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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 12, 2010


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for April: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing).  City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman was also present.


2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Items 7.d and 7.h, respectively entitled, “Approve Wellness Plan City Services Discount Program;” and “Approve Lease Agreement with Clear Wireless, LLC (“Clearwire”) for Leased Space on the North City Campus Communications Tower.”


Councilmember Roe requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03, Section 10, Posting Political Signage relating to the date that Political Campaigns can post Political Signs.”


City Manager Malinen requested the addition of an additional under Item 5. Recognition, Donations and Communications entitled, “Proclamation – Harriet Alexander Nature Center – Twentieth Anniversary – Earth Day – April 24, 2010.”


By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing 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 Klausing recognized and thanked City staff members: Cindy Anderson, Pat Dolan, Margaret Driscoll, Caroline Curti, and Mike Ross, for their reinstallation of 19 photos in the City Hall Council Chambers, providing a historical record of Roseville City Councils.


Mayor Klausing announced a meeting scheduled for May 3, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center that will provide an overview of City governance and the 2011 budget process.  For additional information, the public may contact the City’s Finance Director at 651/792-7031 or by e-mail at


Councilmember Pust encouraged the public to participate in the upcoming city-wide clean up day scheduled for April 24, 2010 from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm at 2555 N Dale Street.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.            Recognition of Retiring Commissioners

Mayor Klausing recognized and thanked three retiring Commissioners:  Those not present were Matthew Hiber and Sarah Brodt-Lenz, both retiring from the Parks and Recreation Commission; and the one retiring Commissioner present, Mary Jean Turinia Anderson, retiring from the Police Civil Service Commission.


Mayor Klausing personally presented a plaque to Ms. Turinia Anderson.


Ms. Turinia-Anderson thanked Mayor Klausing and the City Council for the recognition.


b.         Harriet Alexander Nature Center Proclamation

As previously noted this item was added to the agenda as a bench handout. Mayor Klausing read a proclamation recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Harriet Alexander Nature Center on April 24, 2010.


Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, proclamation recognizing 20th anniversary of the Harriet Alexander Nature Center on April 24, 2010.


            Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


1.         Discuss Right-of-Way Acquisition of 1885 and 1915 West County Road C

2.         Discuss Revised Settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue

Mayor Klausing announced that the City Council would be going into Closed Executive Session.


City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion related to rights-of-way acquisition, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3 acquisition of property, specific to rights-of-way acquisition at 1885 and 1915 West County Road C and to discuss revised settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue.


Johnson moved, Roe seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:12 pm, related to attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion by the City Council, staff and legal counsel, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3 acquisition of property, specific to rights-of-way acquisition at 1885 and 1915 West County Road C and to discuss revised settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; and Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:12 pm and reconvened in Executive Session at approximately 6:13 pm.



Mayor Klausing recessed the Executive Session at approximately 6:32 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:33 pm in Regular Session. 


Upon reconvening, Mayor Klausing advised that, pursuant to discussion during Executive Session, the City Council would consider action as Item 12.b on tonight’s agenda, entitled, “Consider Right-of-Way Acquisition of 1885 & 1915 West County Road C.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of March 29, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 29, 2010 Regular meeting as amended.



§  Page 13, “Recess” (Roe)

Correct to read “Mayor Klausing,” rather than “Acting Mayor Johnson.”


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments






Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

            Nays: None. 


b.            Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:



      Type of License

International Paper; 2425 Terminal Road

Recycling Hauler

Ashley E. Johnson, by Rocco Altobelli, Suite 945

Massage Therapist


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


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

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:






Highway Technologies

Centerline paving of City streets






Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


f.             Approve Appointments to Variance Board

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, ratification of the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners Andre Best, Daniel Boerigter, John Gisselquist, and Thomas Gottfried as Variance Board members to serve as the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals from May 5, 2010 to April 6, 2011.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


g.            Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for Contract B

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10801 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2010 Contract B;” in the amount of $1,154,365.69 to Asphalt Surface Technology Corp. (a/k/a ASTECH Corp) of St. Cloud, MN.


            Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


i.             Approve Easement Release to the Minnesota Department of Transportation

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the Quit Claim Deed Easement with MnDOT for the release of the City’s interests in the sanitary sewer lift station easement, located along the east right-of-way of Trunk Highway 280 (TH280).

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


j.             Cancel April 19, 2010 City Council Meeting

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of cancellation of the City Council meeting originally scheduled for April 19, 2010.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None. 


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.         Approve Wellness Plan City Services Discount Program (Former Consent Item 7. d)

City Manager Malinen reviewed this item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 12, 2010.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification whether the City employee’s health insurance included premium reductions for those involved in fitness clubs; and clarified that this would not apply to a golf club membership.


City Manager Malinen advised that the employee health insurance did include a benefit for fitness club members, if employees periodically attended those offerings; and confirmed that it did not apply to golf memberships.


Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon confirmed that coupons for golf discounts and reduced skating center fees were currently available to residents of the community, most recently advertised in the Happenings Book and area newspapers periodically.


Councilmember Johnson questioned the incentive for employees related to the Wellness Plan, if the coupons were already offered in the community and to residents; and suggested that a greater incentive be offered to employees for their regular and consistent participation in order to ultimately improve their health and reduce health insurance premiums.


Discussion included the variety and type of coupon and discount offerings available to Roseville residents at this time.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of encouraging employees, but opined that previous policy discussions had noted that the City didn’t offer discounts or reduced fees to community sports facilities for its own residents, and questioned whether it was therefore fair to do so for City staff when not available to taxpayers supporting those facilities.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if a free membership for staff to a health and fitness club would be more appropriate, since that was not being offered to citizens.


Councilmember Ihlan concurred, if that was a benefit of the health insurance program.


Councilmember Pust noted the need to consider whether such benefit was applicable as a part of an employee wage under State Employment Law, which would increase the taxpayer load as an employee benefit, as well as impacting the employee.


Councilmember Roe requested more definitive information from staff as to how often the same discount was offered over a season to residents (i.e., golf and skating), as well as information on employee benefits accordingly as it related to State Employment Law.


Councilmember Pust noted that she questioned the tournament itself and solicitation of prizes for the event, if public dollars were used for volunteer events, and suggested that such an event be further researched by legal counsel and staff; and spoke in support of the tournament if that was not a problem.


Mayor Klausing noted that this concern addressed by Councilmember Pust had been the State Auditor’s position on State Statute addressed to a previous City Council.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of staff creation of an ongoing coupon program allowing regular staff use of City recreational facilities at a discounted rate not to exceed that offered to the public; and to approve a one-time City staff Golf Tournament, if deemed appropriate upon advice of legal counsel, and solicitation of prizes for this event.


Mayor Klausing requested that staff report back to the City Council on specific coupons and discounts to ensure they were comparable to that offered to the public; as well as legal counsel’s advice on whether solicitation of prizes for the golf tournament could occur without it being deemed an additional employee benefit.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the majority of the motion, with the exception of the first part; thus requiring her to vote against the motion.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bacon advised that the Wellness Committee would track employee participation.


b.         Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03, Section 10, Posting Political Signage relating to the date that Political Campaigns can post Political Signs (former Consent Item 7.e)

City Manager Malinen reviewed the request, as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010.


Councilmember Roe suggested that City Ordinance language defer to State Law by reference rather than specifying a date in City Ordinance requiring future revisions.


Mayor Klausing noted the difficulty in referring to State Law and City Ordinance as being more cumbersome for those seeking to comply.


Councilmember Pust publicly apologized to the City’s Communication Specialist Caroline Curti, who had presented the correct updated language in staff’s original draft; noting that it was the State Reviser’s Office who did not have the updated Statute language available when she was reviewing the issue.  Councilmember Pust opined that, generally speaking, she was amenable to the proposed language as stated.


Klausing moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1392 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03, Section 10 – Posting Political Signage.”


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


Councilmember Pust noted, for those interested, the date is June 25, 2010.


            c.         Approve Lease Agreement with Clear Wireless, LLC (“Clearwire”) for Leased Space on the North City Campus Communications Tower (Former Consent Item 7.h)

City Manager Malinen reviewed the lease agreement as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010; for a five (5) year term with potential extensions with applicable increases of three percent (3%), with revenues abated to offset construction costs for Clearwire for this tower to be located on the North City Campus, as previously approved by the City Council.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned what technology was intended for this tower; how much stronger the signal would be; and whether the City had done an analysis of the viability of economic impacts as they related to fiber optic projects; in addition to health and safety concerns of this type of microwave signal and environmental impacts.


City Manager Malinen advised that the intent for this lease agreement with Clearwire was for “wi-max” or wireless internet access signals, stronger to reach broader areas, with their ultimate intent to have a wi-fi cloud over the entire metropolitan area to gain internet access.


Mayor Klausing noted that, as clarified in previous discussions, the actual physical object was similar to, but smaller than, wireless antennas.


City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that it was much smaller that a cellular antenna, as was the cabinetry at the base of the tower.


Finance Director Chris Miller addressed the economic viability of this wi-max technology, regulated by the FCC who provides their own due diligence on this technology and their allowance of it; with staff relying on the FCC to advise of any concerns from a safety and health standpoint, with their assurances that there are no definitive reasons for concern.  Mr. Miller noted that this is the third such wi-max antenna array considered by the City, with other private sites also being under negotiation.  Mr. Miller advised that the FCC regulated that local government could not factor in health and safety impacts as a finding for denial; however, he advised that he could not speak to their environmental analysis.


Councilmember Ihlan noted that the FCC regulates and limits local government in whether they can deny approvals and the basis for such denial; however, she asked if the FCC had done environmental studies as to whether that signal could interfere with other providers; and opined that she would like any public information from the FCC made available to the public on environmental issues. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concern that the City had done sufficient market analysis on whether this was a long-term good technology and that it would remain profitable and be around in 5-6 years once the rent abatement expired and the City began to realize revenue from the lease agreement.


Mr. Miller advised that staff did not have sufficient expertise; however, observations would indicate that the wireless technologies continued to make significant strides in the industry, and he personally opined that he didn’t see that technology going anywhere but upward in the immediate future.  Mr. Miller noted that, while there was a potential for broadband and fiber optic technology, they remained emerging and expensive, and wireless was proving to be more economically viable for providers.  Mr. Miller further opined that, once those other technologies matured and became more economically viable, providers would find a way to proceed with them.


Councilmember Roe noted, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that in approving this agreement, if the technology no longer remained viable, the City still owned the tower from its original construction, and Clearwire retained the expense of that construction whether they remained on site or not, which provided protection to the City and its taxpayers.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the lease agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Clear Wireless, LLC for leased space at the City Hall North Communication Tower.


Councilmember Ihlan, while having lingering concerns regarding whether commercial uses were appropriate on public property; spoke in support of this lease agreement as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


9.            General Ordinances for adoption


10.         Presentations


a.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan Progress Report and Discussion

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke introduced the Master Plan Work Group: LHB Representative Michael Schroeder; Citizen Facilitator Richard “Jake” Jacobson; Park Superintendent/Design Team Member Jeff Evenson; Skating Center Superintendent Brad Tullberg; and Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang.  Mr. Brokke noted that this was a milestone report for the Master Plan process, and would touch on four areas: 1) description and review of proposed framework; 2) review and ID particular park and facility areas for design work with community in next few months; 3) section identified bigger and larger in community that will take more work; and 4) review statistically valid survey information versus value-based to-date.


Mr. Brokke brought to the City Council’s attention in the agenda packet, an article written by Parks and Recreation Commissioner Julia Jacobson, recently published in her School’s Raider Report to encourage youth involvement in the Master Plan process.


LHB Representative Michael Schroeder

Mr. Schroeder reviewed various components and considerations in outlining the vision and organization of those items, including: diagrams; community barriers and divisions; park types; park components; base levels of park components in each park; components in every constellation; community/sector components; and major components.  Mr. Schroeder described the “constellation” concept used to identify specific parks and their deficiencies, identified through ten minute walk areas around each of the neighborhood areas, and used several examples in various areas of the community, building on the original parks Master Plan completed in the 1960’s. Mr. Schroeder reviewed the spread sheets included in the agenda packet identifying amenities and available resources at each constellation, with those maps and spreadsheets now available for the next step in determining how to deliver programs and use them for tracking investments and implementation activities at each constellation. 


Mr. Schroeder noted that the next steps would be the Concept Planning Design Charettes scheduled for May 19 and June 2 to develop concepts that reflect across seven different zones in the community, and provided the rationale in choosing those particular seven parks, based on specific criteria.


Further items overviewed in the presentation included the public input process itself; identification of several areas needing further studies; and value-based versus statistically valid input or a combination of both to proceed toward implementation.


Councilmembers recognized and thanked members of the Work Group for their time and commitment to the process, as well as that of Roseville citizens for their participation.


Discussion among Councilmembers and members of the Work Group included, potential planning at Langton Park; walking connections within the constellations and linking them to each other and other areas and amenities in the community working from the neighborhood outward, with the Public Works view working from the regional transportation perspective back to the community; definition of existing and/or planned trails and those areas where nothing is planned; and looping them for identification as recreational opportunities as well.

Further discussion included making the community walkable; inclusion of commercial venues in town and addressing them, through discussion and coordination with members of the business community for their perspective, with the role of pathways, private parks or park-like facilities; or partnering with businesses for those amenities in business-oriented areas (i.e., pocket parks).


Mr. Brokke noted the interest in performing a statistically valid survey and/or needs assessment closer to the implementation stage to determine if the information developed during the process matched or was consistent..


Additional discussion included development of individual constellations for basic facilities and/or programs, with not every service or program available at each park; challenges of those areas of the community under-served by parks; creative thinking necessary to provide those services at this time or in the future; development of stronger relationship with parks lying across borders for the community (i.e., City of Lauderdale) through partnerships with those communities and/or private entities or businesses, but available to the public.


Further discussion included the individual interest of Councilmembers in pursuing a survey, specific to asking for statistically valid information as a precursor to a bond referendum; general support of the Council for the constellation concept to provide access in various areas, as well as building continuity in the park system, while being creative and yet practical and reflecting reality and how the community defines itself in relationship to neighborhood parks; 


Councilmember Pust suggested that the Work Group also think about a community center from a community-wide perspective outside the traditional bricks and mortar structure.


Additional discussion included the Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC)  also known as Concept Planning Area #7, and the boardwalk currently being removed with no plans to replace it; private and public areas at HANC; challenges of the possible implementation of a pathway around that wetland area; and ongoing work with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for a broader perspective.


Upcoming community meetings for the Master Plan process were announced, as detailed in the Report dated April 12, 2010; and the opportunities reviewed at these small group get-togethers in workshop format and providing interactive decision-making.


b.            Update of Infrastructure Improvements for the Twin Lakes AUAR Area Final Report

City Engineer Debra Bloom provided an update on cost allocations for infrastructure improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010.  Ms. Bloom noted that staff performed this annual review and update as conditions changed, with the purpose of the infrastructure study to highlight future infrastructure needs as identified in the AUAR through 2010 with a goal to fund and allocate costs for those public improvements as identified.  Ms. Bloom noted that there were16 improvements listed in the original study, with another addition of Iona Lane to that original number.  Ms. Bloom advised that the improvement area was bordered by Cleveland Avenue; County Road D; Snelling Avenue; and County Road C; with each area anticipating specific improvements.


Ms. Bloom reviewed original cost allocations and their initial calculation based on cost per network trip; future improvement costs allocated proportionately to the appropriate redevelopment; roadway cost estimates based on concept sketches, lateral impacts, and major construction components and contingencies; and MnDOT 2007 average bid prices.  Since that time, Ms. Bloom noted additional information now available, allowing for a more precise calculation, including:

§  Additional environmental clean up on Phase I;

§  Additional costs for building demolition;

§  Availability of actual right-of-way costs;

§  Actual construction and engineering costs to-date;

§  Engineer’s estimates;

§  Adjustments for construction inflation;

§  Addition of grant funds received to-date; and

§  Addition of remnant parcels as they are sold.


Ms. Bloom reviewed cost comparisons based on Traffic Consultant SRF calculations, from November of 2008 to March of 2010 updates for this evolving project, using as an example the now-completed Metro Transit Park and Ride facility constructed at Iona Lane and Mount Ridge Road, and allocation of those fixed costs throughout the development as applicable.  Ms. Bloom noted that this updating would be ongoing as new developments came in and cost allocations were revised, based on those average cost per network trip allocations.


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included the complexity of this calculation system designed by SRF.


Ms. Bloom also reviewed public utility cost allocations, with more detailed information available at the upcoming public hearing, similar to the cost allocation study presented tonight, taking into consideration the overall area for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main costs for the area; however, noting that this calculation would be much less complex, and based on parcel size.


Ms. Bloom reviewed the next steps, which would include meeting with interested parties regarding the updated study at the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting (Public Hearing); City Council consideration of approval of study updates; City Council consideration and approval of plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Phase II of the infrastructure improvements from Cleveland Avenue to the roundabout at Prior Avenue, and including a signal at Prior Avenue and County Road C; and City Council consideration and approval of amending the consultant contract.


Councilmember Roe requested that staff attempt to provide larger-type or more readable spreadsheets for the Public Hearing scheduled for April 26, 2010.


11.         Public Hearings


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of City Code Violations at 2433 Simpson Street

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached home at 2433 Simpson Street. 


Mr. Munson further provided a history of previous City Council action in authorizing staff to proceed with a Ramsey County court citation; however, noted that with the change in City Attorneys earlier this year, their legal advice had changed, thus bringing forth this amended action request, again seeking correction through an abatement process. Mr. Munson assured Councilmembers that this was not a change in the City’s enforcement method, but a process to avoid additional delays and ongoing citizen complaints.  Mr. Munson advised that the homeowner was present to speak tonight; however, various notices and correspondence with the homeowner had not brought forth compliance, with only a limited amount of siding applied to-date, and without completion since 2003. 


Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement and estimated costs, consisting of purchasing siding/soffit materials ($6,000); labor to install siding/soffits ($10,000); installation of permanent electrical service ($2,500); and completion of chimney beyond the roof line ($3,000) for an estimated total of $21,500.


City Attorney Bell Beckman clarified their proposed recommendation to staff on this issue; cited similar code violations currently pending before Ramsey County; and outlined the power of the City Council to enforce violations in criminal court in order to remedy these situations.  Ms. Bell Beckman cautioned on the viability of a court order issued to clean up property, and without compliance, there was no solution in the end.  Ms. Bell Beckman recommended that staff be authorized to obtain a property report and involvement from the mortgage company to determine the value of the home and the dollar benefit to the property in remedying this situation, at a cost of approximately $75.


Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violations as detailed.


Discussion included the reason for this delay based on changing of City Attorneys in January of 2010; and how to prioritize accomplishing compliance before another summer was over.


Homeowner Tamara Davis

Ms. Davis advised that she had sent a letter to all the City Council regarding her family’s health and financial situations; however, she noted that she had received no response from any Councilmembers to-date.  Ms. Davis reviewed these circumstances in detail, opining that her family had been “in crisis” for a number of years; that their intent in moving into this home was to provide handicapped accessibility for family members; and further reviewed their intent and the reality of their circumstances in completing this project.  Ms. Davis assured Councilmembers of their preference to be good neighbors, and advised that she had sought assistance from various agencies and neighbors to assist in completing this project.   Ms. Davis noted that, due to her full-time employment, her family did not qualify for assistance from the agencies she’d contacted to-date; and that no assistance had been forthcoming from their neighbors or church in completing the work.  Ms. Davis further assured Councilmembers that, given her husband’s former ownership of a construction firm, they were more than qualified to complete the work, but that they had been overwhelmed by the circumstances previously noted, and asked for patience and understanding in completing this work, which she anticipated being completed by the end of this summer.


Mayor Klausing offered the City Council’s sympathy for the family’s difficulties; however, noted that the property had become a long-term nuisance for the neighborhood for seven years, and an immediate solution was necessary; and suggested that the abatement process may be useful for their situation, given their physical and financial circumstances.


Discussion ensued among Councilmembers, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Munson related to whether it was realistic for Ms. Davis and her family to complete the work this summer; those materials on hand for completion of the siding and soffits and those yet to be acquired; clarification of those organizations contacted to-date; staff contact with GMHC to determine if any assistance was available; Ms. Davis’ work with Xcel in burying a cable on the north end of the home; assessment payment options over a certain time frame; and determination of a preferred date for completion of the work this year.


Ms. Davis advised that she had experienced inferior construction from others in the past in assisting them in completing the work.


Mr. Munson noted that if the work was not completed soon, the home’s exterior would continue to deteriorate, as well as costs to abate the work increasing due to fall weather concerns if not completed during the summer construction season.


Further discussion included the amount of work remaining to be completed (i.e., siding and soffits); nature of the work on scaffolding; equipment and materials available from the homeowner; and possible compromises to accommodate all parties and bring resolution to this issue.


Ms. Davis expressed her concern in the City Council attempting to “box her in” with a specific date, when she was unsure of her family’s life circumstances from one day to the next.


Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10802 entitled, “Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Code Violations at 2433 Simpson Street (Attachment B);” directing staff to abate the above-referenced exterior City Code, Building Maintenance and Preservation Code, Minnesota Statute, and Minnesota State Building Code violations at 2433 Simpson Street, if the property owner does not substantially complete and comply with the abatement order and voluntarily correct all listed violations by August 31, 2010 (with abatement to include completing unfinished siding and soffits, installing a permanent electrical service, and raising the chimney to a code compliant level; as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010, at an estimated total cost of approximately $21,500.00; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Right-of-Way Acquisition of 1885 and 1915 West County Road C

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon sought City Council approval to authorize staff to make an offer, as previously discussed during Closed Executive Session, for the rights-of-way acquisition along Prior Avenue from 1885 – 1915 County Road C as per that discussion.


Roe moved, Johnson seconded, acquisition of portions of the property located at 1885 – 1915 County Road C West for Phase II of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.            Approve Development Activity Extension for Rainbow Foods

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Roundy’s for an extension of Condition 6.1 of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010, after review by staff and the legal counsel, with the City Council within their purview to grant this additional time.


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included ramifications if this extension was not granted and the process in seeking PUD amendment in the future if so indicated; expiration of the current conditions on May 12, 2010; existing structures on site and their uses; whether a farmers market was anticipated on site, with staff advising that such a use would be counter to the products the store sold itself; and creation of the clause under discussion through action of the City Council in their original approval for Roundy’s; acknowledgment that they would not be able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for future construction of a restaurant use on the parcel without obtaining a PUD Amendment to do so.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of a twenty-four (24) month extension to the commencement of any/all structure development activities for Rainbow Foods, located at 1201 Larpenteur Avenue W.


Mayor Klausing noted that extensive discussion and public comment had been held on this issue previously, and opined that nothing was to be gained by forcing them to commence the entire process again; and spoke in support of the extension.


Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that there was the public interest to be gained in allowing the City Council review of future uses; expressing her interest in additional green space on site to break up the “sea of asphalt;” however, she noted that the redeveloped parcel was a great asset to the community, even without a plan for future redevelopment at this time.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan, Johnson; Pust

Motion failed.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:00 p.m.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Commercial Use of Public Property

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview of staff’s research and analysis regarding the use of public property for commercial purposes, and sought City Council discussion and further direction.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this discussion had been prompted by the original request of Clearwire to locate a telecommunications tower in Acorn Park, with that request ultimately denied, and the tower now proposed for location on private property south of Acorn Park.  Mr. Trudgeon provided, in the agenda packet, several items to prompt discussion, including a draft policy for telecommunication towers from staff (Attachment E); and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation on general conditions and specific to Acorn Park (Attachment F).


Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation to staff for providing commercial uses in a broader context, given their frequency of use; theoretical policy versus their use as a funding source; and how to strike a balance between that revenue and traditional fees and/or property taxes.


Councilmember Roe recognized two aspects: that of cell phone towers themselves, and a broader discussion, both of which had been addressed during the Parks Master Plan process.  Councilmember Roe cited several examples, such as how to include non-profit uses in parks, where items may be for sale, and how and when those uses were appropriate or not.  Councilmember Roe questioned the criteria to consider such revenue benefits and control over their siting; and suggested consideration of any policies from surrounding or metropolitan communities (i.e., City of Shoreview); and other types of commercial uses.  Councilmember Roe further suggested reviewing setbacks from residential properties, and considering the proposed commercial use on the specific park, whether next to or in an active use or natural area and their location accordingly.


Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Roe’s comments; and suggested that this issue go through the City Council’s advisory commissions for their perspective, particularly the Parks and Recreation Commission for their consideration of when a commercial use would be appropriate in a park; while recognizing the infrastructure benefit to the community and meeting those needs.  Councilmember Pust opined that it was a vastly different concept to use a park versus a rooftop at City Hall or other public building.


Mayor Klausing opined that it was not primarily a revenue consideration from his perspective, but compliance by local government with federal law to permit siting of these towers; and further opined that it made more sense to use public property to allow local government greater control over those uses.  Incidental to that, Mayor Klausing noted that the visual burden would be placed on the community no matter the location, therefore if the community has to shoulder that burden, they should benefit financially from that aesthetic burden.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that the towers did not have to be sited in parks; and expressed initial approval with the conditions and considerations provided by the Parks and Recreation Commission, and spoke in support of a clear policy that parks not be used for locating towers, according to those conditions, questioning if a cell tower would ever provide a benefit to a park, or provide a benefit to park users.


Mayor Klausing clarified that the purpose of tonight’s discussion was for discussion only, and not for drawing conclusions or drafting specific language, but providing direction on development of such a policy, and determining if additional information was needed.


Councilmember Johnson opined that locating a cell tower next to a park was just as obnoxious as locating it in the park (Acorn Park); and used the example of the electrical towers over Central Park and their aesthetic impacts.  Councilmember Johnson noted that those issues caused him to reconsider his opinion on locating towers in parks; and expressed interest in additional information to develop a policy in the future.


Councilmember Roe advised that he was not comfortable at this point making a determination on a policy that stated that towers could not be located in parks; opining that some parks may or may not be conducive to such use; and if the criteria were developed adequately, it would address those areas of concern, while allowing for locating towers in open and larger parks that may provide passive areas where they would be appropriate.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the visual impact was not the only consideration, while it may be primary; however, consideration of taking up space where trees and/or wildlife could be; environmental concerns, while recognizing federal law; and noting that they were not recreational or part of the environment, and were not conducive to park uses, and impacted migrating birds.  Councilmember Ihlan sought additional information on the specifics of federal law as it related to environmental issues; and spoke in support of a clear policy that the City not even consider applications for locating towers in parks, but recognizing the need for more discussion.


Discussion ensued regarding the merits of the draft policy developed by staff; potential areas of disagreement with that draft; consideration of recommendations provided already by the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as those individual opinions expressed tonight by Councilmembers.


Councilmember Roe suggested that staff return to the City Council, with recommendations of the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions for the benefit of their discussion.


Mayor Klausing concurred with most of Councilmember Roe’s recommendations; however, he suggested that the City Council provide further input to staff, and after further Council consideration of a revised draft policy, then it move toward the Advisory Commissions for incorporation of their recommendations based on that draft language.


Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing’s recommendation.


Councilmember Pust requested information on policies of other communities; and Mayor Klausing requested that staff provide that information before further discussion at the City Council level.


Councilmember Ihlan reviewed the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive Plan documents (Land Use Section – Policy 1.7) supporting her position; and the rights and objectives of the City as a property owner, and impacts to be analyzed.


b.            Discuss the Public Works Environment and Transportation (PWET) Commission’s Role in the Recycling Request for Proposal (RFP)

Mayor Klausing noted that the purpose of this discussion was as a follow-up to Councilmember Roe’s request for involvement by the PWET Commission in the pending Recycling Provider Request for Proposals process.


City Manager Bill Malinen provided staff’s perspective with respect to the RFP process and staff’s intent to develop that RFP using best value approach methods, with the ultimate goal in recycling to divert materials from landfills and get them into the manufacturing process.  Mr. Malinen advised that it was not intended under that best value method to provide specifics, but to allow respondents to provide their best value approach for ranking by the evaluation team.  Mr. Malinen suggested that commission members could be involved in those panels.


Councilmember Roe sought to clarify the actual charge to the PWET Commission from the City Council in the process, not necessarily in writing the RFP itself; and suggested several areas for their involvement, including:


1)    PWET having the opportunity to offer their input into generation of the RFP, such as their thoughts about evaluation criteria; and/or

2)    What the City Council is looking for, such as a technical review from their areas of expertise; and/or

3)    Their voluntary participation in the review process as bidding goes forward.


Mayor Klausing questioned how appropriate it was for advisory commissions to be involved in drafting RFP’s, suggesting that staff’s expertise seemed more appropriate.


Councilmember Roe suggested that involving commissioners in evaluating the RFP’s was appropriate, and clarified that he was not suggesting that the commission be involved in writing the RFP itself, but providing their perspective on the document drafted by staff, allowing for an additional chance for review and comment.


Councilmember Pust opined that she didn’t see a downside in seeking their involvement and their perspective, given their interest in such issues.


Discussion ensued regarding involvement of advisory commissions in their traditional roles for professional expertise and citizen input.


Councilmember Johnson opined that it was not inappropriate to have input from the PWET Commission in developing criteria , but beyond that it was not necessary to have their involvement.


Mayor Klausing requested that Councilmember Roe provide specific direction to the PWET Commission as to their role:

1)    Review draft RFP and provide feedback to staff to take into account and improve RFP as it comes forward;

2)    Possible participation in the evaluation process


Further discussion ensued regarding who would make that determination on their involvement in the evaluation process, whether that would be the City Council, staff or the PWET Commissioners.


City Manager Malinen noted that if all five (5) of the PWET Commissioners wished to be involved in the evaluation process, it could become problematic; however, one or two (1-2) commissioners could be accommodated to participate in the process, and asked that the City Council leave that to his discretion to determine who was involved on those panels, based on their expressed interest, but not at the directive of the City Council or the PWET Commission itself.


Public Comment

John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn reviewed the history and past practice regarding the recycling contract; his perspective on the role of the citizen advisory commissions in providing input on policy issues; and opined that, given the multiple options for recycling currently available, there were multiple policy issues to be considered, on which it would be appropriate for the PWET Commission to provide recommendations, in addition to their involvement when bids were received and which option was best for the City.  Mr. Kysylyczyn recommended using the talents and opinions of the PWET Commission regarding this process.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen reviewed the best value contracting approach for this bid, and criteria envisioned and reflecting community values in the process, weighing each component with those values.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.


Councilmember Pust requested deferral to a later date than the April 26, 2010 agenda for discussion of the City’s relationship with the North Suburban Community Foundation to allow the Foundation to complete their revision of some of their corporate documents.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 pm.