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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 9, 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 August: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing).  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present. 


2.            Approve Agenda

Due to staff’s advising of the resolution of unresolved City Code violations with the property owner, Mayor Klausing noted removal of Business Action Item 12.d entitled, “Consider Request for City Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 341 County Road B-2.”


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.  A bench handout was provided, attached hereto and made a part thereof, consisting of two letters dated August 9, 2010 from Stonecrest Homeowners Association to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) representatives related to the proposed asphalt plant. 


a.            Walter Dziedzic, resident of NE Mpls., retired politician

Mr. Dziedzic spoke in opposition to the proposed asphalt plant directly across the street from Gross Golf Course in NE Minneapolis and parallel to the fifth and sixth holes and greens.  Mr. Dziedzic disputed the company’s statements that the plant would not be odorous; and spoke in support of those expressing their opposition, referencing a recently-distributed neighborhood flyer.  Mr. Dziedzic opined that any such plan should be located in a rural, not urban, area; and suggested that a regional park would be more of an asset to the community; further opining that former Parks and Recreation Director Frank Rog, would certainly be more supportive of additional recreational activities and areas in the community.


Mayor Klausing noted that this item is currently being reviewed by the MPCA based on a petition by a citizens group seeking an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed plant, with preliminary public comment taken until August 11, 2010, and not coming before the City Council until that review by the MPCA had been completed and a recommendation set forth by their agency.  Mayor Klausing noted that there was a link on the City’s website to the MPCA for additional information and comment.


b.            Liz Walenski, Elected Official from NE Mpls and Minneapolis Park Board Official

Ms. Walenski noted that she had been receiving continuing and consistent calls from her constituents in opposition to the proposed asphalt plant; and noted that a formal letter from the Minneapolis Park Board would be forthcoming stating their opposition as well.  Ms. Walenski noted that this adjacent golf course is the biggest profit-grossing golf course in the City of Minneapolis; and confirmed her personal opposition to the proposed plant as well.


c.            Marcene Atkins, 162 County Road B West

Ms. Atkins sought to comment on Agenda Item 11.a entitled, “Public Hearing – Request to Approve Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Rice Street Project;” but was asked by Mayor Klausing to hold her comments until that time in the meeting.


d.            Lois Kelly, 2210 Stinson Boulevard, Minneapolis MN.

Ms. Kelly spoke in opposition to the proposed asphalt plant, agreeing with previous speakers noting its proximity to the golf course, in addition walking and bicycling trails in this adjacent recreational areas.  Ms. Kelly noted that she had spoken to the City of Roseville’s Planning Department on the process for decision- making with such a proposed industrial use and comparison uses.  Ms. Kelly noted neighborhood safety and health concerns related to odors, storage of hot asphalt, and the crushing operations from 7:00 am – 7:00 pm through the summer months at a time when people are out-of-doors and/or on the golf course.  Ms. Kelly opined that this zoning situation appeared to need further review; and asked that both the cities of Roseville and Minneapolis continue to be good neighbors, reconsider and curtail this application.


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

Councilmember Johnson reminded Minnesota residents of the August 10, 2010 Primary Election, with Roseville precincts open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm; with information available on the City and/or Ramsey County websites.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of July 26, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 26, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Councilmember Johnson noted the substantial savings realized for purchase of the Fire Truck through the staff-recommended payment schedule.


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


ACH Payments







Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

          Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for applicants as follows:


Business / Address

Type of License

JoAnne M. Lorenz at Stephen’s Salon

1125 West County Road B

Massage Therapist


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Johnson; 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:






Upper Cut Tree Service

Diseased/Hazardous Tree Removal







Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Approve Terms of 2010 Local 49 Maintenance Workers Contract

Johnson  moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the IUOE Local 49; and directed City staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement Electing to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10830 entitled, “Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act – Calendar Years 2011 through 2020 (Attachment D);” thereby agreeing to new housing goals for 131 to 201 affordable units and establishing a life-cycle housing goal range of 200 to 500 units over the next decade.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Approve Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the Metropolitan Council Family Affordable Housing Program

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approve adoption of the Amendment (Attachment B) to the Cooperative Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the Metropolitan Council Family Affordable Housing Program.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Accept Ryan Companies US, Inc. Donation

Councilmember Johnson thanked the Ryan Corporation for their donation to the City’s Police Department providing assistance for purchase or a defibrillator


Councilmember Roe clarified that the donation was actually from users of the building’s vending machine profits in the Twin Lakes Medical building, tenants of Ryan Companies US, providing a creative use in keeping their donation within the Roseville community.


Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance of a donation of $500 offered by Ryan Companies US to the City Police Department to support the purchase of a defibrillator.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Accept Office of Traffic Safety Grant Award of Twelve Panasonic Arbitrator 360 In-Squad Cameras

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance of the Office of Traffic Safety grant award of twelve (12) Panasonic Arbitrator 360 in-squad cameras; and authorized the Mayor to sign the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association In-Car Camera Order and Distribution Agreement (Attachment A).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


i.             Adopt a Resolution Ordering a Feasibility Report for Dale Street Reconstruction Project

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10831 entitled, “Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for Dale Street Reconstruction Project.”


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


j.             Consider a Resolution Declaring Costs for Projects to be Assessed in 2010 and Ordering preparation of Assessment Rolls

Councilmember Roe noted the savings realized from Engineer’s estimates and the actual cost related to the project.


Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10832 entitled, “Resolution Relating to Improvements P-ST-SW-09-02 Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll;” with the Assessment Hearing tentatively scheduled for the September 20, 2010 regular City Council meeting.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


9.            General Ordinances for adoption


10.         Presentations


11.         Public Hearings


a.            Request to Approve Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Rice Street Project

A revised Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 9, 2010, was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof.


City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA, specifically noting provisions of City Code restricting certain hourly operations necessitating the requested variance.


Discussion included rationale for the request being extended so late in the fall with staff noting the subcontractor’s desire to work as long into the fall as possible depending on weather-related conditions until they need to shut down for winter; any potential cost savings to participating agencies on the overall project by adding an additional shift and accelerating the schedule.


Ms. Bloom noted that the subcontractor, Arndt Construction, had not yet arrived at tonight’s meeting with agenda items being ahead of schedule.


Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the MnDOT/Ramsey County/City Rice Street Project


Public Comment


Written comments from Ray S. and Frances M. McDonald, 2241 Marion Street in support of the variance were included as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof.


Marcene Atkins, 162 West County Road B

Ms. Atkins spoke to repeated assurances by the contractor(s) when seeking an easement for her property, that she would not be subjected to any additional noises before 7:00 a.m. or on weekend; and expressed concern that she had been misled by the contractor.


Mayor Klausing clarified that these were two separate issues: the easement and the request for a noise variance before the Council at this time.


Ms. Atkins expressed her concerns with noise pollution and hazards to her health from her sleep being disturbed at 5:00 am; and suggested that she receive financial compensation for being subjected to this additional construction time.  Ms. Atkins alleged that she had been misled by the contractor(s) from the beginning; and expressed her wholehearted opposition to the City granting such a noise variance.


Discussion included clarifying current City Code requiring the noise variance request; representations by the contractor to Ms. Atkins.   


Mike Kessner, 2139 Albemarle Court

Mr. Kessner advised that, during the recent National Night Out event, their homeowner’s association had polled association members about this request, and while they were mildly concerned with additional construction noise, the majority determined that if it would facilitate earlier completion date of the Rice Street project, they were willing to put up with it.  The association members, however, did express their hope that the additional hours would not constitute pile driving so as to mitigate some noise concerns, suggesting that other work could be performed during those earlier hours in consideration of area residents.  Mr. Kessner questioned the need for a variance on Saturdays based on a twelve-hour shift; and questioned if the contractor(s) would need to return for another variance in 2011, since this request was for a specific time frame.


Ms. Bloom verified that the request by the applicant was for the requested time frame in 2010 and that they hadn’t requested additional time; and noted that if the contractor(s) sought additional time in 2011, they would need to return for another variance.


Polly West, Co-owner of 194 County Road B2 West

Ms. West advised that she was in a quandary in determining whether it was preferable to complete the project sooner or not have the additional noise.  Ms. West questioned the incentive to residents to support the requested variance without compensation to the City or other agencies for this inconvenience.  Ms. West opined that, in the end, it didn’t make any difference in whether construction trucks were driving down their streets or refuse trucks going to the area day-care in the early hours; and supported getting the job done sooner.


Ms. Bloom noted that, given the complexity of this project, there were some benefits to area residents and businesses, as well as the travelling public on the Rice Street corridor, in completing the project earlier, whether it was due to inconvenience or noise.  Ms. Bloom clarified that this year’s construction project was on the north side of Highway 36.


Nick Arndt, Arndt Construction

Having just arrived, Mr. Arndt responded to public concerns expressed and City Council questions.


Discussion included the contractor(s) preferring not to work on Saturday and not anticipating regular Saturday hours unless due to weather-related delays with the exception of one area for extensive storm sewer work crossing north of and jacking under Highway 36 with lighter traffic volume on Saturday facilitating that work while attempting to maintain traffic while undercutting the road; impacts of the requested variance specific to the north end of the Rice Street project particularly related to bridge work.


Mr. Arndt reviewed projected construction schedules through this fall, over the winter months in removing the bridge decking in the spring, and abutments for flyovers for safe transition to the new bridge over Rice Street, all in an attempt to alleviate area business disruption and move away from residential areas.


Further discussion included the primary contractor and multiple subcontractors doing the work making it difficult to stipulate that there would be no pile driving in the early morning hours while scheduling work in conjunction with utility companies in the area; traffic transitions needed to keep the corridor open; conflicts with existing signal lights causing some delay; and variances provided by neighboring cities, with Maplewood allowing a twenty-four hour variance south of Highway 36 and Little Canada allowing the same variance being requested from the City of Roseville, with no residents impacted on the Little Canada side of the project until County Road B-2.


Additional discussion included the type of work across all jurisdictions requiring removal of old infrastructure and utilities while limiting disruption of services; grading; hauling gravel and some paving; and the removal of the existing bridge at Highway 36 and Rice Street; and Mr. Arndt advising that the majority of the noise would not be related to pile driving, but there would be trucks and graders, and offered to attempt to route construction vehicles to drive in rather than reverse to reduce back-up alarms on those vehicles disrupting residents.


Discussion ensued related to work being done in the Maplewood jurisdiction on a twenty-four hour basis that could disturb residents of Roseville with no impact on that jurisdiction given the lack of residential properties in that work zone on the Maplewood side; caveats for work necessitated by emergency situations; penalty clauses in construction contracts for completing the work on time; and delays possible from private utilities completing their work and precluding Arndt Construction, doing the earth work, or delays for the primary contractor, Lunda Construction, in arrival of materials, from completing their portion of the project according to projected schedules.


Mr. Arndt assured Councilmembers and the public that their rationale in seeking the noise variance for extended work hours was to complete the more disruptive portions of the work for area businesses and to facilitate traffic flow by accelerating the work schedule. 


When suggested by Mayor Klausing, Mr. Arndt expressed willingness to amend the variance request to begin work at 6:00 am rather than 5:00 am and 8:00 am on Saturday; while his preference to avoid overtime costs for his employees where possible, through the proposed twelve-hour shifts and operational scheduling he needed to take into consideration.  Mr. Arndt advised that there were no incentives, other than market incentives, for completing the project earlier, but noted that their work was exclusive to earth moving that was impacted by weather-related issues; and advised that they were interested in completing the work at the earliest date possible.  Mr. Arndt reviewed work schedules during the proposed shifts, including fuel and waste management during those shifts.  Mr. Arndt noted that he anticipated that, with few exceptions, the Roseville side of the work most impacting residents would not happen until the end of September.


Ms. Atkins

Ms. Atkins addressed her previous statements related to her allegations that she had been misled by contractors coming to her home advising that work would start June 1, 2010, which did not happen even though she observed that the weather was fine.  Ms. Atkins expressed her confusion as to the rush to get the project done when it wasn’t started on time to begin with; again alleging that she’s been “lied to” about the start time and probably the completion date as well.  Ms. Atkins reiterated her concerns about her personal health; and opined that 6:00 a.m. was still too early to start work on the weekdays.


Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 6:57 pm and moved immediately to the action item under Agenda Item 12.a.


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Approving Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Rice Street Project

Mayor Klausing suggested a start time of 8:00 am on Saturdays, while unable to detect impacts of such action since Little Canada had approved earlier start times as originally requested by the applicant.  Mayor Klausing noted that another option would be to reduce the variance schedule to end September 30 or October 1, 2010, at which time it could be revisited for consideration of an extension.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the variance as presented, amended to allow work to start at 8:00 a.m. rather than 7:00 a.m. on Saturday.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned how close the Maplewood work zone was to County Road B and Ms. Atkins’ home.


Ms. Bloom advised that their work was adjacent east to her home; with Mr. Arndt noting the need to complete work on the Maplewood side by the end of October to facilitate switching traffic onto the new bridge.  Mr. Arndt further noted that the pond work in that area would not cause too much noise since that material was suitable for fill on the roadway and the contractor(s) had many other components to accomplish as part of the project.  Mr. Arndt assured listeners that contractors were concerned about residents as well; and that even though MnDOT contract language allowed for working twenty-four hours to complete the job, the contractor(s) chose not to do so in consideration of area residents.


Councilmember Roe suggested an alternate approach for consideration, in limiting the variance to the north side of Highway 36, which could address some of Ms. Atkins’ concerns; and questioned how such an approach would impact the completion schedule.


Mr. Arndt expressed willingness to accept such an approach rather than a shorter variance timeframe and the need to revisit the schedule.  Mr. Arndt advised that limiting work to the area north of Highway 36 was acceptable unless there was a substantial run of bad weather necessitating working longer to facilitate the schedule.  However, he noted that the primary contractor, Lunda, would be working twenty-four hours while tearing down the bridge itself in order to comply with MnDOT contract requirements to reduce traffic impacts.


Councilmember Ihlan requested more specific start/end times that would address avoiding noisy work during early and/or later hours of that variance time; and also expressed concern with the length of the variance time; suggesting that the variance be grated for a month with further extension time requested at which time any issues would be addressed and the variance adjusted as applicable.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be willing to support the variance with more specific conditions built into an adjusted schedule.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, granting the variance request to City Code Section 405.03, to allow extended work hours, specifically north of Highway 36, with a start time of 5:00 am on weekdays, and 8:00 am on Saturdays.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion without more conditions applied.


Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, while recognizing the concerns of Councilmember Ihlan and those residents concerns, while providing a balanced approach to getting the project completed for benefit of the entire community.


Councilmember Roe noted his consideration of a condition excluding pile driving during the extended hours.


Ms. Bloom advised that Lunda was the primary contractor controlling the job site and responsible to address pile driving, with Arndt Construction, as the requester of the variance, only involved in earth work and not doing any pile driving.  Ms. Bloom clarified that the variance would be applicable to any contractor(s) on the job site; and that it would be too difficult for the Police Department, in responding to any complaints, to identify the specific contractor(s).


At the request of Councilmembers, Ms. Bloom advised that the recourse for residents with complaints was to contact the City Police Department; and further advised that staff could send out a second mailing to residents detailing tonight’s City Council action for their awareness.  Ms. Bloom noted that she was not opposed to a condition that would limit pile driving during extended hours.


Councilmember Roe offered an amendment to the original motion, seconded by Councilmember Pust, to limit pile driving activities on the job site to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.


Mayor Klausing, as maker of the original motion, accepted the amendment as part of the original motion.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, granting the variance request to City Code Section 405.03, to allow extended work hours, specifically north of Highway 36, with a start time of 5:00 am on weekdays, and 8:00 am on Saturdays; and pile driving activities on the job site limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.


Councilmember Ihlan moved amendment of the variance time requested to August 10 to September 10, 2010, with the variance to be revisited at that time and not considered for renewal if public complaints so warranted.


Due to the lack of a second, Mayor Klausing ruled the motion dead.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.


11.      Public Hearings


b.            Request to Approve Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project

City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed the RCA dated August 9, 2010 related to this request; advising that the applicant was present.  However, Ms. Bloom noted that since the project was currently ahead of schedule, and following a meeting with the contractor late last week, staff had reposted and republished notice for the requested time from August 23 – September 10, 2010; with the Public Hearing rescheduled for August 23, 2010.  Ms. Bloom asked that the City Council allow public comment tonight from any interested parties in conjunction with the rescheduled future hearing, but would not be seeking Council action at tonight’s meeting.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project; with no one appearing for or against.


12.     Business Items (Action Items)


c.            Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 341 County Road B-2

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 9, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family detached home, currently owned by Gary and Judith Halberg.  Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of a severely dilapidated rear deck at an estimated cost of $2.000.00.


In addition to packet information, Mr. Munson advised that the property owner had taken the initiative to cut down a considerable amount of brush and vegetation to access the rotted deck, as well as having brought in a dumpster.   However, given this property’s history of public nuisances and slow compliance, Mr. Munson requested that the abatement process be authorized to provide staff with additional incentives for the owner to complete compliance in a timely manner.  Mr. Munson advised that he had spoken to the property owner, and that he would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting.


Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violation at 341 County Road B-2.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation at 341 County Road B-2 by hiring general contractors to remove and dispose of the rotted deck, in addition to additional vegetation cut down by the property owner, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated August 9, 2010, at an estimated cost of approximately $2,000.00, unless the required overall work was not substantially completed by the homeowner by September 1, 2010; 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 City Code, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1805 Stanbridge Avenue

As previously noted by Mayor Klausing, this item was removed by staff following resolution of unresolved violations with the property owner.


e.            Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1350 Ryan Avenue

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the RCA dated August 9, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached home, currently owned by Charles Buzicky, with the complaint originating from concerned neighbors.  Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of twenty-four (24) black plastic bags piled on the front yard garden; removal and disposal of junk and debris consisting of approximately two hundred (200) plastic containers, old gutter parts, and broken tools; estimating a total abatement cost of approximately $500.00. 


Mr. Munson noted that, as of this past weekend, the twenty-four bags of leaves in the front yard had been removed from the bags and left on the front yard, apparently due to misinformation or miscommunication between City staff and Mr. Buzicky.  Mr. Munson advised that this miscommunication had been clarified related to where and how dead leaves could be stored; however, due to this mistake by staff and the property owner making a good faith effort to comply with the violations, Mr. Munson suggested an additional period of fourteen (14) days for Mr. Buzicky to comply before the City abatement process proceeded.


Mr. Munson advised that Mr. Buzicky was present and wished to address the City Council.


Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violations at 1350 Ryan Avenue.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned when the original complaint had been received; with Mr. Munson advising that the neighbor complaint had been received by staff in June of 2010.


Property Owner, Charles Buzicky

Mr. Buzicky advised that he was in agreement with most of staff’s comments; however, he noted that the leaves had now become a more difficult problem for removal.  Mr. Buzicky reviewed the error in representations by staff to him; his informal survey of neighbors regarding his garden; his interest in using the leaves over time while recognizing the impacts of them blowing around now that they were no longer bagged; names of parties provided by staff to assist with removal or relocation of the leaves; interest previously received in someone removing the leaves; and his attempts to be environmentally sensitive in recycling containers;


Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Mr. Buzicky included the need for indoor storage as opposed to outdoor storage of empty plant containers; composting of the leaves; other items being stored outside, including broken tools and containers; Mr. Buzicky’s willingness to store materials in his garage until a short-term solution was found; and his interest in maintaining a positive relationship with his neighbors.


Mayor Klausing recognized Mr. Buzicky’s gardening interests while keeping properties in compliance with City Code without exception. 


Mr. Buzicky advised that he was reasonably sure he could comply with code, but was unsure of how to deal with the leaves no longer bagged within the proscribed timeframe.


Mr. Munson clarified that Mr. Buzicky had the option of moving the leaves to the back yard to be used for composting; or for the City to remove them to the community compost location at the expense of Mr. Buzicky; and reminded Mr. Buzicky of previous discussions on the need to move outside storage items inside the garage.


After further attempts to address Mr. Buzicky’s concerns in relocating the leaves, Mayor Klausing recognized Ms. Cynthia White in the audience, who volunteered to remove the leaves from Mr. Buzicky’s property, with the assistance of the staff member who originally misinformed Mr. Buzicky.


Mayor Klausing advised that formal action on this matter would be delayed for two (2) weeks, during which time the matter could hopefully be resolved; and if not resolved, it would come before the City Council at that time.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Parks and Recreation Master Systems Plan Implementation Funding

A bench handout, consisting of the August 5, 2010 meeting of the Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Citizen Advisory Team (CAT) was provided, attached hereto and made a part thereof.


City Manager Malinen reviewed the August 9, 2010 RCA and attached attachments, seeking City Council discussion and discussion of whether to pursue a potential referendum for November of 2010, noting the timing requirements if such a referendum was to be considered.  Mr. Malinen sought discussion within the context of the Master Plan process itself, as well as the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and consistent citizen requests that the City take care of existing infrastructure. 


Councilmember Pust noted that recommendation of both the CAT and the Parks and Recreation Commission indicated their recommendation that a referendum not move forward at this time.


City Manager Malinen reviewed rationale for considering a referendum at this time given market and economic conditions providing favorable contractor bids as well as reduced municipal borrowing rates and substantial long-term savings to the community.  Mr. Malinen advised that he was not making a recommendation, simply seeking to include the City Council in discussing such an opportunity and address timing requirements if there was interest in pursuing such a referendum.  Mr. Malinen noted staff input (Attachment B) for highest priority items for consideration from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan implementation in the context of such a referendum that could garner community support.


Mayor Klausing noted the need to seek additional monies through a referendum addressing overall capital improvement needs versus a referendum exclusive to park and recreation needs. 


While in agreement with City Manager Malinen in some ways, Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with his conversations throughout the community, as well as recommendations of the CAT and Parks and Recreation Commission, related to a referendum at this time without sufficient time for public consideration and comment.  Councilmember Johnson noted initial anticipation of an implementation schedule from the CAT before now, but still unavailable; and encourage the CAT implementation team to provide a schedule at their earliest convenience for public dissemination for community-wide success and support of a future referendum, rather than attempting to market one at this time.

Councilmember Pust suggested that both the CAT and Parks and Recreation Commission were aware of current contractor and borrowing market conditions, anticipating that those factors were considered in their recommendations.  Councilmember Pust suggested that the other side of the Imagine Roseville 2025 process was that the CAT was representative of the public who had asked that they be heard, and that their recommendations were a result of and representative of that process. 


Councilmember Roe concurred with the concept broached by City Manager Malinen for timing of such a referendum this year; and apologized for his comments potentially having misled City Manager Malinen in his recommended review of a referendum this fall.  Councilmember Roe noted the need to have a reasonable confidence in the success of a referendum, as well as buy-in from user groups and various foundations supporting parks; and the need for all parties to be in agreement.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of allowing the CAT to finish its process and provide recommendations that could be taken into consideration in the overall context of City needs.


b.            Continue Discussion on the 2011 Priority-based Budgeting

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the RCA, reminding Councilmembers of the need for City Council action at their September 13, 2010 meeting to adopt a preliminary, not-to-exceed tax levy; and staff’s attempt to provide as much information to them as possible prior to that decision, including short- and long-term capital needs as well as day-to-day operational costs.  Mr. Miller noted staff’s response to the City Council’s request to separate out mandatory items; however, noted the information remained of a preliminary nature. Mr. Miller advised that staff was awaiting City Council reaction to the additional information from a levy standpoint on where to draw the line if other than where indicated by internal staff review to-date.


Discussion included Attachment A and rankings and where the line would be eventually drawn for those items included in the 2011 budget recommendations; those items supported in full or in part by property taxes with those mandatory items separated out and staff indications of additional monies needed and/or budget increases for 2011 as detailed in the RCA.


Further discussion included current vacant positions and the need for staff to provide additional staff analysis from a management point of view and input on those positions remaining vacant without significant impacts to specific departments and/or day-to-day operations; need for current and future review of the impact of those previous positions versus a historical perspective to meet the needs of departments at current program and/or service levels and management’s rationale for their recommendations; additional information on Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) costs as new and not ranked; and code enforcement being brought into a levy-supported as opposed to fee-supported part of the budget and subsequent ranking.


City Manager Malinen responded to several questions of the City Council addressing projected impacts due to loss of interest earnings as projected on Mr. Miller’s analysis of the market and the City’s investment portfolio performing worse than last year; illumination of the EAB program anticipating the need and attempting to identify resources for appropriate response and prioritization; and lack of sustainability of the City’s overall code enforcement program from Community Development Department revenues funded through their own revenue streams from development and inspection charges and permit fees.  Mr. Malinen noted that code enforcement seemed more of a quality of life issue for the entire community, rather than specifically related to planning and zoning, and should be addressed through the General Fund.


Further discussion included no additional funds included for rolling stuck, with $60,000 identified to begin replacement of city-owned street lights and poles, and $150,000 for short-term needs for smaller equipment, and other smaller capital items, with the 2010 CIP for rolling stock matched in 2011.


Councilmember Ihlan requested an itemized list of proposed CIP purchases for a line-by-line review by Councilmembers and whether they should be funded by tax monies.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that assumptions should not be made to move code enforcement from Community Development to General Fund resources based on permits and fees being down; but rather that the entire Community Development Department budget should be reviewed to determine if they were achieving funding and expenditure levels in the context of the entire City budget.


Further discussion included employee benefits and salaries, with state mandates for a 2.5% increase for the employer to the basic fund and 3% increase for the City in the Fire and Police Funds and staff projections on the highest potential liability for those increases; $62,000 in contractual obligations consisting of audit and legal contract and dispatch services for the most part, with their built-in increases addressed in standing contracts; minimal increases for temporary and seasonal employee increases compared to 2010 depending on service levels; and a 1% proposed COLA increase for employees and full step increases.


City Manager Malinen noted the need for Council direction on the current ranking and any adjustments for funding as consideration was given to any paring of programs and costs to achieve a recommended levy for City Council approval; with staff’s current projects indicating a levy increase of 5.3% or an approximately $2.00 per month increase for average residential property owners.


Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in individual and corporate City Council ranking of the CIP program before the next meeting before providing his opinion on the overall levy.

Additional discussion included levy limit exclusions for law enforcement needs; potential reductions through a line-by-line analysis to reduce the projected levy; perspectives and interpretations of mandatory and non-mandatory items; Neighborhood Enhancement Program and EAB programs not previously included in annual expenditures, whether mandated or not; defining the funds provided by the HRA for portions of the NEP and code enforcement programs; time-spent profiles recently completed by staff providing a more clear picture of the allotment to various duties and categories for code enforcement and differentiating between publicity, initial inspections, and case work done as a result of those initial actions, as well as current complaint-generated calls and activities in the Community Development Department unrelated to the NEP program, but throughout the community on a daily basis.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if code enforcement is mandatory it should be removed from the ranking process; and further opined that a review of the entire Community Development Department may indicate that the department can no longer support its personnel in all categories or that costs could be made up some other way.


Councilmember Roe noted that information on those budget items not tax-supported, such as the Community Development Department and other Enterprise Funds, had been previously requested from staff; however, he noted that they should be in the priority rankings as opposed to mandatory items, recognizing that code enforcement should not be considered mandatory based on City Code compliance in the context of how it ranked with other priorities in tax-supported funds.


By consensus, and confirmed by City Manager Malinen, staff was asked to provide for the next City Council meeting additional information on impacts of capital needs; questions on the Community Development Department operations and budget; equipment and CIP needs identified by item; and non-General Fund type programs available for ranking on a common list, but not intermingled with tax-supported funds; with each program identified and their associated costs.


Finance Director Miller clarified that those non-General Fund programs and Enterprise Funds did not need to be identified as part of the City Council’s September 15, 2010 preliminary levy deadline.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.


Councilmember Roe noted several items on the September 20, 2010 preliminary agenda that could be removed based on previous action.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:24 pm.