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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

February 8, 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 February: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing)

City Manager Malinen advised that Councilmember Pust had alerted him that she would be approximately one-half hour late for tonight’s meeting.  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.


2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Klausing requested removal of Consent Item 7.l entitled, “Adopt a Resolution to Authorize Final Payment and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements Project.”


Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Items 7.e, g, ,h respectively entitled, “Approve a Fiber Services Agreement for Roseville Schools;” “Approve Contract with Braun Intertec to Undertake Subsurface Testing and Complete Remedial Planning for the Twin Lakes Phase II Public Infrastructure Project;” and “Authorize Sale of 1980 Caterpillar 140G Road Grader.”  


City Manager Malinen noted that Business Action Item 12.b entitled, “Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval for Don Pablo’s Alcohol Compliance Failure;” be removed at the request of staff.


City Manager Malinen advised that Business Action Items 12.d and e respectively entitled “Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1423 Judith Avenue;” and “Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1175 County Road B West;” were removed at the request of staff as both items had been resolved.


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 spoke.


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


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

Mayor Klausing noted the February 25, 2010 deadline for candidates to apply for City Advisory Commission vacancies; advising that there were a total of three vacancies: two on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and one on the Police Civil Service Commission.


Councilmember Johnson publically apologized to staff for his tone during discussion of the communication tower issue at the meeting on 1/25/10.


Councilmember Roe reminded the public to attend and provide input on the second Parks Master Plan Process Community Workshop Meeting scheduled on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 from 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. in the Olympic Room of the Roseville Skating Center.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of January 25, 2010 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 25, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; 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

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.    

ACH Payments


57516 – 57649





Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


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

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:








Access Communications

2010 Locate services for fiber network



Morton Salt

Blanket P.O. for road salt


Public Works

North Image Apparel Inc.

Blanket P.O. for uniforms










Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.            Approve a 1-4 Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor License on February 19, March 5, March 19 for Corpus Christi Church at 2131 Fairview Avenue N

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, approval of application by the Church of Corpus Christi for a temporary On-Sale Liquor License at 2131 Fairview Avenue N for February 19, March 5, and March 19, 2010.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


d.            Approve a One-Day Gambling Permit for a raffle on March 26 at Parkview Center School at 701 W County Road B

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request by Parkview Center School to conduct a raffle on March 26, 2010 at the Parkview Center School, located at 701 West County Road B.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


f.             Adopt a Resolution amending the Appointment and Reappointment Process Policy for the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10783 entitled, “Resolution to Define the Appointment and Reappointment Process, for the Members of the Board of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville,” revising Resolution No. 10541 adopted August 13, 2007; clarifying who takes part in the interview process and an update of the appointment/reappointment process for the RHRA.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


i.             Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2010 Apportionment of Assessments

          Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10784 entitled, “Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2010;” authorizing the Public Works Director to reapportion assessments.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


j.             Receive Feasibility Report and Order public Hearing for Rice Street / TH 36 Bride Reconstruction Project

            Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10785 entitled, “Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report for the Rice Street / TH36 Bridge Reconstruction Project and Order Public Hearing for Improvement;” with said hearing scheduled for March 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


k.            Approve an Agreement between the City of Saint Anthony and the City of Roseville for the Mill and Overlay of Highcrest Road

Approve an agreement for the Street Reconstruction between the City of Roseville and the City of Saint Anthony, for mill and overlay of Highcrest Road between County Road D (37th Avenue NE) and County Road C-2 (33rd Avenue NE).


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


m.          Establish a Public Hearing on February 22, 2010 for Placement of Water Ski Course and Jump on Lake Owasso

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, establishing a public hearing for the City Council meeting of February 22, 2010 to provide for public comment regarding placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso for the 2010 season.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.            Approve a Fiber Services Agreement for Roseville Schools (Former Consent Item 7.e)

City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 8, 2010.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on agreements in place for cost sharing.


Finance Director Chris Miller advised that this formalized and referenced past verbal agreements negotiated for cost-sharing of fiber optics, with this requested action solidifying those negotiations and verbal agreements achieved over the past 18 – 36 months.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of a Fiber Services Agreement, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 8, 2010, between the City of Roseville and the Roseville School District, pending final review by the City Attorney.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Contract with Braun Intertec to Undertake Subsurface Testing and Complete Remedial Planning for the Twin Lakes Phase II Public Infrastructure Project (Former Consent Item 7.g)

City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 8, 2010.  Mr. Malinen noted that this supplemental contract represented additional testing requested by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) beyond the original agreement with Braun. 


Councilmember Ihlan referenced page 2 of the December 29, 2009 letter from the MPCA; and line 16 of the staff report related to the City not conducting subsurface investigations on land not owned by the City and/or outside the scope of this project.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that testing of those additional private properties were prudent at this time, and their permission should be sought to determine the type and extent of groundwater contamination.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that staff had held no direct conversation with property owners for the purpose of requesting testing on their properties; however, he noted that the MPCA had been in communication with owners of the PIK property for some time and that this parcel had been added to the MPCA “watch” list for follow-up action, which may have required that owner to do additional testing.  In the best interest of the City, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was avoiding involvement in that chain of conversation and focusing on areas owned by the City, with resolution of any groundwater contamination allowing the City to proceed with Phase II of the infrastructure project.


Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, if PIK property owners would be required to eventually perform additional testing on their parcel, it would be prudent for the City and PIK property owners coordinate testing now to avoid the City paying for something at a later date.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred that such a scenario would be the best option; and advised that the staff would do its best for the City and that future action may still require such a coordinated venture.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in order for the City to receive the $1 million in grant funds, this portion of the project needed to be characterized at this time, and that additional work may be required as this project or future projects move forward.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the MPCA, based on their initial review, was requesting this further information, and would also have to approve additional tests.


Further discussion included additional boring sites referenced in the MPCA letter located on the edge of City property and as close to the edge of adjoining properties as possible to provide a better sense of the potential contamination source; other potential sources and levels of contamination that may be unknown at this time; and projected flow of groundwater into properties to the south.


Councilmember Ihlan offered her support of this request; and suggested that if the MPCA was willing to have future coordination between the City and private property owners in resolving this issue, that would make sense.


Councilmember Roe requested clarification of the form “General Conditions for Roseville City Projects” on Braun Intertec letterhead, and whether this represented their terms or those of the City.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that those were the terms from Braun geared toward the City of Roseville, specific to changing the liability amounts to an acceptable amount and other terms acceptable to the City.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, as the City transitioned to the new City Attorney, he could not confirm that the contract as presented was in its final form.


Councilmember Roe concurred that the terms of this supplemental contract should be based on the most beneficial terms to the City; and confirmed with staff that the purpose of the additional soil borings and their locations was to characterize movement across the site by having those different mutations.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of a contract between the City of Roseville and Braun Intertec to undertake soil and water sampling, testing and analysis in order to gain Pollution Control Agency (PCA) approval for the Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan for the Phase II Infrastructure Project in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, said contract not to exceed $16,260.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


c.            Authorize Sale of 1980 Caterpillar 140G Road Grader (Former Consent Item 7.h)

City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 8, 2010.  Mr. Malinen advised that after careful review by staff, it was being suggested that the fleet be reduced by this one piece of equipment, based on the projected cost of repairs versus its actual value.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified that this piece of equipment was going out of service at this time, was to be replaced in the short-run, and then would be phased out.  Councilmember Ihlan sough assurance that purchase of the future equipment would come before the City Council for approval as part of future budget discussions.


Mr. Malinen advised that replacement of this equipment is planned to be the 2011 purchase of a tandem truck chassis with a hook system allowing for multiple body attachments.  Mr. Malinen noted that, when the grader was purchased, the City was performing much more street work itself than contracting it out.  Mr. Malinen assured Councilmember Ihlan that equipment purchases would be part of upcoming budget discussions.


Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the sale of the 1980 Caterpillar 140G Road Grader.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


d.            Adopt a Resolution to Authorize Final Payment and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements Project (Former Consent Item 7.l)

City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 8, 2010. 


Mayor Klausing clarified that the City was proposing to terminate the contract early based on our allegations that the provider has failed to fulfill their end of the contract; however, he questioned whether the City would not be in breach of contract by doing so.  Mayor Klausing sought comment from the City Attorney and additional information on discussions between the City and the provider.


City Attorney Charles Bartholdi advised that, to-date, his office had had no contact with this individual; and shared Mayor Klausing’s concerns, suggesting that it would be prudent for the City get a mutual termination or release from the provider on any remaining amounts due.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the contractor, to this point, is in agreement and had requested and signed a request for final payment.  Mr. Schwartz advised that he was not aware if the City Engineer had discussed this with the City Attorney as to whether this was adequate or not; and suggested that staff return with this item following additional discussion with the City Attorney if that was his recommendation.

City Attorney Bartholdi suggested, in concurrence with Mayor Klausing, that the City make final payment conditioned upon receipt of a release or waiver from the provider for any additional claims.


Further discussion included the acceptance of the work completed to-date and commencement of the one-year warranty period.


No formal action taken.


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption


10.         Presentations


a.            Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) Annual Report

RVA Executive Director Julie Larson and Rosedale Marketing Director and member of the RVA Board of Directors Liz Olstrander were present to provide the annual  report of the RVA, now celebrating its ten year anniversary.


Ms. Larson presented a 2009 year-in-review of Roseville hotel performance compared to national averages, with a drastic reduction in bookings/occupancy recognized as the worst year in modern motel history, but noting that by comparison, Roseville experienced only a slight drop from last year, even with price wars from metro-area competitors.  Ms. Larson reviewed some of the major bookings and rebookings for area events; favorable impressions and testimony from those booking; use of on-line booking tools and cooperative advertising ventures; contests and giveaways; and capitalizing on the opening of the new TCF Stadium and working with Gopher Sports.


Ms. Larson briefly reviewed the Roseville Hospitality Awards program with four candidates for each category; success of the 2010 Roseville Winter Jazz Blast, including the initiation of Roseville Restaurant Week…and All That Jazz to promote the 30 full-service restaurants in Roseville, with 11 of those participating in the program this year to promote business for those restaurants during this typical slow month of the year.


Councilmember Pust arrived at this time: approximately 6:42 p.m.


Ms. Olstrander reviewed marketing plans for 2010 through use of major advertising venues; partnering with Gopher Sports; and Constant Contact e-mail groups.


Ms. Larson noted the significant reduction in advertising costs due to in-house preparation of many of the marketing materials and management of the e-mail process.  Ms. Larson noted discussions were being held to accommodate potential growth for the Jazz Blast in the future through additional cooperative ventures.


Ms. Larson advised that they would continue their positive promotion of Roseville, and assured the City Council that they were “holding our own” in the hospitality industry.


Mayor Klausing asked, for the public benefit, the purpose of and funding sources for the RVA.


Ms. Larson advised that the purpose of the RVA was to sell Roseville’s hospitality community to local, regional and national marketing to promote the community and its amenities; and that this was funded through a three percent (3%) hotel tax, not from the community at large.  Ms. Larson noted that the hospitality industry was a very large economic generator in the community, as well as employing many through its hotels and restaurants.


Mayor Klausing clarified that, by State Statute, that three percent (3%) was only used for the RVA and not the City.


Ms. Larson concurred, noting that exclusive use of that 3% was required to promote tourism in the community and had been successful to-date (i.e., bringing the Jazz event to the hospitality industry in January, a normally slow time for their businesses).


Councilmember Roe sought clarification of the City’s hotel tax in comparison to surrounding communities.

Ms. Larson advised that the City’s hotel tax was well less than 1-1/2% until the extra percentage tax was initiated, with the City now approximately ½% less than area competitors.


Roe noted that this was a definite advantage for those in the area on pleasure or business to stay in Roseville, in addition to the City’s new Park and Ride facility.


Ms. Larson also noted the lower costs for eating and entertainment in Roseville as well as no-fee parking.


Councilmember Johnson thanked the RVA for another year of beautiful lights throughout the City Hall campus, opining that it added a nice touch to the holiday season and looked great.  Councilmember Johnson further commended the RVA for their marketing of sports, noting that he and his family had arrived early for the speed skating event at the OVAL last weekend and had counted the number of different states represented in vehicles in the lot, with a total of 22 different states.  Councilmember Johnson also noted the diverse cultures and languages represented at OVAL events; and thanked the RVA for promoting and marketing the regional aspect of the OVAL.


Mayor Klausing thanked Ms. Larson and Ms. Olstrander for their presentation and their work with the RVA.


b.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan Listening Session

Mayor Klausing announced that there would be time for a “Listening Session” at tonight’s meeting for the Park and Recreation Master Plan.


Present were Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke; Michael Schroeder of the Master Plan consulting firm; and Jeff Evenson and Jill Anfang from the City‘s Parks and Recreation Department.


Mr. Brokke noted that it was appropriate to follow the RVA; and expressed the Department’s appreciation of their efforts in promoting their events, and for the cooperative relationships.


Mr. Brokke thanked his fellow presenters for the time they’ve given in the Master Plan process in engaging the community and working with the Citizen Advisory Team (CAT).  Mr. Brokke noted that, at their last meeting, an update had been provided to the City Council on the Master Plan process and progress to-date; however, he advised that tonight’s was for the express purpose of providing an opportunity for the Council to provide input in the planning process.


Mr. Schroeder advised that, while he would serve as a facilitator to keep the discussion focused, his intention was to make this listening session parallel to other meetings in the community, with the exception that as the City Council, they were the policy-making body for the City.


In accordance with the Listening Session agenda, Mr. Schroeder led discussions as follows:


Existing parks, facilities, programs (whether Neighborhood or Community parks): “What works well today?” and “What is needed?”

Councilmember Johnson comments:

§  Green space is a big challenge in this community: preservation of and acquiring new

§  We do a nice job of maintaining the green space we currently have

§  Gymnasiums are at a premium, especially from the perspective of a coach; A legitimate concern for the community is that additional facilities are needed for practices, and a surge in basketball gyms is needed

§  Some facilities in the wider metropolitan area are wonderful.  Is that something we need to hold our community up to?  While we’ve added here and there, we’re falling short with our competitive communities

§  How to safely access and connect with the many amenities offered at Central Park, heard as an often repeated and common theme


Councilmember Ihlan comments:

§  At the top of my list is to speak for trees; to support preserving and expanding our forests as part of our park lands, with trees having many environmental benefits aside from reducing air pollution and reducing CO2 and preserving water quality; people connect with trees as feeling a part of nature.  Trees also provide an economic value in city parks, and in raising surrounding property values.  Councilmember Ihlan hoped that that was a sincere outcome of the planning process: to preserve both in actively planting them and preserving undeveloped areas with existing trees, while recognizing that funding needs to go along with that.

§  Preserving and expanding open space and natural habitats in the park system as well; with some city parks currently providing natural habitat areas, with those needing identification and making sure that they’re preserved and promoted.  (example: Langton Lake Park documented as a corridor for many species of birds and their migration patterns

§  Acquiring more open space, and advocacy/planning for that with funding strategies, not just for programming or creating new parks, but taking advantage of acquiring some undeveloped land and keeping it undeveloped

§  In previous discussions related to “micro parks,” this may be a good time to acquire undeveloped land with current market values or through conservation easements or development rights.  Councilmember Ihlan offered to send via to the CAT an article she used for reference that provided the economic value of open space and showed strategies for funding mechanisms.

§  Support for Oasis Park community garden; important use and other community garden spots in other parts of town through use of undeveloped land


Councilmember Pust comments:

§  Councilmember Pust recognized her own family’s changing dynamics as they’ve aged and no longer use the parks as much as they used to.  This brought to her attention the need to address how all segments of the community use the parks, and how to facilitate citizens not having children in programs, but still wanting/needing to utilize the parks (i.e., connections and gathering places).  How to make parks and the system accessible; what activities are there for all demographic groups in neighborhood parks versus the multiple options available in Central park; linkages needed through dedicated pathways as part of the planning process; needs of older citizens in park planning; and how to generate more community gathering activities in neighborhood parks as well as in Central Park.

§  Walking issues specific to park amenities and access to meet family needs now and in the future


Discussion included the demographic make up of the CAT in addressing similar issues as those raised by Councilmember Pust for connectivity and gathering; pedestrian and bicycle safety issues beyond the parks in connecting to and accessing them; and extensive discussions and considerations to-date in how to cross major roadways to allow access to parks, even though outside the specific jurisdiction of parks, but a critical piece of the broader concept.


Councilmember Roe comments:

As a representative serving on the CAT, Councilmember Roe noted a recent listening session on the northwest edge of Roseville (Old Highway 8 adjacent to New Brighton) and people questioning the location of various community parks (i.e., Reservoir Woods); how to access the various parks; and what those specific parks offer for programming and/or events.



Councilmember Pust comments:

Councilmember Pust expressed concern that conversations about amenities or offerings need to be done in an authentic manner, not just brainstorming a “wish list,” but rooting that discussion with an awareness of how those amenities or offerings are funded.  Councilmember Pust sought information on how the CAT was handling that aspect of the discussion as Roseville’s park system was compared with its neighbors or other communities; and how that connection between wishes and paying for them was addressed.


Discussion included assurances by the CAT representatives that this had been kept in the forefront during all discussions, that the Master Plan process was not seen as a “pie-in-the-sky” plan to develop the parks system, but was addressed in a practical manner, seeking input for any implementation strategies.


Mr. Brokke noted that discussions during a listening session with area Athletic Associations addressed that issue, with their suggestions for various funding options, whether through partnering between the City and Associations,  grant opportunities, and/or a referendum.


Councilmember Pust asked that the CAT make those pieces of information very concrete during the process, and provide a range of costs, not just potential options to get there, noting that in reality, there may be no realistic options for funding of a particular park and/or program.  Councilmember Pust recognized the need for brainstorming; however, she suggested that a range of costs, along with an actual amount on a property tax bill for such an amenity, would be more realistic.  Councilmember Pust asked if citizens were attending listening sessions to talk about stabilizing or maintaining existing parks and facilities, or if that was a separate topic area.


Mr. Brokke advised that this would be incorporated into a future phase of the planning process as the CAT starts to identify funding sources, with future workshops identifying those costs as part of an exercise to show realities and actual costs.  Mr. Brokke advised that maintaining existing facilities was very much a part of current discussions, and was very important to the community.


Mr. Schroeder observed that the process allows for community members can be very realistic about their expectations; while allowing them to dream; and noted that an actual exercise at an upcoming workshop would be to define costs to improve a neighborhood park, with participants making priority decisions: not giving up on big ideas, but focusing now on realties for how to achieve improvements.


Mr. Brokke reminded Councilmembers that the Master Plan was a 20-30 year plan looking to the future to make a better Roseville and identify some of those criteria along the way.


Mayor Klausing comments:

Mayor Klausing noted that he had served on an Infrastructure Citizen Advisory Committee initiated approximately 15 years ago as legislative changes were enacted for tax increment financing uses, and asked that the CAT have access to that reference material.


§  Lots of discussion about maintaining what we have; with a sense that parks had been in an acquisition phase in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and in the 1990’s, they were now in a maintenance mode for preservation of existing parks, with the exception of Pioneer Park, as an additional acquisition.  Further exploration needed of acquisition of land adjacent to existing parks to determine if that is adequate to current use groups or if those perspectives have changes.


Councilmember Roe noted that all discussions aren’t about new and/or maintaining existing, but that those discussions also included possible reprioritizing or reprogramming existing parks for a higher and better use now and in the future.


From the City Council’s perspective: “What Challenges do the systems face today and what challenges will parks and recreation face in 10-20 years that will impact how parks are seen and used?

Mayor Klausing comments:

§  Being able to fund these things under current financial constraints and continued government aid cuts, reprioritizations and unintended consequences from other legislative bodies, even when totally supported of the system

§  Shifting and different uses by citizens during their lifetimes and/or tenures in the community based on their current lifestyle.


Councilmember Pust comments:

§  Aging infrastructure: parks are getting older and new money is needed to keep them at previous or current levels

§  Changing demographics: if you were building a community with primary and projected age groups over 30 years, what would parks and recreation look like and how do we get from what we have to what it should be?

§  Is there a way for parks to serve infrastructure needs in the community in ways they’re not (i.e., rain gardens, water infiltration) to link public lands as a more vibrant piece of our green initiatives and environmental needs rather than just being a piece of green on the map?  How can we engineer our assets to keep the rest of the community green and save money in the process, as well as improving the park system?


Councilmember Johnson comments:

§  In my 16 years in the community, I’ve found that perspectives are fluid and we need to be aware of fluid progress with people in all different phases of appreciation and usage of parks

§  Concern about the amount of homes that are going to turn over in Roseville in the next 10-15 years

§  From my perspective, and Mayor Klausing’s previous comments, we need to keep our parks well-maintained and make sure they’re each well-branded parks: identifiable, accessible, clean and meeting needs.  Make them appeal to not just one aspect of the population but a variety by providing them with a good, clean face and presenting a well-maintained brand is crucial to drawing new people into the community.  Parks were a big draw for my family when we settled in Roseville; and if well-maintained, they should be drawing more vibrant families into community.


Councilmember Roe comments:

§  Challenge of balancing the purpose of parks: passive facilities for enjoyment of natural environment and preservation of habitat versus programming for active pursuits, based on limited resources.  Lots of discord or tension existing in community between passive and active needs; might mean that we need to expand facilities versus changing that ratio.


Councilmember Ihlan comments:

§  Councilmember Ihlan noted that trees used as a green structure, as well as natural areas, served lots of purposes, both active and passive, and could be compatible with each other.

§  A challenge was to preserve existing natural areas, since once they’re gone, they can’t be brought back.


Mayor Klausing observed that, while understanding the distinction between programmed and non-programmed uses, there was consideration needed in scheduling activities (i.e., soccer or softball facilities) in treed areas, and that was the challenge in finding that balance.


Discussion was held related to the Skate Park, previous and current use, and levels of expertise required and challenges to those users based on which tier classification was used for equipment height, supervision required, fees charged if any, and liability concerns.


Specific to the City Council as policy-makers, “What areas of policy are important to the community to address related to parks and recreation?”

Mayor Klausing comments:

§  Expressed appreciation for Councilmember Roe’s comments on prioritizing and assigning value as an important policy consideration, based on space and staffing availability and the finite numbers available.


Councilmember Pust comments:

§  Focus on the desired outcomes: a healthier community; a more engaged community – all in an intangible way, not just in a rhetorical way and not tied into the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process; with measurements and definition needed.

§  Outputs, not just inputs: What did we get out of it?  What connections were made between people who didn’t know each other before they came?


Mr. Schroeder advised that CAT discussions were based on outcomes and needing associated metrics on which to focus resources on community goals; but admitted that it was a continuing struggle to define how to measure things like a more healthy and engaged community. 


In conclusion, Mr. Schroeder reminded Councilmembers that the CAT was accessible to the City Council at any time.


11.         Public Hearings


a.    Public Hearing Regarding Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the purpose of the Public Hearing to certify unpaid utility and other charges at least 90-days delinquent to property tax rolls.  Mr. Miller noted that past practice had been to recommend certification on an annual basis; however, in 2010, staff was recommending certification on a quarterly basis, allowing that unpaid utilities are brought to the attention of new property owners in a more timely fashion, and allow the City to record a lien against the property in the event that a property goes into foreclosure and/or is being prepared for sale for other reasons.  Mr. Miller advised that listed property owners had received due notice of tonight’s meeting and proposed action.


Discussion included clarification that initial recommendation was a trial option;  increased communication opportunities with this revised quarterly certification; comparisons in past delinquencies and any trends indicated; and the process for certification from the City to Ramsey County and added protections for all parties.


Mr. Miller advised that, upon receipt of the certifications, Ramsey County would take temporary action immediately to flag the property that a lien exists, but certification by the County will be a future step.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against.


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt a Resolution to Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10786 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2011 or Beyond;” as detailed in the RCA dated February 8, 2010.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval for Don Pablo’s Alcohol Compliance Failure



c.            Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval for Fuddruckers Alcohol Compliance Failure

Acting Roseville Police Chief Rick Mathwig summarized events to-date, as detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2010, prompting this requested action. 


Mayor Klausing noted that no one was present from the Fuddruckers establishment.


Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, Section 302.15; for a five-day suspension and fine of $1,000.


Discussion included past compliance checks in 2009.


Councilmember Roe noted, in similar past action, the Police Chief had set the date of suspension, and questioned if that action should be included in the motion.


Pust amended, Ihlan seconded amendment to the motion that the Roseville Police Department issue an administrative presumptive penalty for five days, with that said suspension to be at the discretion of Acting Police Chief Rick Mathwig.


Further discussion included options for documented server training; Fuddruckers not taking part in that sanctioned training process; clear designation on the minor’s driver’s license that they were under age 21; and options for cash registers and calendars to assist managers and their servers in avoiding compliance issues.


Councilmember Johnson expressed astonishment that anyone could not be aware of a minor’s driver’s license as clearly designated.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1423 Judith Avenue

Removed from this agenda.


e.            Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1175 County Road B West

Removed from this agenda.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discussion of Noise Wall Along Highway 36 as a part of the Rice Street Interchange Project

City Manager Malinen noted the additional information provided by staff, and inclusion of the previously-completed MnDOT Sound Report.  Mr. Malinen distributed, as bench handouts, voice mail and e-mail responses from three neighbors: one e-mail from a resident at 204 Minnesota Avenue in support of the noise wall; one phone call from Tricia and Jeff Pedro, 2252 Marion Street in support of the noise wall; and another phone call from Don Ischer at 299 Capitol View in opposition to the noise wall.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer Debra Bloom were present to provide additional visual information in response to citizen concerns related to the proposed wall height and other concerns expressed at the Open House held in January, and the subsequent petition presented by a majority of the neighbors requesting that the City Council reverse their previous action.


Mr. Schwartz advised that considerable discussion had been held among neighbors and between neighbors and staff over the last two months, and that staff had suggested that the neighbors petition to the City Council for reconsideration of their previous decision, with that petition presented at the January 25, 2010 meeting, as well as the City Council receiving additional comments for or against.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the plans were 95% developed for the actual location at this time, and thus staff had put together rough drawings on the wall height for the perspective of the City Council and neighbors.


Mayor Klausing noted that in June of 2009, the City Council had taken action approving the noise wall as presented and based on the overwhelming positive feedback in support of the wall by the neighborhood.  Mayor Klausing noted that the recent petition indicated that this previous support had now changed almost completely to opposition.  Mayor Klausing opined that, in his almost nine years on the City Council, he could not remember such a turnaround; and sought input from staff, from their perspective, as to how this had occurred and whether sufficient information had been available since the inception of the project.


Mr. Schwartz clarified that, while not understanding the impetus for this new discussion, concerns from neighbors were being directed to staff prior to the Open House meeting held in January.


City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that, since preparation and delivery of the Council Agenda packet that included the petition requesting that the noise wall terminate just east of 2234 Marion Street, several additional homes were now supportive of the petition, and indicated the location of those homes on visuals for the City Council and public. 


Ms. Bloom reviewed several to-scale cross sections based on plan sheets just completed and provided by MnDOT and Ramsey County today, comparing existing trees, wall height versus existing tree and/or home height, and proposed minimal tree removal, that she had just completed showing perspectives from various locations, including 357 Capitol View; 325 Capitol View; 285 Capitol View; and 2241 Marion Street.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the now 95% complete plans and location of the proposed ramp from Rice Street to Highway 36, and the off-ramp coming off and across Highway 36 to the bridge and connecting to a single-point intersection in the vicinity of Calibre Ridge townhomes.


Ms. Bloom advised that, since the plan sheets had just been completed, she had only been able to meet with two residents to-date to provide them with this perspective.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included various perspectives; purpose of the wall to reduce noise for neighboring properties; distance of 100’ from the first home at 387 Capitol View to the wall, based on it being set back farther than most homes and the closest being 2254 Marion at an estimated 100’. 


Mayor Klausing advised that he had no preference for the wall one way or the other, but questioned from the cross sections provided how the wall height would impact nearby residents given its distance from them and limited height.


Mr. Schwartz noted that Mark Guess, a representative of MnDOT, was present at tonight’s meeting, and could provide information to the City Council on potential implications if the original decision was rescinded, the wall not constructed, and future project and/or noise wall construction implications.


Marc Goess – MnDOT Representative

Mr. Goess advised that the City could decide to not have a portion of the wall constructed, with an exemption sought from the MPCA as the regulatory agency administering noise wall construction.  Mr. Goess further advised that, once that exemption was in place, if at sometime in the future the neighborhood changed their mind(s) and requested a noise wall, that would not happen and one would not be built, since it was eligible for this project and not constructed.  Mr. Goess advised that the only exception was if and when another major project was constructed at the intersection of Rice Street and the ramps; and advised that the only project of such magnitude of which he was aware was a possible third lane on eastbound Highway 36 within the next ten years, at which time a brand new noise analysis would be done based on the homes not mitigated.  Mr. Goess sought to clarify that future analysis may not indicate that a noise wall was needed to mitigate noise.


Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Goess included the possibility that the MPCA would deny the exemption, with them not having done so for any past practices, since the entire noise mitigation process was approved by MPCA; the infrequency of neighbors not wanting a noise wall due to excessive noise; and limited impacts to noise reduction for potential alternatives to a noise wall such as trees, which represent more of psychological impact, but little decibel noise reduction due to space and cost prohibitions.


Public Comment

Ms. Dwyer-French

Ms. Dwyer-French expressed puzzlement in the additional information presented at tonight’s meeting, and whether it was in response to the citizen petition previously filed.  Ms. Dwyer-French advised that she was very upset with the additional information being presented; suggested that the original meeting held in June of 2009 was poorly handled by the City Council and its purpose misunderstood by the neighborhood; and addressed her perspectives on recent survey work allegedly being performed by City staff and their comments to neighbors questioning their intent in surveying the area.  Ms. Dwyer-French referenced other noise walls (i.e., Highway 280 in Lauderdale) and their negative aesthetics.  Ms. Dwyer-French spoke in opposition to the wall, as well as those names represented on the petition filed January 25, 2010; opining that the petition more than sufficiently represented the majority; and referenced meeting minutes from the June 2009 City Council.  Ms. Dwyer-French suggested that, if the minority living on Marion Street wants relief by constructing the wall, that the wall be constructed in that section only.


Mayor Klausing recognized the passion expressed by Ms. Dwyer-French, and attempted to put the additional information being provided in some context.  Mayor Klausing reiterated his lack of preference to construct or not construct the wall; however, he advised that given this apparent almost total reversal in previous requests, he wanted as much information available as possible.  Mayor Klausing advised that, at the previous meeting, this additional information request was clearly noted prior to a decision by the City Council.  Mayor Klausing expressed his concern about the emotions being displayed and asked that the various perspectives be respected.


Ms. Dwyer-French reiterated her perspective, and that of several neighbors, in viewing surveyors working in front of their homes over a period of several hours, and their alleged comments to those neighbors.  Ms. Dwyer-French questioned if construction of the wall meant money for the City and State, and expressed her fear of the ultimate decision and whether it would concur with her preference, and that of her neighbors.


Teresa Willmus, 226 Minnesota Avenue

Ms. Willmus advised that she lived in the southeast corner of the intersection of Marion and Minnesota; and spoke in opposition to construction of the wall if it runs the entire length from Rice to Dale Streets.  If a decision was made to build a partial wall and end at Marion Street, Ms. Willmus questioned what impacts that would have to the sound and exhaust level currently proposed to be contained by a wall running from Rice to Marion Streets; and requested a more defined perspective on what was meant by “minimal tree removal,” suggesting that specific numbers and/or percentages be provided.  Ms. Willmus also questioned existing and proposed drainage if the wall was constructed.


Ms. Bloom provided comparison pictures to address Ms. Willmus’ concerns and questions.  Ms. Bloom noted that the plans and drawings had been provided to the City by Ramsey County and MnDOT, and she was unsure of the maturity of the trees, or their species.


Mr. Goess advised that the existing drainage pond was dry most of time with the exception of high rainfall events, at which time there would be standing water in the pond.  Mr. Goess confirmed that construction of a noise wall would impact drainage patterns in this area.


Discussion included how large of an area drained into that holding pond; additional water anticipated based on the new construction and grade of the road and ramp, as well as additional paved area; and options for directing water under Highway 36; and location of the new drainage area into right-of-way as the new ramp fills in the current low area, with an infiltration/retention basis just south of 2234 Capitol View to ensure sufficient storage capacity.


                   Ms. Willmus spoke in opposition to a partial or full wall being constructed.


                   Jeff Pedro, 2252 Marion Street

Mr. Pedro spoke in support of the wall; however, he expressed concern as to where the wall would stop in relationship to his home, and impacts to be realized accordingly.  Mr. Pedro advised that he and his family would like remediation from current noise levels, but he didn’t want to look out his front window at a wall either; and suggested that the wall be brought west to end near Capitol View Circle, at about the end of the on ramp and hidden by many trees.  Mr. Pedro expressed concerns about the resale value of his home, current noise levels and aesthetics.


Mayor Klausing clarified that his intent was to get opinions on the wall in general – whether to construct it or not – but not to get into designing the wall in part or as a whole.


Kathleen Hastert, 247 Capital View Circle

Ms. Hastert spoke in opposition to the wall; noting that aesthetically they preferred the trees, looking out at the highway, and walking along that area, as did many people who also walked along there.


Discussion included height of the wall adjacent to the existing berm height.


Ray McDonald, 2241 Marion

Mr. McDonald provided pictures from the east side of the berm from his home; and spoke in opposition to the noise wall based on the lesser of two evils, and his perception that there would be little improvement to the noise levels.


Discussion included the possibility of staff doing photo renderings of the wall in place now that scale drawings and plans were available, with staff advising that their time was limited in providing such renderings; and equivalency rates in a five decibel reduction to halving traffic noise on Highway 36.


John Duffy and Barb McClellan, representing Calibre Ridge

Mr. Duffy, speaking for the Calibre Ridge townhome project, advised that original perceptions of the June 2009 meeting to address loss of access to Rice Street based on relocating the bridge, and tonight’s meeting were totally different issues. 


Mr. Duffy commended City staff in their preparation of the cross section drawings and communicating to them the impacts of current and proposed plans.   Mr. Duffy advised that given up-to-date plans and information, they were just now beginning to be able to understand the implications of the proposed construction, based not only on the proposed noise wall, but the regrading for Highway 36.  Several visual representations were provided by Mr. Duffy, showing that the wall moved much closer to their building, obscured their view from all three floors; and would severely impact the marketing and rentability of the properties.


Mayor Klausing clarified that tonight’s discussion was focused on the noise barrier only, not addressing road design or grading, and that the City Council had little input in that issue.  Mayor Klausing opined that this area had the greatest visual impact.


Ms. McClellan noted that the reason it was being raised is to alert the City Council that Calibre Ridge was unable, at this time, to provide a definitive opinion, since just having found out about the grade change in the road and closer proximity to their facility.


Mayor Klausing suggested that further consideration be given to this issue, and a decision deferred until the next meeting.


Ms. Dwyer-French

Ms. Dwyer-French reiterated her concern that the decision to build a noise wall be based on approval of property owners living adjacent to the noise wall; and noted that their petition represented well over 90% of those properties, and that the decision was to not have a wall.

Mayor Klausing recognized Ms. Dwyer-French’s perspective; however, he noted the request of Calibre Ridge for more time before a determination was made for a full or partial wall; and his preference that he have more time to absorb and consider the information presented tonight before making a decision, opining that one additional week would not have major impacts.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the City Council’s standard was; opining that if a majority of people don’t want it, then it was simple to resolve; and further opining that any additional technical drawings were a potential waste of time and money.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that it was difficult for so many residents to have to repeatedly attend meetings; and that they had expressed concern that the longer a decision was put off, the more likelihood there was that that it will be built.  Councilmember Ihlan, as a policy-maker, opined that she supported making a decision tonight based on the preference of those closest to the wall, and those that would be impacted most by noise reduction and visual impact of the wall.


Councilmember Roe opined that it was fairly clear and would make sense that if people don’t want the wall, the City Council wouldn’t support the wall.  However, Councilmember Roe suggested that it also made sense that everyone understood the impact of the wall; and that if the renderings helped in that process and changed some points of view, it was not problematic to wait two weeks until the next scheduled Council meeting, to hear their conclusions, as well as allowing residents a chance to ask questions of staff, other agencies, or neighbors in order to make a more informed decision.  Councilmember Roe opined that this was a major decision, and it was inherent to get it right, while respecting the varying views and allowing residents a chance to consider other options.


Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and staff regarding timing with Mr. Schwartz advising, from his perspective on the Project Design Team, that a decision was needed by the end of February at the latest, with the City responsible for costs in changing the plan, in order for the project to be bid in April.  Mr. Schwartz noted that Calibre Ridge had requested a delay in bidding the project.  Mr. Schwartz noted that Ramsey County Public Works Director Jim Tolaas was also in the audience to respond to any questions of the City Council.


Robert Deleo, 280 Minnesota Avenue

Mr. Deleo requested a breakdown of the total cost of the wall: how much was City, State and Federal money; and questioned what would happen to the money if the wall wasn’t built.  Mr. Deleo referenced the “cost reasonableness criteria” comment in the RCA dated February 8, 2009, and questioned if the money needed to be spent.  Mr. Deleo opined that everyone was having budget problems, but everyone was ready to keep spending money.  Mr. Deleo further opined that a rendering should be done to allow residents along that street to have an accurate idea of what the wall would look like from their homes.


Mr. Schwartz clarified that County, State and Federal monies were involved; and Mr. Goess advised that  the “cost benefit criteria” had been developed by him to determine the level of benefit to be achieved for each affected resident, and whether or not construction of the wall met or exceeded operation of the wall criteria.  Ms. Bloom advised that, if the wall didn’t get built, funds would go to another wall somewhere else.


Councilmember Pust advised that, having not been at the June 2009 Council meeting when the decision to construct the wall had been made, she was making her decisions based on a different perspective.  Councilmember Pust opined that, if 95% of the residents didn’t want the wall, then there was no reason to spend any government agency’s money to build it.  Councilmember Pust expressed shock that Calibre Ridge was unaware of the proposed grade of the road until now, and suggested the need to examine how that communication had failed.


Barb McClellan, Calibre Ridge

Ms. McClellan recognized the end of February deadline; however, asked that staff request that Ramsey County delay until mid-March to allow them to gather more information and return with a recommendation on the Calibre Ridge piece.


Mark Goess, MnDOT

Mr. Goess advised that, with a letting date in April, and construction start in June, and without looking at the proposed scheduled in more detail, he was reluctant to delay the project any further.


At the request of Ms. McClellan, Mr. Goess confirmed that the project was almost fully funded, with the remaining $5 million funding included in current bonding bill hearings and included in the Governor’s proposal, and if successful, the project would be fully funded with all pieces in place for construction later this summer.


Councilmember Johnson thanked residents for their attendance at tonight’s meeting; expressing concern that there appeared to be past communication issues, but concurring with Mayor Klausing that this was an unusual situation, with original support and current opposition for construction of the noise wall.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that the City Council consider this as two issues: the neighbor issue and the Calibre Ridge issue.  How this had morphed into a split decision, Councilmember Johnson was unsure; however, he recognized that staff time and energy would be wasted in getting additional renderings.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the wishes of the taxpayers, apparently overwhelmingly against construction of the wall.  Councilmember Johnson reiterated the comments of Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers Ihlan, Roe and himself that no one was trying to sway the residents, but that they wanted to make sure they’d provided the best possible information available.


Pust moved, for the Council to take action to provide notice to the appropriate agencies that the City Council supported not having the wall constructed where the majority of residents don’t want it; noting that the wall further down past Marion was a more complicated issue, but that such a partial motion would not necessitate the majority of the residents to attend another meeting


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that since previous Council action had been taken, this action would be a reconsideration of approved action; and since the City Council had adopted Rosenberg’s Rules of Order at their January 4, 2010 meeting, these rules addressed whether reconsideration was done at the meeting or at a subsequent meeting.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that, since this action was proposed at a later meeting, a motion was first in order by a majority to suspend the rules with respect to this particular matter; with a separate motion to reconsider the previous action.


Councilmember Ihlan, as one who voted in favor at that previous meeting, noted that she would have the standing to move to reconsider.


City Attorney Bartholdi advised that this would be another option.


Councilmember Pust withdrew her original motion.


Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, to suspend the rules to entertain a motion to reconsider action taken previously by the City Council with respect to approval of a noise wall; specifically because of the past deadline allowed by the rules to do so without suspension.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, to reconsider the decision of June 2009 by the City Council to approve location of a noise wall.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, to renew the motion that the City Council take action to authorize the City’s engineering staff to work with Calibre Ridge representatives and property owners to find the right ending place for a noise wall, if any, to be constructed; and that the ending point be at some position to allow the majority of the residents to not have a wall, but to have input from Calibre Ridge to have construction of a wall; and that the majority of the City Council understands that there will be no wall built in front of those residents in opposition.


Councilmember Pust clarified for residents that they understand that the City Council is unable to define the location of the end of the wall at this time, not due to their input but that of Calibre Ridge.


Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the proposed motion; future formal action to memorialize Cailbre Ridge’s portion via resolution; intent that only a portion of the wall be built in front of Calibre Ridge; but ultimately rescinding the original motion made in June of 2009, due to reconsideration.


Mayor Klausing suggested that he abstain at this time, since he would have preferred another two weeks to consider the issue in its entirety.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Abstain:  Klausing

Nays: None.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 9:28 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:36 pm.


b.            Discuss 2011 Budgeting for Outcomes Process

Finance Director Miller briefly summarized the discussion points in the RCA dated January 25, 2010, and discussion deferred to tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Miller noted staff’s internal review of the 2009 BFO process, its strengths and weakness; and their recommendation, that despite its challenges and nuances, that it be pursued in the 2011 budget process.


Councilmember Roe, as a supporter of the BFO process to begin with,  acknowledged that, while there were challenges; they could be improved upon, with the key to link outcomes and to include all city operations, not just those supported by tax funds.  Councilmember Roe opined that part of the issue was a lack of understanding from the City Council level, of the 160 categories defined; and from his perspective, opined that it made sense to build and improve on the process rather than abandoning it.


Councilmember Johnson, as a supporter of the process as well, concurred with the comments of Councilmember Roe.  Councilmember Johnson’s concerns included the length of the process, and his preference to have had a preliminary idea of where the budget was at earlier in the process.  Councilmember Johnson noted, from his personal business experience, their ongoing self-auditing process, and how that process had served to be less disruptive, and provided a greater understanding of protocols and standard operating procedures; and suggested that a similar process be included in the BFO process.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that this process would be spending more time with the staff directors earlier in the year (i.e., 1-2 meetings with each Department Head) as mandatory, not optional meetings, to understand their department better when it came time to make ambiguous decisions, rather than being left to the end of the budget cycle allowing more time to think through the process, rather than making the end-of-year meetings so labor intensive for staff and Councilmembers, and providing time and energy to deal with other City business during that time as well.


Councilmember Pust addressed strengths: her appreciation that the City is attempting to find a better budget process and that the City Manager and Finance Director had presented this option to the City Council, and expressed appreciation to all staff for their extensive efforts, especially that of Finance Director Miller in the numerous iterations requested and presented.  Councilmember Pust concurred with Mr. Miller’s observation that the process provided a true cost of services and programs being provided to the community. 


Councilmember Pust addressed negatives: suggesting that a new name, other than BFO, was required, since it was not a true “outcome” process as they were never built in or discussed; and it was not credible the process contained no outcomes, and just provided a spending outline.  Councilmember Pust questioned how the end of the process was still reached with Councilmember Ihlan identifying approximately $490,000 in spending that was described one way but not seen in the proposed budget for months, and not clearly identified in the list of 161 line items, but combined in those line items with the total not previously seen.  Councilmember Pust, depending on the answer to that question, opined that a better defined system was required, or the system renamed of called more accurately unless outcomes were included in the process.


Councilmember Johnson suggested more structure, rather than ambiguous discussion points, was needed to be provided to focus the discussion and provide guidance.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that most of her comments were negative points: her first concern that there was no adequate public input included in the process, with public meetings to set priorities, and that this had not been addressed from the initial stages of the process.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if going forward with this process, that the first step would be to receive adequate public input to rank programs and services, opining that once the staff/City Council rankings were done, the process was difficult for the public to understand and not transparent.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that, once the final rankings were done, they had no actual impact on what was actually funded, but reranked unclearly.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed that her main frustration was her need of line item type budget information to determine overall spending patterns for the City.  In terms of providing construction input for spending decisions, Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was unable to do that, and that the process, from a policy-maker standpoint before the public, was not transparent.  While not the City Council’s intention, Councilmember Ihlan based this on comments she’d heard from citizens watching City Council meetings. 


Councilmember Roe opined that the only consideration should be, no matter the process used, is how easy is it to understand the budget process at the end.  Councilmember Roe opined that the City Council never did itself any favors when they look like they don’t know what’s going on.  Councilmember Roe opined that the City Council needed to know more about things early in the process in order to make good decisions.  Councilmember Roe suggested, as noted by Councilmember Ihlan’s request for a line item approach that items for a function or list be broken down (i.e., how much labor, overtime, capital expenditures, etc.) to determine priorities or rankings, and what portion of the function represents the most expensive part and how that will impact the City Council’s discussion and decision-making, allowing the body to know ahead of time where to make adjustments.  Councilmember Roe noted that this process calls for the City Council to look seriously at where we want our levy to be when we set a preliminary levy in September; and to set it approximately where the final levy should be to support the level of spending on government preferred by taxpayers.   Councilmember Roe suggested that by using this discipline, rather than setting the levy high, then attempting to lower it, it would serve a better process.


Councilmember Pust noted that this process, as rolled out this year, did not provide information sufficient for the Council to take any different action in the process, specific to the preliminary levy setting, given timing issues.  Councilmember Pust opined that it was imperative, if this process is continued, that outcome measurements are provided by staff and available to the City Council in April.  Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Roe’s observation that the not-to-exceed levy was the biggest part of the decision, made with little or no information; and even though told repeatedly that the outcome information would be available by September, it was not available.  Councilmember Pust recognized that the process would take a lot of work, but noted that the spending part was quantified last year, and if going toward outcome-based, that information was needed by the City Council in May to allow the public to receive the information in June and July, and a not-to-exceed budget presented in September.  Councilmember Pust suggested that staff focus exclusively on that part of the process immediately to accomplish that earlier schedule.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with comments; however, opined that it will take more than another year to accomplish this, and suggested that three years was a more realistic goal to have a working mechanism in place, especially in the public involvement portions.  Councilmember Johnson supported moving forward with the BFO process for the 2011 budget year.


Councilmember Roe concurred that it may take some time to get the outcome process in place.


Councilmember Pust concurred that the outcome portion could be accomplished, even though other governments had attempted it (i.e., State of MN); but asked that the City not “pretend” that the process was outcome based at this point in the process.


Mayor Klausing opined that the City Council needed more self-discipline in using the process; and that in setting the categories versus line item budgeting as a City Council, spending and outcome levels needed to be determined, rather than done as line items at the eleventh hour.


Councilmember Pust suggested, if staff wants to pursue the process that they report to the City Council in April.


City Manager Malinen expressed appreciation to the City Council for their patience with the process to-date, and noted the number of areas identified for improvement; and accepted that as staff’s mission.  City Manager Malinen opined that the BFO process was more illuminating that mere line items; and assured Councilmembers that staff would work to make the process even better in future budget cycles; and advised that staff was already working on getting the information to the City Council earlier.


c.            Discuss Strategic Planning Meeting

City Manager Malinen distributed a synopsis that he had prepared for Council information from previous brainstorming processes as it related to the upcoming Strategic Planning meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 13, 2010 in the Fireside Room at the Roseville Skating Center.


d.            Discuss Commercial Use of Public Property

Councilmember Ihlan asked that this item be tabled to a near future Council agenda in order to accommodate her preference to move this item along as soon as possible.


Klausing moved, Pust seconded to extend the meeting to 10:30 pm.


Councilmember Roe sought clarification on those items of a time-sensitive nature that couldn’t be deferred to a future meeting; and opined that a proposed fifteen minute discussion on the Recycling Contract would not do it justice.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference that the meeting be extended only with specific items identified for discussion, not left open-ended, with other items deferred to a future meeting.


Councilmember Pust momentarily left the bench during this discussion.


Johnson offered a friendly amendment that the meeting not exceed 10:30 pm, with the discussion limited to only the Recycling Contract, and other items deferred to a future meeting.  The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


e.            Discuss an Ordinance Amending Title 5, Section 501.16 related to Vicious Animals

This item was deferred to a future meeting.


f.             Discuss a Recycling Contract Extension

Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt briefly summarized the proposed Recycling Contract Extension with Eureka Recycling, for a two year term through 2010, with favorable terms for the City and allowing for competitive collection rates.  Mr. Pratt sought City Council direction, opining that this was a good offer.


Discussion included increased rates, representing a twenty-three percent (23%) increase during the current contract term, based on holding off on rate increases for several years by using revenue share monies and reserves, and this proposed rate serving to build up City reserves in addition to addressing current costs and reduced market of recycled materials.


At the request of Councilmembers, Mr. Miller advised that the overall contract represented an approximate fifteen percent (15%) increase over a four year period.


Further discussion included initial incorrect billing for multi-family rates due to the contractor misreading the specifications and miscommunication between staff members, and costs for multi-family recycling significantly higher, but not passed on to the citizen, but paid for from reserves; and funding of the program from increased user fees, SCORE grants, and other funds.


Additional discussion included projections of revenue sharing and marketability of materials and potential impact to rates, with proposed contract language on the extension more sustainable over the long-term and eliminating “floors” for paper and aluminum recycling markets and materials, changing them from Chicago to Minneapolis-based indexes.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified the intent in staff’s recommendation to extend the contract versus going out for bids, was that actual service costs would not be reduced, and that this presented a better option for the City; and staff provided comparative and current collection charges, and city processing rates for other haulers (e.g., Waste Management and Allied); noting that Eureka initiated and was the only bidder originally providing the revenue sharing option and creating this market that was now becoming standard practice among other haulers.


Councilmember Pust addressed this proposed contract extension in lieu of the City’s recently adopted professional services contract policy.  Councilmember Pust outlined staff’s rationale in their recommendation, along with the City Council’s rationale in changing the policy for bidding out contracts to provide the most transparency and most favorable deal for its citizens. Councilmember Pust opined that, if this was the best option for the City, going out for bids would only serve to prove that to the public.


Further discussion included whether this professional services policy was intended for consultants and professional services, or all contracts.


Councilmember Roe opined that, regardless of the policy, it made good sense to go out for bid for the reasons reviewed in Councilmember Pust’s comments.  Councilmember Roe concurred that this would serve to know if the City was actually receiving the best deal; and noted that, from Eureka’s point of view, it made sense for them to give the City the best deal they could.


Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification, and staff advised, that the contract did not expire until December of 2010.


Councilmember Pust noted that this would allow sufficient time for the bid process and to get a contract in place.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a good deal; however, she agreed that the only way to test the market was to go out for bids.


Pust moved, Roe seconded, authorizing staff to prepare and seek bids for a Recycling Contract.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: Klausing.

Motion carried.


g.            Discuss Recreational Vehicle and Trailer Parking

This item was deferred to a future meeting.


h.            Discuss Proposed Changes to City Code, Chapter 302, Liquor Control related to Conditions of License and Civil Penalty

This item was deferred to a future meeting.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:23 pm.