View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 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 October: McGehee; Willmus; Pust; Johnson;
and Roe). City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.
Mayor Roe advised that, in
accordance with the City Council’s Rules of Procedure, Item 15.a entitled,
“Councilmember McGehee Request to Discuss Requirements Relating to Fire
Sprinklers and Handicapped Accessibility when Buildings are Being Rehabilitated,”
did not need to be included on tonight’s agenda. Mayor Roe noted that this
request had been suggested by Councilmember McGhee at a previous meeting and
that Councilmembers were aware of the request; and suggested that it be removed
from tonight’s agenda and brought back at a future meeting for presentation and
Councilmember McGehee concurred
that she had intended the request to seek consensus from Councilmembers for
future reference; however, she advised that she had not intended any
presentation on her part.
Regarding Consent Item 7.d
entitled, “Appoint Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner,” Councilmember
McGehee questioned if youth commissioners were simply appointed without
interview from the City Council.
City Manager Malinen advised that
applications and interviews for youth commissioners were handled by the
respective commissions or a subcommittee of commissioners, with their
recommendation for appointment then forwarded to the City Council for action.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus:
Johnson; Pust; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
Mr. Grefenberg advised, for the
record, that he had submitted to Mayor Roe a written record of his verbal
request made at last week’s City Council meeting, on behalf of the SouthWest
Area of Roseville Neighbors (SWARN). Mr. Grefenberg noted that this request,
provided as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof, was
requesting City staff to prepare a fact sheet of estimated financial impacts of
current proposals before the City Council and as related to the 2012 budget.
Mr. Grefenberg asked that this
information be provided by staff prior to the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing
related to the proposed bond issue for proposed park improvements and a new
fire station; and sought further clarification whether public comments at that
hearing would be strictly focused on the merits of the bonding proposals.
Mayor Roe advised that the Public
Hearing was for the purpose of the City’s intent to issue bonds, and comments
would preferably be confined to the City’s use of its Port Authority to issue
the bonds. However, Mayor Roe advised that, while several public comment
opportunities would be provided in November prior to the City’s adoption of its
final budget and levy in December, if the comments were related to the bond
issue and its impacts to the budget they could be heard on October 24, 2011.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if Mr. Grefenberg hadn’t also previously requested information on impacts of
the reduced Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) and if he didn’t wish to add
this to his formal written request.
Mr. Grefenberg, from his personal
perspective, advised that he would leave that up to the City Council for a
response, since he kept getting mixed messages as to how and/or if the MVHC impacted
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, City Manager Malinen advised that the MCHC may impact Roseville
taxpayers, but that it was hard to determine at this time until all values were
finalized by Ramsey County, allowing City staff to only be able to make an
estimate at this time.
Councilmember McGehee referenced a
recent article in the Minneapolis Star/Triune spelling out MVHC in general; and
further questioned why this requested information had not already been provided
by staff this week.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff was working on compiling the requested information; and anticipated that
it would be available by Wednesday of this week.
Mayor Roe suggested that instead
of attempting a date certain, Wednesday of next week be used as the intended
date. Mayor Roe briefly summarized the legislation and calculations used in
determining MVHC and recent legislation enacted during the Special Session
earlier this year. Mayor Roe advised that further discussions on any impacts
of MVHC would occur as the 2012 budget process continued.
Mr. Grefenberg advised that the
written information request dated October 13, 2011 from SWARN stood as written
Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced that Thursday,
October 27, 2011, a Farewell Ceremony was planned at Fire Station No. 1 at 7:00
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to draft
minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and
those revisions were incorporated into the draft sent to Council; with
additional comments provided by Mayor Roe as a bench handout, attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Approve Minutes of October 10, 2011 Meeting
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the October 10, 2011 meeting as submitted, along with
corrections from Mayor Roe as submitted as a bench handout.
Ayes: Willmus: Johnson;
Pust; and Roe.
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
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
64233 – 65353
Approve Business Licenses
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those
applicants as follows:
Type of License
Waste Management; 10050 Naples Street NE
Solid Waste Hauler
Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc.
5661 – 152nd Street N; Hugo, MN
Approve Ramsey County Bar Foundation Off-Site Gambling Permit
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the request of Ramsey County Bar Foundation to conduct Off-Site Gambling on
November 5, 2011, at Midland Hills Country Club, located at 2001 Fulham Street.
Appoint Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, appointment
of Chloe Boehm to serve as a Youth Representative on the Parks and Recreation
Commission until July 31, 2012.
Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final
Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2009 Contract B
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10941 entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – 2009 Contract B
Project;” and authorizing final payment of $114,243.62.
Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final
Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2010 Contract B
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10942 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance –
2010 Contract B Project;” and authorizing final payment of $64,070.25.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Consideration of the County Road C-2 Connection
Mayor Roe introduced this portion
of the agenda to the audience, noting that the City Council had received
considerable reports and responses by staff to City Council and public
information requests to-date and had also heard considerable and passionate
public comment from both supporters and non-supporters of this issue.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Engineer Debra Bloom responded to several questions brought forward, seeking
additional information, from the October 10, 2011 meeting. Those responses were
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 17, 2011.
Ms. Bloom advised that, as
previously presented by staff to the City Council, staff continued to stand by
their recommendations, as outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the RCA, whether the
City Council chose the option of not making the County Road C-2 connection, or
the option of making that connection.
Ms. Bloom advised that, no matter
the option chosen, staff was recommending the installation yet this fall of
all-way stop signs at the intersection of Merrill Street and County Road C-2 to
address the sight line issues present at that intersection, as it met warrant
criteria at this time.
Mayor Roe reminded speakers of the
five minute time limit for speakers, and reviewed protocol during public
Wayne Duescher, 951 County Road
As a 35-year resident of this area,
Mr. Duescher stated that he was opposed to opening up County Road C-2; and
noted that he had submitted written comments and a map to the City Council,
with a public copy available, which was distributed as bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereto.
Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood
Mr. McDonald expressed his
opposition to opening up County Road C-2; and asked that the City Council vote
against opening it up. Mr. McDonald opined that a vote any other way would
serve as a departure from community opinion by and large and against the goals and
strategies outlined in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community
visioning process. Mr. McDonald referenced a previous comment from
Councilmember Willmus related to the cost of opening County Road C-2 at
$131,000, with Mr. McDonald opining that staff had already told the City
Council that the total cost would be much more. Mr. McDonald further opined
that opening up County Road C-2 would not solve the issues for Josephine Road
residents related to safety; however, it would create more negatives, including
reducing pedestrian and pet safety, reduce home values, and quadruple traffic
on County Road C-2. Mr. McDonald questioned the proposed stop sign at Merrill
and C-2, opining that a stop sign wouldn’t guarantee that people would stop,
and would only serve to increase accidents at Hamline and C-2. Mr. McDonald
opined that opening C-2 would only add insult to injury, especially if the City
chose to assess residents on C-2 when Josephine Road residents were not assessed.
Suzanne Sancilio, 1221 W County
Ms. Sancilio noted that in May of
2011, the City Council spent $15,000 in unbudgeted funds for an independent
traffic study, the results of which had shown that Josephine Road was not at or
even near capacity, now in 2011; nor projected to be by 2030, with or without
opening County Road C-2.
Residents supporting opening up
C-2, “in the spirit of sharing C-2,” demanded that the City Council open C-2 in
August of 2011. In that same spirit, Ms. Sancilio advised that the residents opposed
to opening C-2 had hired a Minneapolis-based conflict resolution center to
invite all residents on both sides to a facilitated mediation session, which
residents supporting “sharing C-2” had refused to attend. Ms. Sancilio opined
that this didn’t reflect that alleged spirit of “sharing,” and therefore
provided no solution to the situation. Ms. Sancilio asked Councilmembers to address
whether an environmental review program had been investigated should C-2 be
opened, a required by the Environmental Quality Board and State Statute 116.d
to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required; and
opined that it was a disservice to Roseville citizens if the City intended to
bypass environmental, social and economic factors in their decision-making.
Ms. Sancilio noted legislation signed into law by former Governor Pawlenty
requiring “Complete Streets,” MN State Statute 351; as well as the Strategic
Vision of MnDOT for solutions for MN roadways to receive a consensus on their
purpose and need when considering improvements, as well providing alternative
transportation solutions within context-sensitive solutions. In conclusion,
Ms. Sancilio questioned how a decision to open C-2 was consistent with the
“smart growth” strategies of the City and any positive for neighborhood designs
and planning for the entire community.
Pam Newcome, “Share C-2” Group Representative
Ms. Newcome noted that a large
contingent of “Share C-2” residents were in attendance, wearing red, and asked
that they stand for recognition. Ms. Newcome reviewed the rationale of the
group seeking to open C-2, based on Roseville being a fully-developed,
first-ring suburb with limited opportunity to expand roadways in the future and
the need for a greater east/west connectivity to facilitate continued development
in the area and to address the continuing and substantial traffic increases.
Ms. Newcome noted that this was the price of progress; and opined that when
conceived, C-2 was intended as a fully operational connector as a future
scenario. Ms. Newcome further opined that Josephine Road had become a connector
by default, since the remaining 175’ of County Road C-2 had not been opened,
which had created issues related to park access, significant pedestrian and
bicycle traffic, and safety concerns for children on Josephine Road – all being
realized by those residents as stated as concerns of C-2 residents in not
supporting opening C-2. Ms. Newcome noted that staff had prepared two
different scenarios to address safety concerns with the steep road grade design
on C-2. While no one wishes more traffic on their neighbor, Ms. Newcome opined
that this was the price of progress; and noted that, even though this was
characterized as a dispute between two neighborhood group, the situation had a
much broader impact, with evidence of a cross-section of Roseville residents believing
that opening C-2 was in the interest of the broader community and the next
step for the community to move into the future. Ms. Newcome opined that, with
privileges come responsibilities, and that now was the time to look to the
future and open C-2, since there would never be a better or more fiscally-responsible
time to do so with the Josephine Woods redevelopment for connecting the
remaining 175’ of C-2; and prepare Roseville for a bright and prosperous future.
Mr. Yi He, 1144 County Road C-2
(just east of Lexington)
Mr. He provided his perspective of
those living on C-2, himself included, and the stress related to this ongoing
discussion of opening C-2; in addition to the fighting of friends, neighbors
and community members. Mr. He addressed the inconveniences already being
realized with dump trucks operating from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the
Josephine Woods construction; and continuing concerns about the unknowns over
the last 6-7 months during this discussion opening C-2; and the possibility of
affected C-2 residents being assessed for the opening. Mr. He noted the
reductions already in property values due to the economy since 2008, opining
that his family doesn’t mind paying their fair share in City taxes; however,
they were 100% opposed to a wasteful project such as opening C-2 with that tax
money as well as the negative impact it would create to the community. Mr. He
opined that two traffic studies clearly indicated that opening C-2 would have minimal
reduction on Josephine Road traffic, while significantly increasing traffic on
C-2; and scientific studies indicated that there would be minimal improvements
in travel time with this additional east/west connection. Mr. He further
opined that a stop sign at Merrill and C-2 would not solve the blind intersection
issue. Mr. He implored the City Council to go beyond the staff recommendation
and permanently vacate the 175’ section of C-2; opining that a common solution
to traffic issues on Josephine Road would never be found, and by opening C-2,
it would only further divide the community.
Mr. Chris LaPalm, 2891 Merrill
Mr. LaPalm provided several
visuals from the HRA’s “Living Smarter” campaign, including the website and
banners, designed to attract the next generation of Roseville residents moving
into the community. Mr. LaPalm opined that opening C-2 was the antithesis of a
living smarter campaign; and that opening C-2 would destroy his neighborhood.
Mr. LaPalm opined that the City Council has a fantastic opportunity to make
sure “Living Smarter” is not just a campaign, but a guide to the future of Roseville;
and that if they chose to open C-2, they needed to change the banner to show,
similar to his mocked-up samples, the negatives of such an action, increasing
traffic congestion similar to freeway congestion. Mr. LaPalm noted that the
traffic studies indicated there was no need for opening C-2, since east/west
traffic was not now nor would it be higher in the future.
Stewart Shwiff, 1233 Josephine
Mr. Shwiff thanked the City
Council for their due diligence in understanding the issues; and provided the
history of C-2, opining that this 175’ of C-2 affected thousands of people
daily, not just those living on that section; and spoke in support of opening
C-2 to serve its intended purpose as a collector road, opening up C-2 for the
best long-term interest of the greater Roseville community as a collector road.
Mr. Shwiff questioned why Josephine Road and other Roseville roads should be
forced to carry C-2 traffic, when all were neighbors and had obligations to
each other. Mr. Shwiff noted that the “Share C-2” group had only asked
throughout this discussion that Josephine Road residents be treated equitably.
Mr. Shwiff referenced his personal discussions with road crews trying to clear
snow from the C-2 cul-de-sac; concerns of the retail community attempting to
keep their business viable in the current economic market; and countless zoning
changes made to keep Roseville moving forward. In the aggregate, Mr. Shwiff
opined that opening C-2 as a collector between Lexington and Hamline Avenues
was the next step, and urged the City Council to make the right decision by opening
C-2 in the most cost-effective way possible, by including it in the Josephine
Woods redevelopment project.
Jeff Strobeck, 1297 County Road
Mr. Strobeck opined that opening C-2
was not valid and not wanted, and summarized his comments made at previous meeting.
Mr. Strobeck opined that there was huge opposition to opening C-2 from C-2 and
neighboring residents, represented by the 200 name petition the City Council
has on file. Mr. Strobeck advised that opening C-2 would serve to degrade
safety and livability, increase traffic volumes, and was not a prudent use of
funds during a time of declining property values and in a depressed economy; with
the creation of another thoroughfare only further decreasing property values.
Mr. Strobeck paraphrased the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Households and Neighborhoods
Section, Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 and 2.3. Mr. Strobeck respectfully asked that
the City Council vote “no” on opening C-2.
Donna Miliotis, 1128 County
Ms. Miliotis noted the many
opinions expressed tonight, but a lack of theme in using facts; and opined that
much of the data used was now obsolete and had been replaced with Metropolitan
Council data in 2007 and 2010 census data, superseding the 2005 data used in
the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. Ms.
Miliotis opined that Roseville had retained a steady population, not an
increase, nor a decrease as found in communities surrounding the City. Ms.
Miliotis further noted the increase in gas prices, decreased area traffic, and
no significant support from the traffic studies that would support any need for
an additional east/west connection over the next twenty years. Ms. Miliotis
questioned if there was any factual proof of a traffic volume or safety issue problem
on Josephine Road or whether it was simply a perception issue. Ms. Miliotis
questioned what documented problem a C-2 connection would solve and how it
would improve the C-2 neighborhood. Ms. Miliotis opined that the goals
established during the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive
Plan Steering Committee volunteers, had been made prior to this current
economic climate; and advised that C-2 residents were middle-class and were not
looking for ways to spend extra money, but were in reality dealing with the
current economy, job loss and rapidly declining property values, and could not
afford to take a gamble for an offset from new homes being built at Josephine
Woods possibly increasing those home values. Ms. Miliotis noted the previous
hit to the neighborhood twenty years ago when the Lexington Apartments were
built making that area the highest density area in Roseville; with the
neighborhood managing to preserve the character of their neighborhood; but
questioned if it could take another significant hit if C-2 were to open. Ms.
Miliotis respectfully asked that the City Council vacate the C-2 right-of-way
and save what was left of their neighborhood.
Joan Carrier, 1040 West County
Road C-2 (East of Lexington Avenue)
Ms. Carrier opined that this
request was not City Council or City staff initiated, and asked that the City
consider the environment by not pushing any more traffic through the City or
allow some residents to push additional traffic onto other neighborhoods. Ms.
Carrier suggested that the City consider a comprehensive project review for the
entire City, not a piecemeal approach. Ms. Carrier noted that a lot of people,
as well as wildlife, used the pathways on the east side of Lexington through
the Open Space; and that it should be retained for safety. Ms. Carrier
questioned if Pulte Homes would support opening C-2 to through traffic when
they were trying to market higher-end valued homes in Josephine Woods and
opening C-2 may make it harder to market the homes at those higher values. Ms.
Carrier asked that, if the City Council voted to open C-2, they dovetail it
with the already-in-progress Josephine Woods development. Ms. Carrier opined
that there may not be as much of a reduction in traffic on Josephine Road as
people think, since only a short delay in commute time was projected, and
people would probably revert back to their original routes. Ms. Carrier opined
that the largest cost was to the taxpayers, and that money should be used on
things needed more important, as well as not adding to the increases already
being faced by residents with significant increases to water and sewer fees;
with this only adding yet another cost.
Mei Chen, 1144 County Road C-2
Ms. Chen urged the City Council to
vote “no” to opening C-2; and to further permanently vacate the right-of-way
that had never been constructed. Ms. Chen noted, for the audience, that
keeping C-2 closed was the request that maintained the status quo, with no
additional tax monies being spent, and not creating any traffic problem now or
in the future; as well as the recommendation of staff. Ms. Chen opined that
vacating the right-of-way was the right thing to do and would provide a
permanent solution for homeowners near this segment and eliminate the periodic
request of Josephine Road homeowners. Ms. Chen opined that opening C-2 would
serve to further reduce home values on C-2, with those residents having
everything to lose through such an action, and nothing to win. Ms. Chen opined
that, either way, Josephine Road residents had nothing to lose. Ms. Chen asked
that the City Council make their decision based on factual data from the two
traffic studies, and support C-2 homeowners and their heartfelt love of their
homes and community, and that their neighborhood not be destroyed.
Ilene Stanley, 1456 Sexton
Ms. Stanley noted that she was not
a resident of the neighborhood; however, she did support opening C-2 for
residents and those traversing the community who had difficulty finding their
way through Roseville since so many of the streets weren’t connected and were
only broken segments. Ms. Stanley noted that she consistently deals with
people turning around in her driveway when they realize a road doesn’t go
through; and opined that the Josephine Woods redevelopment should have been
used as a catalyst to open C-2. Ms. Stanley reviewed the other options for
east/west connectivity, and the difficulties with those routes. As the City
continued to develop, Ms. Stanley opined that, for the betterment of the whole
community, opening C-2 would increase access points across town; and was not
specific to Josephine Road or C-2 residents; and was not a “we” against “them”
situation, but simply part of the City as a whole continuing to develop.
Liz Harper 2068 Merrill Street
Ms. Harper referenced
Councilmember Johnson’s comments from last week’s City Council meeting about
the need for more east/west connections; however, after her review of the
City’s online mapping system, she opined that she couldn’t find that concept
compelling enough to open C-2 to through traffic. Ms. Harper questioned if the
City wanted to destroy a Roseville neighborhood to give commuters another
east/west travel option, and guiding people away from businesses along County
Road C. Ms. Harper opined that there was no justification to destroying a
neighborhood for that option.
Mitchell, Linda, 2852 Huron Street
(4 houses south of county road c-2
If the point is to get additional
east/west connectivity, Ms. Mitchell questioned why additional lanes weren’t
added to County Road C, rather than this attempted solution. Ms. Mitchell advised
that there were congestion issues on County Road C, as well as in front of the
High School, and since those were two main thoroughfares through the community,
it didn’t make sense to her to not increase capacity on those two roads. Ms.
Mitchell further opined that Josephine Road was not unlike other metropolitan
roads around a lake that experienced excessive traffic.
Patricia Rantanen, 2846
Ms. Rantanen advised that she had
spoken to several City Councilmembers since last week’s meeting, and had some
additional thoughts on design capacity standards on MSA roads, and whether they
were set by the state. Ms. Rantanen opined that, if C-2 were opened, it would
totally disregard design standards for MSA roads. Ms. Rantanen opined that it
would cost approximately $1 million for a project to open C-2 safely; and that
this was not in the budget, nor was it on any priority documents or resident
survey documents. Ms. Rantanen further opined that if this money was going to
be spent that it be taken out of reserves; however, she spoke in support of
using funds for projects that would benefit the greater community, such as walkability,
through installation of sidewalks on those streets currently without them; and
through addressing traffic congestion in front of Roseville Area High School –
both better projects and uses of $1 million than this project.
Bob Henniker, 1241 County Road
Mr. Henniker spoke in opposition
to opening C-2; opining that there could be accidents on the steep hill on C-2
daily; and questioned why this issue kept coming up when he thought it was a
Ms. Siri Peterson (Husband:
Tyler), 1020 West County Road C-2
Ms. Peterson noted the long-term
family-owned home of her parents, and her family’s moving back into that home
due to the quality of life in Roseville from its educational facilities and
other amenities. However, Ms. Peterson advised that her one frustration was
the City Council allowing this issue to continue as long as it had, serving to
create further neighborhood battles. While hearing people say they wanted to
“share,” Ms. Peterson opined that they weren’t doing so; and through their
blatant wearing of red for solidarity tonight, it served as additional evidence
supporting their unwillingness to share. Ms. Peterson opined that, if opening
C-2 was the right decision, it would have been made by now; and even though
money was spent on traffic studies supporting not opening C-2, the City and
neighborhoods seemed to be stuck in a parliamentary procedure quagmire, even
though there was a clear consensus that opening C-2 was not the right solution.
Ms. Peterson opined that there were other things that needed to be considered
to address the shared issues and concerns: speed issues and home value depreciation
all beyond whether the road opens or not. Ms. Peterson opined that this
ongoing debate about opening C-2 didn’t seem like a solution, and on paper, it
didn’t look like a solution.
Chuck Stokes, 2825 North Griggs
Mr. Stokes, after listening to
comments this evening, questioned if the City of Roseville was “living
smarter,” or “stuck on stupid.” Mr. Stokes opined that there were other common
sense solutions on Josephine Road that would not destroy the C-2 neighborhood,
even though he had no opinion one way or the other on whether to open C-2 or
not. Mr. Stokes disagreed with Ms. Bloom’s previous comment that installing a
stop sign didn’t make people stop; opining that City of St. Paul neighborhoods
were a prime example, with stop signs every two blocks to meet current traffic
needs and moving forward from past practices and habits. Mr. Stokes opined
that the idea of opening C-2 without exploring methods to deter or slow traffic
off Josephine road proved a fine example of “stuck on stupid;” and suggested
that whether the final decision was to open C-2 or not, that the City Council
stop deliberations and decision-making for now and determine what options were
available to divert traffic to streets where it should be, like B-2 and C, and
other streets not running directly through neighborhoods. Mr. Stokes advised
that he didn’t want Josephine Road to have any additional traffic; however, he
expressed his confidence that if the Councilmembers put their heads together,
they could test various options, since he wasn’t confident that opening C-2
will solve the problem. Mr. Stokes opined that by reviewing other alternatives
and possibilities, the City Council would be “living smarter;” and further
opined that Roseville should not be a pass-through community, whether it was convenient
or not. Mr. Stokes opined that, if you live here long enough, you figure out
how to get along; and further opined that by the City Council taking a step
back to see if the problem on Josephine Road could be solved, it wouldn’t hurt
anything; and it if worked, it could be used in other neighborhoods facing
similar issues. Mr. Stokes opined that it would avoid future frustration in
the future in this issue continuing to surface.
Amy Robinson, 2011 Josephine Road
Ms. Robinson asked the City
Council to make a courageous vote for the future or Roseville, not just today,
by voting “yes’ to open C-2 to attract those younger families being sought in
Ms. Nilanjana Baneroi, 1303 W
County Road C-2
Ms. Baneroi opined that, if C-2
opens up, it will change their family’s lifestyle and that of their pets, who
are used to the cul-de-sac; and further opined that their option would be to
move away, an option available to their family, but not to all families seeking
another cul-de-sac to live on. Before voting tonight, Ms. Baneroi encouraged
Councilmembers to think deeply about their decision.
Mayor Roe closed public comment
and this time and thanked everyone for their comments. After a brief recess,
Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would return for deliberation on the
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:54 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:03 pm.
Staff response to public
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Bloom responded to questions from the public.
Related to the number of lanes on County Road C, Ms. Bloom
advised that when County Road C was constructed, the project design was for a
five lane road, since county construction projects were done about every 100
years, and the thought process to build it up to a five lane capacity if found
needed in the future. Ms. Bloom advised that, with few exceptions, and those
mostly the result of backups on Highway 36, Ms. Bloom opined that traffic on C
moved pretty well with the current design between Hamline and Lexington
Related to MSA design standards, Ms. Bloom noted the solutions as
presented by staff to the City Council were not changing those design standards,
but providing mitigation design options, mostly through additional signage. In
order to qualify as an MSA designated street, or requested by staff to be included
on the list of MSA designated streets, Ms. Bloom advised that those streets
needed to have higher traffic volumes and serve as collectors. Ms. Bloom concurred
that the C-2 disconnect designated as a collector street was based on the
right-of-way connection of the two segments, since the plat went in, and even
with the Lexington Apartment development, the right-of-way continued to be
dedicated for that future connection.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Ms. Bloom responded to public questioned related to environmental
issues and a process or procedure for development projects, through those projects
meeting certain thresholds to determine if an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) was required to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was indicated. Ms. Bloom advised that neither a C-2 project would nor
the Josephine Woods development project had triggered that threshold.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if staff had checked with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to see if the
Josephine Woods project met those thresholds; with Ms. Bloom deferring to the
City Attorney for a response.
City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi
concurred that, to his knowledge, thresholds for the Josephine Woods project
had not been met, nor would they be met for this 175’ segment of roadway.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Bloom advised that, as part of the feasibility and design stages, if and when a
project was ordered by the City Council, staff would proceed through that assessment
process, including environmental steps, as a statutory requirement of that
Chapter 429 process.
Mayor Roe questioned the process
for environmental review should the City Council order a project and decide to
fund it other than through assessments; with Ms. Bloom responding that, while
staff would review all the issues in a comparable process, it would not be
required through a state-mandated process.
While other projects were
discussed to determine their similarities and whether environmental thresholds
were triggers, Councilmember McGehee opined that those other examples were not
in areas with a DNR wetland immediately adjacent to them.
Mayor Roe summarized the options
available to the City Council, as detailed in the Request for Council Action
(RCA) dated October 17, 2011; and sought individual City Councilmember comment.
provided a background of his thought process throughout this entire discussion
from 1989 when the Lexington Apartments and K-Mart discussion were going on
through George Reiling development companies; and his thought that the development
of 350 units for the Lexington Apartments was too intense of a use of that parcel.
Councilmember Willmus opined that the existence of those uses today resulted
from those discussions, with single-family homes built along the C-2
right-of-way and cul-de-sac, and high-density housing and the small commercial
strip adjacent to Woodhill. At that time, Councilmember Willmus opined that
the genesis of the idea was created with the perception that the street would
be vacated without retaining the right-of-way. Councilmember Willmus noted
that this was not true, since a condition of the original Planned Unit
Development (PUD) agreement with Mr. Reiling was that, if the City chose to
vacate the right-of-way, Mr. Reiling would not contest that vacation.
Ultimately, Councilmember Willmus advised, the motion to vacate the
right-of-way failed on a 3/2 vote of the City Council, and the right-of-way remained
in existence yet today; with the intents of the C-2 design by Ramsey County for
the it to be completed in phases over time, with eventual connection of C-2 to
move traffic east/west from Snelling Avenue to Victoria Street.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the issue continued to come up today, and periodically since 1989: whether to
open C-2 or not. Prior to the most recent traffic study, Councilmember Willmus
stated that he thought that opening up C-2 was absolutely the right thing to
After receiving the most recent traffic study, and mitigation options and scenarios
in that study, Councilmember Willmus advised that it wasn’t completely apparent
to him that this was something that those individuals affected would have a
voice in. Councilmember Willmus noted this was a concern. In his continuing
analysis of the traffic study and overall city-wide and regional traffic
issues, as well as the conclusions drawn from the traffic study, Councilmember
Willmus stated that it became apparent to him that connecting C-2 would serve
to improve traffic flow for the area. Councilmember Willmus noted that the
traffic study showed 300 vehicle trips per day that would utilize C-2 over
Woodhill or Josephine Road for access to the neighborhood. Councilmember
Willmus noted that the traffic study showed that connecting C-2 would not have
a significant impact on area intersections, and that a connected C-2 was more
efficient, better for the environment, and able to move cars from point a to b
in a more efficient manner.
While not taking the initiative to
lead the charge, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council owed it to
the community to find a resolution to this ongoing issue: whether by opening C-2
or by vacating the right-of-way; and personally opined that C-2 should be
opened, and if consensus was that it not be opened, he intended to put forward
a motion to vacate the C-2 right-of-way.
Councilmember Pust noted
her interest in Councilmember Willmus’ reference to the traffic study and the
residents who had also poured over it to find support for their positions.
However, Councilmember Pust expressed her frustration that the study area had
not been larger to include County Road C, the only east/west connector in that
area; but in retrospect took responsibility for it not being larger, since
staff had only done what the City Council directed them to do. Councilmember
Pust opined that this would address traffic concerns on County Road C; and
opined that she wasn’t too concerned with traffic on Josephine Road, but she
was with County Road C based on her observations from her daily commute on
County Road C, indicating that traffic had not decreased as stated during public
Based on the limitations of the
study, however unfortunate, Councilmember Pust noted that the City was where
they were today; however, she agreed with another public speaker who said the
City Council needed to “do something,” and not keep kicking the can down the
Councilmember McGehee, as a
supporter of safe neighborhoods, expressed her belief that disconnected streets
served to enhance that safety; and based on her review of maps, opined that
there were more than enough east/west and north/south connections within and
throughout the City. Based on the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee stated
that she didn’t support the perception that opening C-2 would alleviate
existing problems on Josephine Road, or perceived problems; and concurred with
the public comment that there is no problem at all in reality, since none of
the studies documented any problem. Councilmember McGehee opined that the
City Council was actually dealing with a neighborhood request to open a street
as a supposed and possible solution to a problem they believe they have in
having more traffic on their street than they believe they should have or
studies support. Whether that is a fact or not, however, Councilmember McGehee
opined that Josephine Road was carrying less traffic than it is built to carry;
and actually less than many roads in Roseville are currently carrying.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she didn’t believe County Road C-2 should be opened; and thought the City
should “live smarter,” citing the difference temporarily closing Wheeler Avenue
had made, and read written testimony from a resident on Wheeler to that
effect. Councilmember McGehee further opined that some neighborhoods, like the
residents on C-2 and people with young families, should remain neighborhoods
and kept safe. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of asking Ramsey County
to widen County Road C, allowing it to become a larger collector; and also
supported talking about other alternatives to address traffic and speeding
issues. When she was originally contacted about traffic and speeding problems
on Josephine Road, Councilmember McGehee noted that she had suggested a number
of alternatives to alleviate those issues on Josephine Road; however, she was
met with comments that those suggestions would prove “inconvenient” to
Josephine Road residents.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
any efforts to balance traffic were not viable, given the construction of the
Pulte Homes development at Josephine Woods, which already provided a link
between Lexington Avenue and C-2 with Hamline Avenue; even though that route is
slower and more difficult, it could still be accomplished.
Councilmember Johnson observed
that this had been a lengthy process for residents and the City Council; and
recognized that everyone was passionate and sincere about their homes, their
sense of community, and their neighborhoods; all of which had touched him.
However, Councilmember Johnson noted that he was also touched by the other
33,000 voters in the community and their needs.
While remaining sensitive to the
passion about County Road C-2 and Josephine Road concerns, Councilmember
Johnson concurred with Councilmember Pust’s observations and conclusions of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee previously referenced on the serious
traffic congestion during peak hours resulting from Highway 36 commuter traffic
and difficulty in getting traffic through Roseville from east to west,
resulting in that traffic disseminating into neighborhood streets.
Councilmember Johnson advised that with C-2 not being connected, it created one
less east/west connector at a key point of the day that he would like to have
available, and opined was needed.
Councilmember Johnson concurred
with Councilmember Pust’s regrets that the most recent traffic study didn’t reflect
traffic coming off Highway 36 during peak points of the day. Councilmember
Johnson stated that this was a difficult decision, as he had friends in the
community on both sides of the issue; creating a lot of stress in making a
decision. However, Councilmember Johnson stated that he needed to look at the
need of the greater community; and what C-2 was initially designed to do:
handle traffic from Hamline Avenue to Victoria Street; and advised that he
could not understand the disconnect.
Mayor Roe concurred with
Councilmember Johnson that this had been a difficult issue for all
Councilmembers to work through. As a technical person and engineer, Mayor Roe
stated that he could understand the Ramsey County grid system for the road when
initial work was done, with C-2 being one of those connectors. Mayor Roe
advised that he also understood current realities, with C-2 not making the
connection across the City. However, Mayor Roe noted other similar roads with
obstacles, whether Lake Owasso, the Twin Lakes Area, Snelling Avenue
north/south traffic during peak hours, that are also a reality.
Mayor Roe noted opined that, if
done correctly from the beginning, C-2 should have been connected; however, he
needed to keep in mind his philosophy as an elected official to “do no harm.” While
the level of actual harm may be debatable for the overall community, Mayor Roe
opined that opening C-2 would create significant change to one neighborhood;
and questioned how he would respond if it were his neighborhood. Mayor Roe
opined that neighborhoods in Roseville were very important, and that while safe
streets are also of high value, the City needed to make sure that less value
was not assigned to neighborhoods versus streets.
Mayor Roe noted that it may be
necessary to look at restriping County Road C, since it was built to address
future traffic issues; and noted his understanding that the backups were
created from Highway 36 congestions that impacted east/west road, of which the
City had several; they all took that impact as well. In an effort to consider
solutions seriously in terms of not continuing to be “stupid,” Mayor Roe
suggested discussions with MnDOT on solutions for Highway 36 in the first
place. Mayor Roe noted that MnDOT was currently studying the feasibility of
high occupancy vehicle lanes (bus lanes); and that a park and ride facility
was underway in Little Canada at Rice Street and Highway 36 to address
westbound traffic before if got to Roseville. Mayor Roe opined that those
mitigation efforts should be reviewed before looking at opening C-2. If
between Hamline and Victoria, Mayor Roe questioned if he’d use C-2; and
questioned if the benefit of opening C-2 was a reality or only a perception,
even as much as it had been advertised. Mayor Roe noted that costs don’t
weight the benefits from a county-wide view; and the traffic study indications
that only 5% of the vehicle traffic between Lexington and Hamline on County
Road C would divert to County Road C-2. Mayor Roe reiterated that there were
other ways to be explored to handle that issue beyond opening C-2 and to
address that diversion.
Councilmember Pust reviewed
her understanding of the most recent traffic study, excluding County Road C
traffic, and the 800 vehicles estimated from the regional traffic study using
County Road C.
Councilmember Pust opined that she
had learned from the public that reasonable people could and would differ,
especially when talking about their homes, neighborhoods and families. Councilmember
Pust expressed her hope that residents remembered that and admitted it to
themselves; opining that it was important for everyone to keep that in mind.
Councilmember Pust clarified that she and fellow Councilmembers served only
because they, like other residents, cared about their communities, not to make
enemies of their neighbors. However, Councilmember Pust recognized that half
of the audience would leave tonight mad, while the other half would be happy;
and asked that, at some point, they remembered that the democratic process was
the best process available, allowing opportunities for residents to express themselves;
as the City Council had professionally and politely listened to comments on
Councilmember Pust admitted that
some of the concerns she’d heard had made sense to her, while others did not;
and noted that the statement that this issue was brought forward by citizens,
not the City Council or staff, was the most appropriate process and a positive
thing. Councilmember Pust noted that a lot of issues brought to the City
Council were related to neighborhood traffic; and while not living on County
Road C at Dale Street, she did drive it, and that area was safer now because
those citizens came forward, for the betterment of the entire community, in
seeking the safety mitigation improvements. Councilmember Pust also noted that
concerns voices and taken into consideration from citizens living in apartments
at Highway 36 and Rice and their concerns about sight lines and impacts to
their property values. As a City Council, Councilmember Pust noted that they
took those concerns into their deliberations and actions; and noted that those
residents in that area also took a hit for the entire community in dealing with
those changes. While many other examples were available, Councilmember Pust advised
that Councilmembers as individuals and collectively had to wade through all of
the issues; while neighbors in attendance had come to represent their personal
or neighborhood views with a common bond, which was also appropriate.
While a project to connect County
Road C-2 was indeed not budgeted as brought up by a speaker earlier tonight,
Councilmember Pust noted that a lot of things not included on the City’s line
item budget were done; and noted that the City had available to it MSA funds if
they wanted to use it to defer other projects already listed as higher
priorities. Councilmember Pust noted that no one was supporting raising taxes
to do such a project.
Councilmember Pust strongly
disagreed with the argument expressed by some that additional traffic wasn’t
wanted in their neighborhood and should be left on other streets; while noting
that residents of those neighborhoods feel that they’re already doing their
share and taking enough of the burden. Councilmember Pust opined that the real
concern expressed, that opening C-2 would significantly change their
neighborhood and change traffic levels and patterns if opened, would be
accurate. Councilmember Pust opined that those residents would need to make a
decision on what they intended to do about those changes, such as needing to retrain
their children and/or pets, just as others have done or will need to do.
Regarding what problem this is
solving, Councilmember Pust opined that opening C-2 would serve to solve a
community-wide traffic problem in Roseville, which was part of the City
Council’s job to solve; and that this particular traffic problem had to do with
there not being enough east/west connectors to move traffic, and since C-2 was
intended to be connected, it made sense to her to connect it.
Councilmember Pust opined that
such action would also address the increasing traffic on County Road C,
recognizing that it was probably caused by Highway 36 congestion, but further
opined that the City Council could not solve all problems everywhere by simply
putting up barriers like it had done on Wheeler. Councilmember Pust opined
that this issue was not about commuters from neighboring suburbs from using
Roseville streets; this was about getting Roseville traffic to work better.
Councilmember Pust noted, in her
review of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the huge improvements planned
for neighborhood parks in this area, which would be funded by the entire
community; and how unfair it would be to the overall community of Roseville to ask
them to invest in those parks, while not providing a way to access those
In the best long-term
efforts of the City Councilmember Pust moved, and Councilmember Willmus
seconded, to connect County Road C-2, as detailed in Scenario One (connect
roadways between Griggs and Dunlap Street) in the Request for Council Action
(RCA) dated October 17, 2011; to do so in this fiscal, not necessarily
calendar, year at the discretion of staff and as logistically possible; to use
Minnesota State Aid (MSA)-designated funds for this project; to install a
concrete sidewalk at the additional costs as outlined on page 3 of the RCA;
that the project be paid through MSA funds with no assessment to adjoining
property owners; that stop signs be installed as needed; AND that the project
be coordinated with the Pulte Homes development to extent possible and feasible
and if not logistically possible, that the project be done or completed in
At the request of Mayor Roe
regarding the fiscal year, Ms. Bloom responded that the state funds were based
on the calendar year, ending December 31, 2011; creating the need to proceed
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she would not support this motion; and concurred with Mayor Roe in “doing no
harm;” and to leave things as they are served to “do no harm. Councilmember
McGhee opined that there was no need to harm the existing neighborhood; and no
benefit to the larger community. Based on her 30 year experience as a
Roseville resident, Councilmember McGehee opined that she had not seen a
traffic increase, and actually thought it was decreasing, even without the
current push for more transit options, and future needs for less vehicular
traffic. Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no need to do this at
this time; and that if Councilmember Pust was not satisfied with the funding
and study that she had proposed, and her alleging that the City Council had not
done its due diligence, it only served as further evidence that the City Council
should do nothing, since there was nothing to indicate that the overall
community needed this connection.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission was
currently studying traffic management throughout the City, as well as the
Public Works Department work plan currently evaluating and rating all city
streets. If anything was done, Councilmember McGehee opined that the most
reasonable thing to do would be to delay or defer action to let those groups
complete their work and make a recommendation to the City Council with those
comprehensive plans, never done to-date in Roseville. Councilmember McGehee
opined that there was no reason to rush into this, and no need to do any harm;
but that C-2 should remain closed, with the City not vacating its right-of-way.
Mayor Roe stated that he couldn’t
agree with Councilmember McGehee more in finding fault with the study, but then
proceeding without further study. Mayor Roe opined that this bothered him; and
while he might have been supporting of proposing area people time to adjust
their lives or rearrange them accordingly in a certain amount of time, he could
not support doing so immediately, when the evaluations as referenced by
Councilmember McGehee were in process, and this action was seeking to move
forward without the benefit of that analysis in place.
Mayor Roe opined that he was very
concerned with not taking into account increased lanes on County Road C, since
it had been built accordingly, in addition to the things happening with Highway
36 that he had referenced that would address impacts to traffic on other
east/west connectors and related areas. Mayor Roe stated that he was unable to
support the motion as currently stated.
Councilmember Pust reiterated that
she respected the differing views of all parties, whether those citizens in the
audience or at the dais; and asked that Councilmembers vote their conscious.
Ayes: Willmus: Johnson; and
Nays: McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe thanked the audience and
those speaking tonight; and asked that the neighborhood make efforts to connect
with each other and work together. Mayor Roe asked that any additional
comments be taken up with Councilmembers outside the meeting; or during the
Public Comment portion of future meeting agendas.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:58 p.m.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
Discussion on the Use of the City Port Authority
Finance Director Chris Miller and
Mary L. Ippel, Briggs and Morgan, City Bond Counsel, were present for this item
and in response to specific questions raised by the City Council and the public
at the October 10, 2011 City Council meeting.
Mr. Miller noted that the agenda
packet included a letter dated September 29, 2011 from Ms. Ippel to City staff,
and specifically referenced Section 1.(c) of page two on Port Authority descriptions
and implementation in this case; with staff’s recommendations in accordance
with that statutory authority. Mr. Miller advised that Ms. Ippel would respond
to additional questions beyond those addressed in the letter.
Councilmember McGehee asked if the
City had been granted Port Authority powers.
Mary L. Ippel, Briggs and
Morgan, City Bond Counsel
Ms. Ippel responded that the
powers were not as a separate legal entity, but that the City itself was
granted the powers that would otherwise rest with a port authority.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if, under that arrangement, the City could establish as separate body.
Ms. Ippel stated that, no, the
City only had the powers of a Port Authority, specific to the City Council, as
part of legislations in the 1980’s for a number of cities requesting that power
to establish or given those use of those powers; with different legislation
drafted that either allowed the City to establish Port Authority or granted
those powers; and in the City of Roseville’s case, the City was granted Port
Councilmember Pust asked for the
historical context in which Roseville asked for that power.
Ms. Ippel responded that, while
she was unsure of the specific project at the time, the City requested those
powers and the legislature granted it in many cases. Ms. Ippel advised that,
to her knowledge, 1990 was the first time the City utilized it with the NCR Comten
project, for financial assistance to retain and add jobs; and also to purchase
land that was used for parks. Ms. Ippel noted that as part of that first Port
Authority project in Roseville, the City had also adopted a Redevelopment Plan
and developed into parks and in 1991, that area was enlarged and the City put
together a loan program for the purpose of providing rehabilitative improvements
to single-family and multi-family housing in the City, using its Port Authority
powers and incorporating redevelopment powers under the State’s HRA law.
Mayor Roe confirmed that this was
prior to the City establishing its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA);
which was estimated by Councilmember Pust to be established in approximately
Ms. Ippel advised that the City’s
HRA also had powers as well as the City Council under the HRA powers and under
its mission under Port Authority law.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
what the City’s overall bonding capacity was, given its current outstanding
Mr. Miller responded that the City
could issue up to $89 million worth of debt, based on its taxable level under
Ms. Ippel noted that this bond
issue under Port Authority would be excluded from the City’s debt limit, or any
other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived, with revenues
generated from recreational facilities not taken into account. Ms. Ippel
noted, for example, that the City Hall didn’t count against the City’s debt
capacity, since it didn’t generate revenue; and even a fire station is a public
convenience even though revenue can be received. In Minnesota, Ms. Ippel advised
that more important and what controlled the debt was how the rating agencies
took into consideration how much debt a City should have rather than how much
the City could finance.
Councilmember Pust questioned what
those rating agencies think a city should have in debt.
Mr. Miller responded that there
was no straight answer, given a number of variables, and while he would never
recommend that the City carry $89 million in debt, the City’s debt load would
be a factor, based on the City’s ability to repay that debt over the next 20-30
years as rating agencies reviewed the City now and in the future.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller responded that the City currently had $11 million in debt.
Councilmember Pust noted that this
was before the additional $19 million and $8 million; with Mr. Miller responding
that this was true, however to bear in mind that the City would continue to pay
down those debts, even though they would spike in three years, but then
continue to diminish.
Councilmember McGehee sought
clarification on the difference in General Obligation (GO) bonds issued under
or not under the City’s Port Authority; with Mr. Miller advising that a
straight GO bond was about as straightforward for a bond issue as possible, and
had fewer administrative and upfront costs as other issues, such as found with
a Park Abatement Bond.
As staff responded to City Council
directive to issue bonds and to do so without a voter referendum, Mr. Miller
advised that staff reviewed all options and returned with this recommendation
as previously outlined in staff reports, and in Ms. Ippel’s letter.
Ms. Ippel clarified reverse
referendum disparities and requirements of this proposed bond issue at the
request of Councilmember McGehee; and questions of Councilmember Pust related
to categories covered by Port Authority laws and circumstances allowing the
City to use those powers.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if staff had met the official notice requirements for holding the Public
Hearing at the October 24, 2011 meeting; with Mr. Miller responding
affirmatively; and at the request of Mayor Roe, confirming that the purpose of
the bond issue had been included in that official notice.
Mayor Roe asked if there was
anything preventing the City from holding public comment on each $10 million
issue over the course of the process; while recognizing the statutory requirement
of holding the initial Public Hearing on October 24, 2011; and thus allowing
public comment along the way.
Mr. Miller advised that the public
could speak and the City Council solicit feedback at any public meeting; and
reviewed the purpose behind the upcoming Public Hearing prior to the three (3)
actions the City Council will be considering and asked to take action on next
week. Mr. Miller advised that those actions would be: to establish or confirm
the City’s Port Authority powers; to set a bond sale date; and to amend the
Mayor Roe recommended establishing
formal public hearing procedures for each of the three additional scheduled
issuance dates; with staff directed to duly note this directive.
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
directing staff to memorialize the directive to provide a formal Public Hearing
and public comment opportunity for each bond issuance moving forward.
Further discussion among Mr.
Miller, Ms. Ippel and Councilmembers included the need to get this process
completed by December 31, 2011 to ensure the bond issue was bank qualified.
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N
Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed his
concern with tonight’s discussion, and his clarification with Ms. Ippel prior
to that discussion on whether the issue was based on net tax capacity or market
value, with the issue being based on net tax capacity, which would provide a
payback schedule leaning more toward commercial than straight market value for
Ms. Ippel clarified that the law
had in the past always been based on net tax capacity, until modified to say if
an election, the levy was based on market value, which had been subsequently
repealed; with all General Obligation bonds now based on tax capacity.
Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed concern
that the City actually had Port Authority powers, based on his review of the
laws that he’d distributed at last week’s meeting; and further concerns that
the City could use that power to issue bonds in the future without ever seeking
to do so based on a voter referendums. Mr. Kysylyczyn suggested that this
meant that, essentially, voter referendums in the City of Roseville will no
longer be required, and optional in the future; creating a brand new public
policy affecting the City as long as these statutes remain in effect. Mr. Kysylyczyn
cautioned that this could mean that three members of the City Council, with
little public notice, could take the City into indebtedness; a dangerous and
precedent-setting change for the City.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember McGehee Request to Discuss Requirements Relating to
Fire Sprinklers and Handicapped Accessibility when Buildings are being Rehabilitated
As previously noted, this item
will be brought forward for discussion at a later date.
Councilmember Pust requested future
agenda discussion about the administrative piece of the annual budget as it
relates to the recent contract with Ramsey County to administer elections; and
other budget changes that may or may not affect that portion of the City‘s
Recess and Reconvene in
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Bartholdi reviewed statutory authority for the City Council to hold
closed meetings to consider strategies for employee labor negotiations,
accepted under the Open Meeting Law, with discussions limited to those
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
recessing the meeting at approximately 9:35 p.m. to move into Closed Executive
Session to consider strategies for labor negotiations, in accordance with
Minnesota Statute §13D.03 of the Open Meeting Law.
Mayor Roe convened the City Council
in Closed Executive Session at approximately 9:40 PM.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to
recess the Closed Executive Session and reconvene the meeting in Open Session
in the City Hall Maple Room at approximately 10:00 p.m. for the purpose of
considering a motion to extend the meeting past the 10:00 PM curfew.
Motion to Extend Meeting (10:00
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to
extend the meeting 15 minutes.
Motion to Return to Closed
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to
recess the Open Session and return to a Closed Executive Session to continue
discussion of strategies for labor negotiations.
Closed Discussion of Strategies
for Labor Negotiations
Mayor Roe re-convened the City
Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 10:00 pm.
Motion to Adjourn Closed Session
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to
adjourn the Closed Executive Session at 10:25 pm.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Johnson;
Pust; and Roe.
Closed Executive Session
participants included Mayor Roe, Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus, Johnson and
Pust, City Attorney Bartholdi, City Manager Malinen and Human Resources Manager
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the regular meeting at approximately 10:25 pm.