View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 14, 2012


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 May: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.  Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus was excused from tonight’s meeting, due to a conflict.


2.         Approve Agenda

Staff requested removal from tonight’s agenda of Agenda Item 9.a entitled, “Amend Rental Registration Ordinance.”   Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.g entitled, “Approve Strategic Directives” for discussion.


McGehee moved, Pust seconded, approval of the agenda was approved as amended.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

            Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.


4.            Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Mayor Roe announced, for the public’s information, that the Wal-mart proposal was scheduled for next Monday’s business agenda.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.            Proclaim May as Older Americans Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation honoring older adults and the professionals, family members and volunteers who care for them.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming May as Older American Month in the City of Roseville.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

            Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of April 23, 2012 Meeting

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 23, 2012 meeting as amended.



·         Page 1, Line 38 (Roe)

Specify term of appointment for Mr. Vandervegt ending March 31, 2015.

·         Page 2, Line 22 (Roe)

Add additional Roll Call indicating all “Ayes 5/0.”


                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


7.            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 Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.    


ACH Payments


66057 – 66228





Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:



Type of License

Red Clover Clinic, Inc.; 2233 N Hamline Avenue, Suite 301

Massage Therapist


JC Penney Corp., Inc.

Massage Therapist


Jenna Tomlinson at Massage Envy

Roseville, Suite 120; 2480 Fairview Avenue

Massage Therapist

Anita Teigen at Red Clover Clinic; 2233 N Hamline Avenue, Suite 301

Massage Therapist

Croix Oil Company; 2151 N Dale Street

Gasoline Station

Croix Oil Company, 2151 N Dale Street

Cigarette/Tobacco Products


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented in detail on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated  April 23, 2012.






Public Works

Metro Count

6 traffic counters



Ferguson Waterworks

Water meter radio equipment



Lano Equipment

Kubota Tractor


Building Maintenance

McCaren Design Inc.

City Hall Campus lawn and plant care



Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


d.            Award Bid for Josephine Lift Station

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, award of contract to Minger Construction, Inc. of Chanhassen, MN for reconstruction of the Josephine Sanitary Sewer Lift Station in an amount not to exceed $212,290.75.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


e.            Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

A revised resolution, with Attachment B (List of affected properties) was provided as a bench handout.


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10983 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2013 or beyond.”


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


f.             Approve a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2012 Sealcoat Contract

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10979 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2012 Sealcoat Program;” to Pearson Brothers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $185,584.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


h.            Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence the One Year Warranty Period on the Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10980 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements;” accepting the completed work, initiating the one-year warranty, and authorizing final payment that includes two (2) project change orders due to unforeseen circumstances in the field.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


i.             Designate Municipal Representatives to Roseville Firefighter Relief Association

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that in the future, this designation would be included with other organizational business at the City Council’s first meeting held annually in January.


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10981 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Designating the Mayor and City Manager as Municipal Representatives to the Firefighter relief Association.”


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


g.            Approve Strategic Directives

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated May 14, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee offered several suggestions subsequent to her review of the draft provided by staff.  Councilmember McGehee recognized the desire for a lead department for each directive; however, she stressed the importance of encouraging department cooperation and responsibility for various items, indicated below.


Strategic Directive 1 – Welcoming, Inclusive and Respectful (page 1)

Councilmember McGehee suggested that the second goal to implement a stakeholders group be assigned equally to both the Fire and Police Department, since they both had extensive outreach into the community.


Strategic Directive 2 – Safe and Law-Abiding (page 1)

Councilmember McGehee requested including the Finance Department in this since they were involved in firefighter pay and benefit packages.


Strategic Directive 3 – Long-Term Goal, fostering redevelopment (page 2)

Councilmember McGehee suggested that this work be in partnership with the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) in selling Roseville as a destination and to participate in that economic development goal, since they already had numerous marketing materials available.


Strategic Directive 4 – Long-Term Goal, stabilizing property tax rates (page 2)

Councilmember McGehee opined that this should include all departments.


Strategic Directive 5 – Environment (page 3)

Councilmember McGehee opined that this wasn’t just the Public Works Department, but all departments, including the Community Development, Parks & Recreation and Administration Departments.


Strategic Directive 6 – Healthy Community, Long-Term Goal, Partnerships and Connections (page 3)

Councilmember McGehee suggested all departments should be involved.


Strategic Directive 7 – Well-Connected, Short-term Goal #3  (page 4)

Councilmember McGehee again noted the need for shared responsibility among departments for improving existing paths and trails, as well as the build out of others.


Councilmember McGehee suggested the addition of sustainability of storm water, drinking water and sanitary sewer infrastructure in this section or wherever applicable.


Strategic Directive 8 – Engaged Community and Volunteers (page 4)

Councilmember McGehee expressed concern in the type of communication efforts currently being used and the need to improve those communication efforts in a style requested by and meaningful to citizens, including the current list-serve.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the Parks and Recreation Department already had a volunteer incentive program, given their large contingent of volunteers.  However, Councilmember McGehee said she thought the City Council had budgeted this past year for the express purpose of supporting a volunteer management program, as part of the bond funding.


Mayor Roe, as well as City Manager Malinen, did not recall discussions in that manner, noting that it was not part of the current budget, or bond funds to their knowledge, should be discussed moving forward. Mayor Roe did acknowledge that it had been discussed, but was not budgeted for in the current budget.


Strategic Directive 8 – Organizational Mission, Short-term Goal 4, Employee Compensation Structure (page 5)

Councilmember McGehee suggested striking “united” and “even” from this item.  Councilmember McGehee questioned the intent of the long-term succession leadership training and development.


City Manager Malinen advised that this was intended for all departments as part of the Human Resources tasks.



Strategic Goal V, page 3 (continued)

Mayor Roe suggested language regarding the tiered water and sewer rate structure for residential and commercial users be revised to “explore” only, not “implement,” since he recalled that implementation required additional City Council discussion. Councilmember McGehee said it was also her recollection that the Council agreed to explore tiered water rates, but that the Council did not agree to implement the system.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen clarified staff’s intent that each of the directives would include multiple lead departments.  As this draft was reviewed by all Department Heads, it was their understanding that while one department would take the lead, ongoing collaboration and cooperation would be presumed, as always, in putting programming together, but that one department would take the responsibility to further it.  City Manager Malinen advised that the intent was more for internal designation, since ultimately these directives will drive individual department strategic plans, with seven (7) departments developing the next level of strategies and avoiding similar or repetitive strategies.  While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s concerns, Mr. Malinen opined that he would prefer to leave one department as the lead, while recognizing that all departments are involved and collaborating to some extent.

Councilmember Johnson agreed with staff’s philosophy for a lead department, opining that otherwise it would be a convoluted process without apparent or recognizable leadership.  Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember McGehee that all strategies impacted all departments; however, from staff’s perspective, someone needed to take the lead.  Toward that effort, Councilmember Johnson asked that Councilmember McGehee review the items to ensure proper leadership was in place.


Councilmember McGehee, from that perspective, concurred that it appeared that leadership was in place; however, she wanted it to be very clear that if one department was not taking responsibility to forward a directive, other departments could provide input.


Councilmember McGehee noted that several entries already contained two lead departments.



Mayor Roe suggested to City Manager Malinen that staff add an additional category listing other participating departments, while continuing to designate the lead department separately.


Regarding Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion (page 4) regarding sustainability of the City’s infrastructure (e.g. sewer system), Mayor Roe noted that the CIP Task Force had included that as a work plan item for 2011, with the first of two rate changes part of that process and recognizing the importance of maintaining the stability of the City’s infrastructure system.  Mayor Roe noted that new items would continue to be added moving forward.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, even with the long-term CIP, the City was still experiencing multiple sewer back-ups annually; and expressed her concern that the public remain aware of the ongoing maintenance challenges faced by the City and its fifty (50) year-old infrastructure and required funds to repair, improve, or replace it.


Mayor Roe noted that the CIP attempted to address those ongoing concerns; and hoped to see fewer issues as maintenance issues were addressed.  Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember McGehee’s concerns fell under the need for “improved communication with residents” strategy.


Under “communications,” Mayor Roe suggested the addition of “e-communications” as an additional category, one that would include the City’s list-serve); and suggested removal of “meaningful” from that statement.


Councilmember McGehee suggested replacing “meaningful” with “useful” or a similar word, opining that the City had a lot of different types of communication, but they may not always serve the needs or goals desired.


Mayor Roe suggested that it fell under the category of “improved,” making additional wording repetitive and unnecessary.


Regarding employee compensation, Councilmember Johnson advised that he was fine with removing the word “united.”


At the request of Mayor Roe regarding “implementation” of a tiered rate structure, Councilmembers concurred that this had not been agreed upon, and Mayor Roe suggested that “implement” be removed or “possibly” implement be substituted.


Mayor Roe noted an additional typographical error on page 4, short-term item 3 correcting “connect.”


McGehee moved, Pust seconded, approval of strategic directives, as amended.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


a.            Joint Meeting with Planning Commission

Mayor Roe welcomed Commissioners and asked that they introduce themselves.  All Planning Commissioners present: Chair Daniel Boerigter; Vice  Chair John Gisselquist; and Commissioners Jeff Lester; Peter Strohmeier; Michael Boguszewski; Jim Olson; and Shannon Cunningham.


Commissioners and Planning staff had prepared a memorandum listing their activities and accomplishments; intended work plan for the coming year; and several questions or concerns for discussion with the City Council; all detailed in the staff report dated May 14, 2012 and included in meeting materials.


Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area

Regarding Planning Commission concerns over the last seven years with the Twin lakes Redevelopment Area, Mayor Roe noted that the Comprehensive Plan update and new Zoning Code were recent documents; and questioned areas of particular strategies or implementation devices of particular concern.


Vice Chair Gisselquist advised that, while this discussion may be premature until the City Council heard and deliberated the Wal-mart proposal at next week’s meeting, the Planning Commission struggled with the controversy of such types of development and/or redevelopment, since they were guided by the documents referenced and at the Commission’s disposal.  Commissioner Gisselquist noted that a concern of the Commission was that the Twin Lakes Study was older than the Comprehensive Plan itself, and questioned if it remained viable or had become obsolete or needed changing based on current circumstances, including the economy.  Commissioner Gisselquist questioned if the Commission should “wait and see” the outcome of the Wal-mart discussion and City Council decision, or if further refinement of documents required more flexibility for the future of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area in today’s reality.


Chair Boerigter noted that the Commission was questioning if there was a need, at some point in the near future, for the City Council to become more pro-active in developing the area since it didn’t seem to be happening, and hadn’t happened over the last thirty (30) years, suggesting that more may be needed than the “wait and see” approach of determining if proposed developments fit in that redevelopment area; or whether the City needed to spend money to foster additional development.  Chair Boerigter noted that, to-date, nothing beyond Wal-mart had gotten this far at Twin Lakes; and questioned if the City needed to be more aggressive; or if not, how the Planning Commission could serve to help accomplish development in the Twin Lakes area through recommendations on land use and zoning issues.


Commissioner Strohmeier noted that his had been the only dissenting vote on the Commission in approving the Wal-mart Plat proposal; in addition to his difficulty in supporting past votes on the Twin Lakes Regulating Map.  From his perspective, Commissioner Strohmeier advised that the type of urban design with buildings at lines and minimal setbacks, had been unfamiliar to him, and he opined that they attempted to make the area more restrictive, and not allowing for the original Twin Lakes Study Plan buffers and protection of open space, while still fostering development. 


Councilmember Johnson asked Commissioner Strohmeier his specific concerns and opposition to the Wal-mart proposal.


Commissioner Strohmeier advised that, as a local government, it should be governed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, its Zoning Code, and City Code, as well as any other singular district plans attached to the Comprehensive Plan.  In his research, Commissioner Strohmeier opined that he was concerned about things listed in the Comprehensive Plan, including sustainable living wage jobs and quality of life; and the Planning Commission’s use of its discretion on over-arching goals.  Commissioner Strohmeier noted that he respected the viewpoint of the Commission majority.



At the request of Mayor Roe, remaining Commissioners declined to comment on their personal positions in supporting the Wal-mart proposal.


Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the history of the Twin Lakes area, and the City’s past active development role in seeking a Master Development process in 2005 for an overall plan for the entire area to follow the City’s objective, as well as the demise and ineffectiveness of that role.


Councilmember Johnson concurred, noting the significant cost to the City; and asked Commissioners for their thoughts on that previous process, timing of the current process, and if and/or how to take advantage of the current economic situation.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, when first looking at the allocation plan and regulating map, she had suggested further review and had asked the Planning Department if they had brought together landowners from that area to seek their input and ideas as potential developers, and what they would like to see develop, knowing what the City preferred.  Councilmember McGehee opined that those preferences included other housing options, additional green space, alternate (Class A) office space, and a corporate campus of some type.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that they be consulted now for their input as a group, since they had a vested interest in what developed or didn’t develop there, which had been made clear in their lawsuit about infrastructure allocation fees.


Commissioner Boguszewski opined that, in his few discussions with owners, they were basically desperate to sell their properties; and he personally questioned if there were any ideas there.  Regarding Class A office space as an example, Commissioner Boguszewski noted that, despite efforts of the City to reach out and offer enticements to companies, there may be no private business interested in Class A office space on that site.  Commissioner Boguszewski advised that there may be some things that the City simply couldn’t overcome, whether due to the interstate and/or rail line in the immediate vicinity serving as detriments versus enhancing development, even if the City was to offer tax incentives.  Commissioner Boguszewski opined that he disagreed that Wal-mart was a detriment to citizens, even though his research had shown that in some instances it could be, he noted a similar number of developments where it had been a positive influence.  From his perspective, Commissioner Boguszewski opined that the Comprehensive Plan was not clear, and while many visions had been articulated in many different ways over the years, the regulating map provided yet another way to facilitate development of this area.  However, absent any real idea or business while deliberating the regulating map and plan, Commissioner Boguszewski opined that he felt the design standards were forced, and creating very little that could be found against the Wal-mart proposal.  Even if the parameters were clear, Commissioner Boguszewski opined that there would apparently remain strong controversy in the community.


Councilmember Pust apologized, noting that she needed to leave the meeting for a short time to distribute scholarships at the Roseville Area High School, leaving at approximately 6:58 p.m.

Councilmember McGehee opined that the Twin Lakes Study was an historical document, and if review of the Vista 2000 document was done, it would be found that people in general didn’t support any additional retail in Roseville; instead preferring head of household jobs, and Class A office space.  Councilmember McGehee advised that these statements went as far back as the late 1990’s, including housing stock gaps needing to be addressed that included high-end housing and loft-type designed housing.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the location of Twin Lakes with respect to the Minneapolis corridor and as a tight, inner-ring suburb, positioned as a perfect place for accommodating that needed housing.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that, if the Planning Commission felt that vision was not clear enough, additional input could be sought.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not opposed to the City taking a more aggressive role and offering tax incentives; however, she had voted against the regulating map as it was too rigid and didn’t achieve the right direction that could be accomplished through Planned Unit Development with new urbanism.  Councilmember McGehee agreed that the City had been quiet in any development/redevelopment role, even though there had been substantial discussion over the last thirty (30) years.  Based on her personal discussions with private developers in Roseville and in other communities, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was not an impossibility to get Community, Mixed Use retail businesses with housing if the City wanted it.


Mayor Roe, in considering the role of the City, opined that the question was when to pull the trigger, noting that the Master Developer option of the past didn’t happen, which could have been due to the economy.  Mayor Roe questioned if it made sense to return to a similar process now, whether through involvement with existing property owners or interested citizens, noting the significant number of models available; but expressing concern in how to determine when was the right time.


Councilmember Johnson, from his perspective, and countering Councilmember McGehee’s comments, opined that in a room full of Roseville residents, there would be drastically different takes on what the Roseville business community should look like.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the previous events and lack of super-majority vote in 2001 on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment, as well as subsequent lawsuits filed by a vocal minority of disgruntled citizens had halted any progress in the Twin Lakes area.  As a result, Councilmember Johnson further opined that there were now nine (9) property owners in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area who didn’t trust the City or Roseville citizens, undermining their sense of comfort and confidence in moving forward.  From their perspective, Councilmember Johnson opined that the last thing he’d listen to was an organized plan from the City or City staff after what they’d been through.  Instead, Councilmember Johnson opined that in their shoes, he’d make any deal he could that met the City’s Zoning and City Codes.  Councilmember Johnson stated that he was as frustrated as the land owners; noting the additional stress of the economic downturn.  Councilmember Johnson questioned how the City could approach the landowners with a marketing proposal to move forward that would overcome their sense of insecurity.  Councilmember Johnson sought input from Planning Commissioners.


Chair Boerigter noted that there is one (1) landowner with a proposal – Wal-mart – and when you ask the property owners what they want, this is one response; having nothing to do with marketing, simply dollars.  If a Class A office complex or loft-type housing was desired, Chair Boerigter suggested that it would take more than marketing flyers to reach that goal, it would require “putting your money where your mouth is;” not just touting it and marketing it as a great spot.  Chair Boerigter disagreed that it was clear what everyone wanted; and that the Regulating Map was simply the most current document available, along with referencing the other studies and documents.  Chair Boerigter noted that it wasn’t that long ago that the regulating map was discussed and approved, representing the City’s vision of what should be developed in Twin Lakes; recognizing that not everyone would probably agree with it.


Mayor Roe noted that the City’s vision included a combination of the Twin Lakes Regulating Map, definition of Community Mixed Use and other documents.


Commissioner Boguszewski concurred, noting that the Regulating Map served as a useful, meaningful communication issue.


Mayor Roe noted that the Twin Lakes area of the City came with a lot of history, and that history may not be accurate from all perspectives, whether property owners, residents, City Council, or others.  However, Mayor Roe noted communication being directed to him from residents questioning why the City Council didn’t approve the Costco proposal.  Mayor Roe noted that the City Council DID approve it, but it didn’t come to fruition due to other issues.


Councilmember Johnson noted that the Comprehensive Plan stakeholder committee approved that concept or concept for the Twin Lakes area as well in their majority reports; and acknowledged receipt of the minority report as well.  Councilmember Johnson opined that any development considered by the City related raised community concerns and questions, a totally legitimate part of the process.  However, Councilmember Johnson opined that a determination was needed on how to move forward, noting previous discussion tonight on long-term goals of fostering development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area, and whether that needed to be moved to a short-term goal, with serious discussions among the Planning Commission and City Council, staff and other stakeholders, for a more detailed framework, as well as funding options or incentives while recognizing the limited resources of the City and past history of not spending more money after bad.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it made sense to have that discussion considering that the development economy was not going exceptionally well at this time.


Vice Chair Gisselquist opined that the Twin Lakes issue was not going to be solved; however, he expressed appreciation for tonight’s debate and his understanding that the confusion was not only his.  Vice Chair Gisselquist recognized the anguish of business owners in that area, and the implications for them and their heirs.  From his perspective in considering the lack of clarity for the Regulating Map and the history of past documents and studies, Vice Chair Gisselquist stated that he remained unsure of the City’s advocacy or role in developing the area; however, he saw business as usual unless the City chose to do something drastic.


Councilmember Johnson opined that one successful development in the area may foster others; and then the Regulating Map would guide additional development, and anticipated a burst of development subsequent to the first one.


Commissioner Boguszewski concurred with Councilmember Johnson.


Mayor Roe, noting the historical trend in other areas, opined that it made sense to look at strategies and what the City was willing to do as a community to move forward, whether financially, organizationally, or with more concrete guidelines.   Referencing the comments of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mayor Roe concurred that, given the age of the Twin Lakes Study in 2001 (or 1999 at its inception), it may be prudent to review it and update it, to ensure its objectives and the location of and rationale for development are sufficiently addressed.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she was open to suggestions; and had previously asked Community Development Director Trudgeon to come forward with figures for purchase of some parcels in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Johnson for the need to initiate something; however, she cautioned that if the City started with the wrong thing, it may prove detrimental to the City.  If talking about tax increment financing (TIF) or other investment of public monies, Councilmember McGehee opined that there was a need to provide leadership and a basis for a good tax base return to residents of Roseville, and goes beyond “break even” or does not become a drain on the community.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not opposed to TIF as long as it provided an economic return for citizens.


Commissioner Boguszewski opined that the Planning Commission was in agreement, as long as there was a net gain for the City.


Mayor Roe noted, in a recent legislative study, that single-family homes were actually a net loss to a community based on their actual value.  In the future, Mayor Roe suggested that a more detailed discussion be pursued among Commissioners, the City Council and staff specific to Twin Lakes issues and ideas.


Retail Community / City cap on Off-Sale Liquor Licenses

Regarding potential developers, Commissioner Boguszewski noted the limitations of liquor licenses of interest to some developers.


Mayor Roe advised that he had been approached personally by property owners and developers regarding the limits of off-sale licensing; and their suggestions that the City consider limiting licenses on a city-wide versus regional business area, such as in the Rosedale area.  Mayor Roe noted past discussions and neighborhood concerns, negative impacts to neighborhoods and schools, and the need to remain aware of those legitimate concerns.  However, Mayor Roe opined that it may make sense to consider additional licensing in more intense commercial areas, and offered his willingness to consider such an option.


Councilmember Johnson noted the current cap of ten (10) off-sale licenses in the City; and while understanding the popularity of that model, referenced his knowledge of one (1) license holder who kept sporadic business hours, and didn’t seem to maintain any legitimate efforts in keeping normal shop hours, but instead appeared to be simply sitting on one of the licenses.  


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that the City could add regulations as to hours and other stipulations could be tied to applications, as long as they were regulated across the board for all off-sale liquor stores and not discriminatory to one business. 


Discussion among Commissioners and Councilmembers related to this issue included the unintended consequence in cost to get into the market place and number of available licenses; lack of clarity in the original rationale in defining the maximum licenses available; respect for and protection of small business owners; lack of desire to become known as the retail liquor center for the northern suburbs; impacts to some retailers interested in developing in Roseville but stymied due to the lack of off-sale licenses available; and state statutes that apply to City practices and codes for issuing off-sale licenses.


Councilmember Johnson sought statistical information from other communities based on their maximum number of licenses per capita compared with that of Roseville.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the maximum cap may have been established at the time the City vacated involvement in a municipal liquor store.


Commissioner Boguszewski questioned how Roseville’s current population compared with that when this maximum number of licenses was established and if there was a statistical formula in use.


At the suggestion of Councilmember McGehee to restrict licenses to specific businesses to be located in specific regional business areas, City Attorney Gaughan advised that this was not legal, since it would be inappropriate for the City to hold a license for a particular entity, opening the City up to litigation from other businesses.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that the City needed a maximum number of licenses, but could not attached any names to that number.


Councilmember Johnson volunteered to personally research licenses in other communities per capita, and return to the City Council with the results of that research.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it bore further review, especially given economic changes and restraints realized by some businesses now compared to when the limit was first established. 


Mayor Roe noted that, if the rationale was to protect small business owners, there was no such restriction on the number of book stores or other retailers in the community.  Mayor Roe opined that he didn’t want to make the limit based on business protection, but based on the health, safety and welfare of the community.


Councilmember Johnson noted that there was no limit to on-sale establishments.


City Manager Malinen noted the need to be cognizant of liquor stores operating immediately beyond the boundaries of Roseville (e.g. Saint Anthony Village and the City of Little Canada) who share boundaries with the City of Roseville, with stores located just on the other side of the street, making the regional marketplace larger than the ten (10) licenses in Roseville.


Chair Boerigter noted the need to consider the City’s demographics and unique retail environment and location compared with population as well as it determined a maximum number of licenses.  Given the amount of retail in Roseville, Chair Boerigter opined that Roseville may not compare to other bedroom communities.  Chair Boerigter noted that the City also retained great discretion in issuing licenses, and could do so based on location and could be restrictive in handing them out rather than specifically designating who could qualify for one.


Councilmember Johnson concurred, suggesting that he was considering daytime versus nighttime population as well in that market.


Mayor Roe opined that there was a need to clearly establish that criteria, and not base award of licenses on a political or arbitrary basis.


Councilmember Johnson opined that all of these issues were good points to consider.


Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember Johnson for volunteering to do further research, based on demographics and comparables to Roseville; and suggested the regional area immediately surrounding the Mall of America may provide interesting statistics as well.


Mayor Roe thanked Commissioners for their attendance; and for the very productive discussion.


14.         Public Hearings


a.            Consider Minor Subdivision at 1938 Gluek Lane

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this request for creation of one (1) additional residential parcel, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.


Discussion included removal of the existing storage shed as a condition of approval; establishment of the property line by the property owner, and its location not quite perpendicular as addressed by City Code; publish notice provided in accordance with State Statute and City Code; tree preservation monitored by staff and in compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance; and correction in Section 5.4 when referencing a 50’ easement for a pond, that this was an error carried over from a previous case and not applicable to this request.


A representative of the property owner was present but had no additional comment.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against


Approve Minor Subdivision at 1937 Gluek Lane

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed MINOR SUBDIVISION at  1937 Gluek Lane based on the input received during the public hearing and the comments and findings of Sections 4-5 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated May 14, 2012, dated May 14, 2012; amended to delete references to a pond in Section 5.4 of the RCA, not applicable to this property.


While recognizing that the property line was not perpendicular to the road right-of-way as preferred based on previous City Council discussions, Mayor Roe noted that the line was substantially perpendicular, even though he would have preferred it to meet the letter of the law, he would support the motion.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had reached a conclusion similar to that of Mayor Roe, that the line was substantially in compliant and was consistent with other lot lines in the neighborhood, bordering a very broad curve in the roadway.  At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke advised that the line would be substantially radial to the curve and met code requirements.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she had no issue with whether the lot line was perpendicular or not; opining that the subdivision made for two reasonable lots; and her only concern was that the shed needed to be moved.


Councilmember McGehee also raised the issue of the tree preservation of the willow as stated in the materials.  Mr. Paschke stated that he was responsible for the protection of the identified tree.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the trees, specifically oaks, in the Pulte Homes division did not have their roots adequately protected and will die.  Mayor Roe ruled Councilmember McGehee’s comments off topic and ended the discussion.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


b.            Consider Extending Working Hours for the 2012 Pavement Management Project (PMP)

City Engineer Debra Bloom briefly summarized the request for a variance in working hours for 2012 PMP work, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.  While not a part of the original contract, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was supportive of the request to minimize disruption to area business and to achieve a good end product.  Ms. Bloom noted that affected businesses and residents had been legally noticed by mail, along with published notice in accordance with State Statute and City Code.


Councilmember Pust recognized the need to balance efficiencies and quality of the work product; as well as the need to treat all the same.  Since she had yet to see one of these variances not approved, Councilmember Pust questioned if staff could not screen them at the staff level, or recommend changes to the City’s current ordinance.


Ms. Bloom advised that, if this was in a residential area, staff would not have brought it forward.  However, since it was not strictly in a bedroom neighborhood and was in an area of a majority of business, Ms. Bloom opined that the request was reasonable.  Ms. Bloom advised that she fielded a considerable number of complaints from residents with contractors starting before 7:00 a.m., and advised that she used this Code section for enforcement repeatedly, reminding contractors that they couldn’t work before or after those time parameters without a variance.  Ms. Bloom advised that this allowed for gentle nudging from staff to those contractors; and noted the repeated efforts of the Police Department in ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the ordinance.


Councilmember McGehee asked if there had been any feedback from residents in the southern section of the PMP area, Ms. Bloom responded that none had been heard to-date.


Discussion included preferences of the contractor to achieve efficiencies and how and when to mobilize equipment; staff’s notification one or more times to those affected property owners with specific dates and times to minimize their disruption and inconvenience; and probable milling during daylight and/or early evening hours and working around the dinner rush, with staff estimating approximately four (4) hours to mill the section of roadway.


At the request of Mayor Roe regarding any more restrictions that may be needed, Ms. Bloom acknowledged that when trucks were running in front of a residence, it would always be disruptive; however, she didn’t recommend any other restrictions, asking that the City Council not be too proscriptive and allow staff some flexibility to address specific issues from a common sense perspective as the project proceeded.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom accepted the suggestion that the motion include language specific to minimize disruption on the West Snelling Service Drive.


Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against


Consider Extending Working Hours for the 2012 Pavement Management Project

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the VARIANCE to extend working hours for the 2012 Pavement Management Project (PMP); amended to strongly suggest that the contractor be advised by staff to keep distraction at a minimum for residents along the West Snelling Service Drive.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


c.            Consider Byerly’s On-Site Liquor License

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012; noting that staff recommended approval of the request.


John Hauer, General Manager, Byerly’s representative was present; and his only comment was that the purpose of the request was for their pursuit of running a catering operation from the Roseville store, with no selling intended from the store.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that he was unaware of any liquor license violations in the past from this applicant.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against


Approve Byerly’s On-Site Liquor License

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Byerly’s Inc. application request for On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License located at 1600 W County Road C.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


d.                    Adopt a Comprehensive Performance Management Program

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this latest draft of a Comprehensive Performance Management Program, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.


At the request of Mayor Roe and for the benefit of the public, Mr. Miller displayed and briefly reviewed the history and background of this effort consisting of seven (7) basic principles of performance management with an emphasis on continual and consistent improvement across the board.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller also reviewed the biennial calendars, starting with the 2013 calendar as year one of the process in the upcoming biennial budget process (pages 5 and 6 of Attachment A to the report).  Mr. Miller noted that the odd numbered years, serving as year 1 in 2013, provided the ability to annually examine trends and any necessary adjustments that were indicated, as well as statutory requirements to be implemented.


At the request of Mayor Roe for the 2012 (year 2) calendar for strategic planning, Mr. Miller addressed rationale in its location in year 2 as it is tied to the CIP and long-term vision (page 8) setting a role in budget priorities for the next year and ensuring funding requirements were in place to meet certain goals, or if not practical or feasible, reprioritize or defer specific goals as applicable.


City Manager Malinen noted that this also allowed, in a biennial budget process, one year devoted to strategic planning (year 2) versus budget planning done in the first year.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was very happy with the document, and thanked staff for their nice condensation of long form presentations.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that under “Survey and Community Visioning Process” (page 4), additional forums for community input be included to receive citizen stakeholder comments.


Mr. Miller advised that this list was not intended to be all inclusive of every available option to gather citizen participation in an annual cycle, and noted that there were many planning processes not listed and outside the realm of this biennial process.  Mr. Miller advised that the intent of this document was to provide for a broader, visioning process for resource allocation, but not directly linked to budget allocation.


Councilmember McGehee inquired how the City could measure their areas of focus; Mr. Miller responded that this would be a Council decision to make, with staff providing guidance.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the Cobalt Survey process did not seem to provide the performance measurement capabilities desired to allow citizens to provide adequate input to their elected officials regarding goal achievement.  She opined that she would prefer a survey instrument that was more local so that the Council would be able to see how Roseville did relative to other metro cities.


Mr. Miller clarified that the intent of this document was simply on a conceptual level, and was not intended to identify a level or dictate a type of survey.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the devil was in the details; and while this was a very good plan, the City Council would need to be cognizant of those details moving forward.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10982 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Adopting the 2012-2013 Performance Management Program;” amended to include under “Budget and Program Priorities” (page 10) language indicating that the “addition or removal of programs should be considered prior to the City Council’s ranking exercise.”

                                      Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


Mayor Roe and Councilmembers expressed appreciation to Mr. Miller for his work; with Mr. Miller in turn recognizing City Manager Malinen and Department Heads for their participation and efforts as well.


e.                    Award Contracts for Fire Station Construction Contract for Bid Package


Fire Chief Tim O’Neill presented bids received for site/earth work, utilities, building foundation, and paving, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for contingencies, opining that the City had sufficient reserves, whether or not additional litigation occurred.  At the request of Mayor Roe as to why she didn’t support the contingency, Councilmember McGehee opined that a fire station was going to be built anyway, and rather than delaying potential work on the foundation, it could go forward quicker without that contingency.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the contingency as proposed by staff.


Councilmember Pust advised that she would not agree to enter into any contract with the potential of any type of appeal possible, and no matter its outcome.  Councilmember Pust opined that the recommendation of staff represented the responsible way to proceed when u sing public monies.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing award of contracts for Bid Package #1 as listed below contingent upon no further appeals related to the issuing of the bonds and meeting bond underwriter’s requirements:


Contract #

Description / Contractor

Contract Amount


Cast-In-Place Contract Foundations

Thompson Construction of Princeton, Inc.




Frattalone Companies, Inc.



Site Paving

Midwest Asphalt Corporation



Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Sign Ordinance Amendments

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this latest draft for proposed amendments to the City’s Sign Regulations, previously developed in 2006/2007; and as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.


A copy of Mayor Roe’s e-mail to staff with responses to the proposed regulations, dated May 14, 2012, was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Councilmember Pust noted the lack of page numbers on the document and staff duly noted that future iterations would include page AND line numbers.


Discussion included elimination and/or relocation of some language in different chapters or areas; some signs now covered under the City’s general zoning ordinance and not specifically enforced under these proposed sign regulations; existing signs continuing as legal, non-conforming until an improvement is applied for; input from sign companies working within the community; exempted signs within rights-of-way and falling under other jurisdictional regulations, but not the City’s jurisdiction; definitions for “projecting sign” and “normal wind pressure;” and whether the City Council wanted to have a broader discussion on signs they may want to regulate differently than currently done.


Additional discussion included political sign provisions in the City’s Sign Regulations mirroring that of State Statute as reviewed by the City Attorney; definition and types of temporary signs; applicable fees adopted annually under separate resolution; and additional provisions providing staff more enforcement capability than currently available on a case by case basis.


Councilmember Johnson left the meeting at this time, approximately 8:51 pm


Additional discussion included number of events covered under one permit and programmed annually versus needing additional permits if dates have yet to be determined; size of security signs;


Staff was requested to include language under General Provisions (Item c.8) under “Prohibited Signs” stating prohibitions “ONLY” in residential districts.


At the request of Mayor Roe regarding Section 1010.04 “Maintenance and Removal of Signs,” Section e.2, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the general appeal process would apply as with other sections of code.


Mayor Roe asked that additional references to the appeal process (e.g. Section 1010.11 Master Sign Plans, Item e.4) be consistent throughout the document and included in the next draft.


Mr. Paschke thanked Councilmembers for their feedback and suggestions.


As included in his e-mail comments, Mayor Roe opined that this updated code was more user friendly for the public and developers, as well as for staff’s enforcement; noting this was especially evident in the dynamic sign sections.


Further discussion included the intensity of signs and from where that brightness was measured.


b.            Receive Status Update on

City Manager Malinen provided a brief update on the community building website,, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.  Mr. Malinen provided additional updates since the report was prepared, with over 500 residents signed up as of Friday; and expressed his excitement about this additional ability to communicate with citizens electronically, whether on a larger scale or in specific areas, and consistent with  Imagine Roseville 2025 goals for active neighbors and a sense of community.


Councilmember Pust suggested staff providing Councilmembers with a “talking point” when they were asked for information by citizens.


City Manager Malinen advised that there was a link on the City website, and while staff had previously provided that information to Councilmembers, he would see that it was done again.


Councilmember Pust further suggested a “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)” section on the City website for the public as well as the link.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, from her contact with a number of residents not thrilled with this effort, she was personally not pleased with its implementation, as she expressed on several occasions, further opining that it did not foster neighborhoods, and wasn’t much different than Face Book or a chat line.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, if people didn’t want it, they shouldn’t use it.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City’s involvement should have been minimal, since it was part of a thesis project for a student at Bethel University, and cautioned the City from supporting a private corporation that would ultimately be maintained through advertising.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this was not something sought by the citizens of Roseville or understood by many, and therefore, the City shouldn’t be in the position of doing this.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this is not how to build community, and that neighborhood had asked to be recognized as neighborhoods, not drawn out in a grid section on a map with fifteen (15) different units.


Councilmember Pust agreed with Councilmember McGehee‘s first comment, that “if people don’t want it, they don’t need to use it.”  Councilmember Pust opined that it was her understanding that a neighborhood could be defined by a neighborhood, since it only took ten (10) neighbors to form a neighborhood.  Councilmember Pust opined that the fact that the City provided fifteen (15) areas, based on the Park Master Plan constellation concept made no difference to her personal neighborhood’s definition; but she noted that within with concept, there was great flexibility.  Councilmember Pust clarified that this was a private effort, and not under the direct control of the City.


City Manager Malinen advised that the use of the fifteen (15) park constellations proved of benefit to the City for those wanting to receive notice from the City, and advised that it had been used on a limited basis to-date.  Mr. Malinen advised that it provided yet another communication tool for the City; and the original intent in providing the constellations was to ensure everyone was covered, since time was of the essence.  Mr. Malinen noted that there was the ability to create neighborhood groups within those constellations and on a smaller basis; and noted that the process and effort was continually evolving and hopefully improving. 


Councilmember McGehee spoke to the concept of organizing individual neighborhoods; and also spoke to her interpretation of misconceptions provided by Mr. Malinen about the process itself.


City Manager Malinen disputed those perceptions; noting that it was part of staff’s attempt to follow-up on something initiated with the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process six (6) years ago, and simply represented another communication tool.


Further discussion included limited number of transmissions and misconceptions about the number and type of postings from the City itself; and its availability and/or interest of segments of the population for this type of communication.


At this point, Councilmember McGehee stated that she had one additional question. However, Councilmember Pust moved to end the discussion.  Mayor Roe informed Councilmember McGehee that Councilmember Pust’s motion terminated any further discussion, seconded the motion, and called for a vote.



Roll Call

                        Ayes: Pust; and Roe.         

                        Nays: McGehee.

                   Motion carried.


14.     City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


Councilmember Pust anticipated that the Wal-mart discussion would take a considerable amount of time for the May 23, 2012 meeting, and suggested that any items (e.g. sign ordinance) be deferred to a future agenda to facilitate that discussion.



15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16. Adjourn

Pust moved, Roe seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:23 pm.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; McGehee; and Roe.    

            Nays: None.