:15 pm.
Consider Appointments to the Human Rights Commission (HRC)
A tally by individual
Councilmembers for HRC Candidates was provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, appointment
of Ms. Kristin Doneen and Mr. Wayne Groff to the Human Rights Commission for
partial terms ending March 31, 2012.
Mayor Roe thanked all applicants
and congratulated those new appointees.
Consider a Resolution to Approve the Request by Pulte Homes of
MN, LLC for Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract for Property in the NW
Corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon briefly summarized the request of Pulte Homes for approval of
a storm sewer easement vacation, final plat and public improvement contract for
residentially-zoned property at the northwest corner of Lexington Avenue and
County Road C-2 as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
August 8, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Council had unanimously
approved the Preliminary Plat for this development in March of 2011.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that
representatives of Pulte Homes were in attendance, as well as City Engineer
Councilmember McGehee noted
different street names from the first presentation to those provided in this
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, upon
much logical discussion between staff and the applicant, and further review and
recommendation by the City’s Public Safety and GIS staff to line up streets for
easier identification and emergency access, the streets had been revised as
presented for less confusion to public safety personnel and potential
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10919 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Vacation
of Storm Sewer Easement (PF11-003).
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10920 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Final
Plat of Josephine Woods and Public Improvement Contract (Attachment J)
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
Discuss Updates to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
City Engineer Debra Bloom noted
updates to the City’s current Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
adopted in 2008, as detailed in the RCA dated August 8, 2011. Ms. Bloom
advised that some of the additional language was a result of the recent MPCA
audit of the City, as well as from practical application. Ms. Bloom noted that
the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission had reviewed the
current draft and recommended approval. Ms. Bloom clarified that tonight’s
presentation was for discussion only; and no formal City Council action was
requested until a future meeting.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the proposed
changes as outlined in the redlined copy of the ordinance (Attachment A); with
fees adjusted to cover staff time from escrow funds for any additional
inspections or lack of compliance found; as well as moving the ordinance to
Section 800 of City Code in the area dealing with storm sewers; rather than in
the previous location in the City’s Zoning Code, since it was related more to
storm water permitting rather than zoning.
Discussion among Councilmembers
included the notification section (page 7, II) and whether e-mail notification
was satisfactory under law, with City Attorney Gaughan confirming that it was
satisfactory; and the need for consistency regarding such notice by the City
within 48 hours with Page 6 as well.
Ms. Bloom noted that the notice
requirement was often of the essence to address erosion control; and the City’s
proposed ordinance was consistent with federal regulations for a 48 hour
notice. Ms. Bloom duly noted additional language revisions suggested by the
City Council; and advised that cross references to other City Code references
would also be reviewed and included by staff in the next draft.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
By consensus, the City Council
determined that the HRA Chair, HRA Executive Director Trudgeon, and Housing
Coordinator Kelsey be asked to attend the housing discussion at the upcoming
City Council long-range planning meeting; but that the entire HRA Board need
not attend. Mayor Roe suggested that the housing component of the discussion
be moved up earlier in the meeting to engage HRA representatives in a timely
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Councilmember Pust advised that criteria for the City Manager
Evaluation would be available by the end of next week for the August 22, 2011
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
At the request of Councilmember McGehee
regarding the pawn shop ordinance, City Manager Malinen proposed discussion of
any amendments at the next meeting.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:17 pm.