View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
March 2, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Laliberte requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate
consideration. Councilmember Etten requested removal of Item 8.d and g from
the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as amended.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced an upcoming free community conversation scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on
March 16, 2016 at the Roseville Skating Center, sponsored in part by the Human
Rights Commission, and addressing mental health illness issues in general and
Mayor Roe announced
scholarship opportunities available through the North Suburban Cable Commission
for residents of the nine member communities with students interested in
communication, journalism or similar studies. Additional information, with a
deadline of April 10, 2015 for scholarship applications, is available at
ctvnorthsuburbs.org/scholarships or by calling 651/792-7515.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Women's History Month
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring March 2015 as Women's History Month in the City of
Roseville, MN, recognizing and celebrating the contributions that women of
every race, class and ethnic background have made to the world.
moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming March 2015 as Women's History Month in
McGehee noted that the last City Pay Equity Report indicated that the City
performed well related to equality of compensation between female and male
Introduce City Attorney Erich Hartmann
Gaughan introduced their firm's newest City Attorney Erich Hartmann, noting his
expertise in the field of real estate law, and service in that role for the
firm's municipal clients, including the City of Roseville. Mr. Gaughan noted
that Mr. Hartmann's expertise was welcome in filling the void left by the
pending retirement of Attorney Charles Bartholdi.
As a resident
of Roseville since 2007, and children attending Roseville School District No.
623, Mr. Hartmann expressed his excitement to be representing the City in this
role and looked forward to working with Councilmembers, staff and the
7. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve Minutes of February 23, 2015 Meeting
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2015 as
Page 30, Line 30 (McGehee)
only" and end sentence at "longer."
Pages 20 - 33 (Roe)
red highlighted type to black
8. Approve Consent
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated March 2, 2015.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
76635 - 76653
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits
moved, Etten seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses and
permits for terms as noted.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and
where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and
Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated January
Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids for Victoria Street Reconstruction
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11213 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids for Victoria Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B."
Items Removed from Consent
Approve Facility Management Contract
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the RCA and related
attachments, dated March 2, 2015.
Etten asked staff how this contract and defined duties in the contract compared
to those duties performed currently and/or in the past by staff.
Works Director Duane Schwartz responded that specific to facility management,
the duties under the proposed contract were very similar to those duties
performed by staff. Mr. Schwartz advised that McGough would also provide additional
asset management that would enhance the City's asset management system and
possibly link the two to provide even quicker and more detailed management to
bring facilities up to current capabilities.
this proposal includes the City Hall, Maintenance Facility and License Center,
Councilmember Etten asked if discussions had occurred on a staff level to work
with the Parks & Recreation and Fire Departments to incorporate them into
the contract as well.
Schwartz responded that, for the most part, staff had held some discussion
about that expansion, and anticipated the 2016 budget may include such a proposal.
However, Mr. Schwartz advised that while the Fire Department was facing an
upcoming retirement within the next few years that may prompt their participation
as well, the Parks & Recreation Department may need to deal with budgetary
issues before they are able to participate.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a one-year Facility Management Agreement
for Limited Services (Attachment A and attached schedules) with McGough
Facility Management for the period of one year in the amount of $43,140 for the
City, Hall, Maintenance Facility and the License Center.
Approve Victoria Street Parking Prohibition-from Larpenteur
Avenue and County Road B
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this
item being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the RCA and
related attachments, dated March 2, 2015.
Laliberte expressed concern in the location and potential number of signs for
this stretch of roadway, located directly in front of residential properties on
the west side. Councilmember Laliberte noted recent media coverage about MnDOT
and/or cities "over signing" and at considerable cost. With the exception of
the curve areas on the road, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City
could rather stripe the roadway versus installing signs.
Engineer Marc Culver responded that the City attempted to minimize signage for
aesthetic and cost considerations; however, he noted the need to install
signage when needed to make it clear where you could or could not park for overall
benefit of everyone using or living on the road. Mr. Culver assured the City
Council and public that staff would space out signage as much as possible, and
there may be some tweaks indicated after the initial installation as comments
were fielded from residents and the Police Department. Mr. Culver advised that
staff would actually walk the area and stake signage prior to installation
based on their personal observations on visibility.
response to Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion for striping to discourage
parking versus signage, Mr. Culver advised that the shoulders would actually be
striped with a 2-3" shoulder on the west side and an 8" shoulder on the east
side to accommodate parking width. Mr. Culver noted that staff relied on the
signage and the Police Department for enforcement efforts.
Laliberte asked that staff remain cognizant of the location of many of these
signs in residential front yards.
Roe asked staff for a comparison of striping costs versus the cost of signs.
Culver responded that striping actually cost more as it required more regular
maintenance and wore out more quickly, while signs lasted 15-20 years depending
on their direction to the sun, with restriping needing redone every few years
depending on the type of material used.
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11212 (Attachment A)
entitled, ?Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Victoria Street between Larpenteur
Avenue and County Road B.?
Approve Public Works Department Organizational Changes
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this
item being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the RCA
dated March 2, 2015.
Etten asked Mr. Schwartz if the Database Specialist position was a
sideways/lateral move from the current pay grade for this position.
Schwartz responded that the new position had a higher level of responsibility,
and general expectations from a minimum requirement for some post-secondary
education to a college degree level, and therefore the pay grade shift was from
the current position?s Grade 7 to Grade 9 as proposed.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the addition of an Office Assistant
position and reclassification of the Department Assistant position to ?Database
Specialist? in the organizational structure of the Public Works Department.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Updates to the Sanitary Sewer Ordinance
Kristine Giga provided a summary, as detailed in the RCA, of the proposed
revisions to Ordinance Chapter 802 driven by recent inflow and infiltration
(I/I) efforts of the City to reduce excess flow of clear water into the
sanitary sewer system, thereby decreasing capacity for wastewater and
increasing costs to the City.
briefly reviewed the steps being initiated by the City, one of which was the
recent City Council approval of sump pump inspections as part of its contract
with Ferguson Waterworks for the 2015 meter replacement project. Ms. Giga advised
that Roseville was one of 74 municipalities identified by Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) as a contributor of excess I/I. Ms. Giga noted
that this resulted in a surcharge of $170,000 annually for the City of Roseville
over the next five years if it was not proactive in making an investment to
remedy and reduce this problem. Ms. Giga advised that the City had committed
to $1 million annually in sanitary sewer projects to address this excess flow,
with the next step being sump pump inspections.
provided an overview of Chapter 802 specific to sewer use and regulations, and
revised general updates needed in the ordinance overall, as well as incorporating
sump pump language addressing construction requirements and additional language
specific to prohibited discharges. Ms. Giga highlighted the one provision
related to entry upon private property, and an alternate option for a licensed
plumber rather than City staff for a homeowner to hire to provide acceptable
certification of an inspection, with a corresponding surcharge application to
those owners continuing to be non-compliant, at a rate set by the City Council
and updated in its annual fee schedule review.
distribution of the agenda packet, and after concerns expressed by a Councilmember,
Ms. Giga noted a suggested revision by the City Attorney in Section 802.11.b
that would instead read:
may re-inspect any building or premises for which the City possesses evidence
of discontinuation of compliance with the requirements of Section 802.06 of
clarified that the draft ordinance revision in the agenda packet did not
include the new language.
Willmus thanked Ms. Giga for the clarified language as suggested by the City
While not technically considered a sump pump, Councilmember McGehee noted
potential examples of drain tile not connected to the sump pump but into the
sanitary sewer system, and questioned how to find and address those issues.
While this may
prove to be a problem and those instances harder to catch, Ms. Giga responded
that staff may recommend more detailed inspections in the future for round two
of this effort and after this initial inspection to determine if non-compliant
sump pump installations were a huge part of the I/I problem. Ms. Giga advised
that staff was currently drafting language for a form to be used during inspections
to identify visible foundation drains or to document other comments of thins
found that didn?t necessarily look right. Ms. Giga advised that the inspectors
will photograph that area.
Mayor Roe noted
language in Section 802.08 that specifically included prohibited discharges
from foundation drainage systems. Mayor Roe asked the City Attorney how
language in Section 802.11 addressed protection of constitutional private
As a general
matter, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the City was empowered to enact laws
to affect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and noted that this
type of ordinance would fall under that municipal authority. Mr. Gaughan
reported that, upon staff?s and his review of the proposed language, they all
were comfortable in the required filing of a certificate by a private plumber
in lieu of City staff or its designees, that further assured a resident?s
constitutional rights were being protected and yet providing a mechanism for a
resident to feel they maintained control of their property while the City was in
turn protecting the entire community.
McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1477 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 802 to Provide for
Updated References to Other Agencies, Establish Construction Requirements for
Sump Pump Installation, and Establish Procedures for Sump Pump Inspections;" amended
as follows that Section 802.11.b that would instead read:
McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1477S (Attachment B)
entitled, ?An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 802.?
Business Items (Action Items)
Award Design Services Contract with SRF Consulting Group for the
Design of Twin Lakes Parkway Phase III
Engineer Marc Culver briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated
March 2, 2014; and subsequent to the updated traffic study presented at the
last City Council meeting.
Culver noted that the consultant?s proposal expired on February 27, 2015, but
SRF had agreed to extend the proposal for an additional ninety (90) days at the
same cost as originally proposed.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that the proposal and terms as
shown in the RCA would be reformatted using the standard contract form as used
by the City for their other contracts, and with approval by the City Attorney.
McGehee sought information from Mr. Culver on the actual square footage
involved for the areas of yellow on the displayed map, with Mr. Culver advising
that he did not have that information immediately available, and would provide
it at a later date. Councilmember McGehee stated that she wanted the
information tonight rather than tomorrow.
Roe opened the meeting for Public Comment at approximately 6:42 p.m. and
reviewed public comment procedure and protocol.
Manager Trudgeon noted the receipt of four e-mail comments received since the
meeting materials were distributed, provided as bench handouts, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Those included written comments from Karen
Milton, 2939 Mildred Drive; Amy Ihlan and Geoffrey Gorham, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue;
James Muirhead and Kay Blassingame, 3091 Mt. Ridge Road; and Jerry Stoner, 2966
Roe noted an additional e-mail received immediately before the meeting started,
from Ms. Thompson on Mildred Drive that was not included in the bench handouts
which will also be attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
Erickson stated that the neighbors had invested eight months in this project,
and noted how intimidating it often was to appear before the City Council, but
applauded her neighbors for their attendance tonight. Ms. Erickson stated that
after last week's informational neighborhood meeting, those neighbors in attendance
had left feeling hopeless of any favorable results from community engagement
and the City?s intent to cooperate with neighbors. However, Ms. Erickson noted
that they were present one more time to see if their voices were being heard.
Erickson opined that she came away from that meeting last Wednesday night,
whether the outcome was intended or not by staff, with the conclusion that the
Parkway was not included in the vision being talked about in the neighborhood
petition process, even though it was directly connected. From staff's
comments, Ms. Erickson stated that she took away from that meeting the
conclusion that there was no vision at all, even though the neighbors were told
by Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to "get behind a vision," using
other communities as examples of great turnarounds made in redevelopment
efforts. Ms. Erickson questioned if that was the intent in Roseville to have a
coordinated plan for redevelopment, not just for more big box retail, hotels
and light industrial uses in this beautiful setting. Ms. Erickson read and
left a written list of her remaining questions seeking responses, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
McCormick, 2850 Wheeler Street North
McCormick concurred with the comments and questions of Ms. Erickson, opining
that this demonstrated process was more than a road, but involved many
ancillary issues that have raised more questions. Ms. McCormick noted that the
community process used for the Dale Street project had proven what a great process
can result in for all parties.
McCormick stated that she didn't understand the urgency of getting the design
process through now for the Parkway extension when the community and City
Council was in the middle of the Twin Lakes planning process, and even though told
the Parkway was not part of that process, she argued that it should have been.
Ms. McCormick stated that the scope of the Twin Lakes planning process had been
announced as a citywide and city-initiated planning process, which was still
underway with the community survey results just received and being reviewed,
with concerns expressed about the Parkway extension as part of that survey.
Ms. McCormick noted the argument to move forward and discontinue the starts and
stops with this redevelopment area; however, she opined that it would be better
if citizens were supporting a project and the vision of the City once their
questions had been answered. Ms. McCormick further opined that the conversations
about the zoning and regulating plan issues raised by the neighborhood seemed
to be stalled and yet the City Council was moving forward with the road; and
McCormick noted that the only proposal to-date was for the Sherman Apartments,
and at a previous meeting Mr. Sherman indicated that his project did not depend
on extension of the Parkway. If the City decided to extend the Parkway up to
Arthur and no further, Ms. McCormick questioned what significant amount of
subdivision redevelopment would be created other than implementing Planned Unit
Developments (PUD?s). Ms. McCormick urged the City Council to give residents
the opportunity to raise their questions and provide the benefit of clarity on
McCormick displayed and referenced several maps referenced and questioned
discrepancies in the propertied identified in the special assessment area as
part of extension of the Parkway and repeated statements of the City Council
that residential properties would not be assessed for the Parkway extension.
Ms. McCormick questioned which properties were identified in the ?areas of influence?
and therefore open to assessment, opining that the documentation provided by
the City over a period of time seemed contradictory, and asked if the residents
were not going to be assessed, the City Council go on record tonight stating
issue Ms. McCormick brought forward included that of ?livability,? and the
potential negative impact of this Parkway extension on area home values; as
well as the increase in crime with more developments such as WalMart and increased
traffic from I-35W. Ms. McCormick provided additional information from her
online research, including statistics from similar development showing
increased crime and the effect of externalities on single-family home values.
the March 2, 2015 RCA, Ms. McCormick asked if there would continue to be an
opportunity for public comment throughout the feasibility, cost analysis and
McCormick opined that it was unclear from the July 2014 presentation and
anticipated cost of $3 million, with some federally funded, whether that
included signalization for mitigation efforts.
to Langton Lake and Langton Lake Park, Ms. McCormick stated that people love it
and it provided a decidedly different ambiance than other community parks, even
though it was designated as an urban park due to the proximity of the athletic
fields. In an effort for the City Council to extend its good will and faith,
Ms. McCormick noted that neighbors wanted to preserve and protect that natural
habitat and walkway if at all possible. In consideration of that effort, Ms.
McCormick advised that the neighborhood had drafted another petition to present
tonight, after consulting with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke on the
process to change a park's classification from urban to distinguish Langton
Lake and walkway as a Conservancy Area; and asked that the City Council hold a
public hearing to explore that potential designation.
McCormick stated, as she heard the results of the SRF Traffic Study Update at
the last meeting, she remained concerned about the Snelling Avenue intersections
with County Road C-2 and speculations for six lanes along Snelling Avenue. Ms.
McCormick stated that she found it troubling that those plans were not even in
any program yet, and the study didn?t even mention the BRT and improved stations
along Snelling Avenue. Ms. McCormick displayed another map for reference,
showing the routes directly from I-35W, opining that such a route would prove
very enticing for those wanting to avoid traffic congestion on I-35W and/of
I-694. Therefore, Ms. McCormick opined that she could see regional traffic increasing
on Snelling Avenue, and while she appreciated the traffic study being updated
and was reassured in some areas, she was equally disconcerted by some
mitigation efforts not even being in the plans for a number of years if at all.
McCormick provided her comments, research and the neighborhood petition to City
Manager Trudgeon for dissemination to the City Council when copied, and thereafter
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
Callaghan expressed two concerns based on his interpretation of the SRF Traffic
Study predictions, opining that they were always and consistently off, and that
they predict way too high. Mr. Callaghan questioned the impacts long-term, ten
years down the road, on Fairview Avenue with extension of Twin Lakes Parkway
compared to the predictions of SRF. Mr. Callaghan opined that the Parkway was
apparently being extended for traffic that appears not to be happening, and
stated that he had yet to hear of a reason to complete the road, or in talking
about putting in a signal light at an intersection that didn?t yet exists,
while there were other existing intersections where a problem already existed
and without a light.
Callaghan noted that no one was supportive of this, and questioned who was
going to pay for it but the taxpayers. Mr. Callaghan further questioned why
the City?s taxpayers were paying $3.5 million for a road that the updated
Traffic Study updated deemed not that important.
Metz, 2926 Mildred Drive
a resident north of the proposed Parkway extension, Ms. Metz sated that her
biggest concern is comments she?d heard from other neighbors about Langton
Lake. Ms. Metz questioned what environmental studies had been done on Langton
Lake; and noted her only concern was that the lake not get worse than it currently
was, and would prefer that its water quality was improved, perhaps back to
where it was in the 1950?s and 1960?s before its deterioration from the
trucking companies in the past. Ms. Metz noted that the map displayed by staff
showed the proposed road actually cutting some of the park away that is
currently used for drainage. Ms. Metz questioned where and how drainage from
the road would be funneled away from the lake or if runoff would be directly
routed from the roadway to the lake and further contaminate it. If the road is
necessary, Ms. Metz asked to see a study why it needed to go through the park,
since it cuts off a part of the park, and will only create more noise and
traffic access to the park that doesn?t currently exist and change the
atmosphere of the park. Ms. Metz advised that she also had concerns of the
potential infiltration of less than savory people coming into the neighborhood
and park area, especially concerning with the number of senior citizens using
the park who could be a target for the criminal element due to their limited
Metz asked if there had been an environmental study, and if not if there was
one planned, and what steps were planned to improve the water quality of Langton
Patient, 3049 Shorewood
Patient expressed his concerns with the actual need for the road, and while he
attended the Traffic Study Update presentation by SRF at the last City Council
meeting, he had not realized that this effort included extending the Parkway
and reconfiguring Terrace and Lincoln Drives, and the route to County Road C-2,
which would only make those roadways more congested than they already are. Mr.
Patient noted the number of college students and pedestrians now using the
areas and increased safety concerns, as well as the cost to taxpayers, which he
found particularly offensive, as a resident in the area defined as part of the
benefitted area. Mr. Patient opined that he saw that as anything but a benefit
to residents in that area, and if necessary to assess costs for the road, it
should be a citywide tax and spread around the city.
Patient also expressed concerns about Langton Lake Park and referenced changes
he?d observed from when he first started walking around it to present day and
the increased visibility of buildings and traffic. With the proposed road taking
more of the park and bringing in more traffic, Mr. Patient opined that it
seemed an unnecessary and expensive project; and opined that further study was
needed, especially in light of the comments of George Sherman that their
project was not dependent on the road.
mentioned by Ms. McCormick, Mr. Patient addressed the residential area north of
Terrace Drive, and asked that zoning issues be reconsidered in the future,
especially as it abuts up to a single-family neighborhood, and asked that the
neighbors have more opportunities in the future to discuss those issues.
Sheehan 1863 Brenner Avenue
Sheehan stated that she liked the lake a lot, that it was important to here
that it be protected, and spoke in opposition to the road going near Langton
Lake at all, especially since it was apparently so expensive to build and not
needed. Ms. Sheehan suggested that, if the road was going to be constructed,
why not just extend it up to Arthur and route traffic back to County Road C as
an existing major road and thereby avoid the lake and higher costs. Ms.
Sheehan opined that this would make their neighborhood happy, and questioned
why the City would consider anything else, since developers in the Twin Lakes
area could still access their properties from Cleveland Avenue and Council Road
C. Ms. Sheehan opined that this would be financially and environmentally
Specific to any potential development by Langton Lake, Ms. Sheehan suggested
raingardens or new habitat buffer zones for developers to provide reasonable
green areas before the park and to avoid runoff and more pollution of the
lake. While Conservancy Space was a new term for her, Ms. Sheehan spoke in
support of that idea.
Senty, 3059 Fairview Avenue North
Senty asked that the City Council and staff listen clearly to their concerned
residents and neighbors about the need for the road. Ms. Senty opined if Councilmember
Laliberte expressed concern for street signs in front of residential
properties, she and the City Council should be just as concerned about this
road and its impact to the neighbors. Ms. Senty adamantly stated ?we don?t
Munson, 1034 Transit Avenue
a Hamline University student attending tonight?s meeting as part of her Environmental
Studies course, Ms. Munson stated that this is the first she?d heard of this
plan, and as a resident of Roseville, expressed her concern about this impact
to Langton Lake and the Park, opining that it will cause a lot of problems for
that park, especially if the road cuts through it. Ms. Munson expressed her
concern with destruction of the park and habitat, noting this was one of the
beautiful parks in Roseville, helping to make the community special.
Lutz, 1864 Brenner
Lutz echoed the comments of previous speakers, questioned the need for the
Parkway: what it was for, who it would serve and why it was necessary.
Brogeer, 1694 Millwood Avenue
Brogeer admitted she had missed the SRF Traffic Study update at the last
meeting, so was not sure how their baseline and projections were established.
However, Ms. Brogeer questioned how the update compared to current situations,
and what the anticipated traffic increase was expected to be.
a daily commuter from Roseville to Eden Prairie, Ms. Brogeer provided her own
experiences coming down the exit from I-35W and how traffic backs up, and her
concern with how people would reroute to avoid those backups in the future with
extension of the Parkway. Ms. Brogeer reviewed right turn lanes being blocked
on Cleveland Avenue from those seeking to get around backups on (-35W, and
opined that the Parkway would only serve to provide them a straight shot and
increase traffic. Ms. Brogeer opined that the traffic study required more
effort, and from her perspective, needed to be re-addressed to consider impacts
on Roseville road and neighborhoods in that area.
Brogeer opined that the City didn?t fully understand how much the neighborhood
used their road, whether biking or walking and crossing County Road C-2 to get
to Langton Park and crossing Fairview Avenue, including students from the
University of Northwestern also using the park. Ms. Brogeer further opined
that she saw even more significant traffic increases across Fairview Avenue,
and since there is no trail, the shoulder is used for biking or walking, and to
create more dangerous intersections with this shortcut from I-35W and Cleveland
her reading of the traffic study, Ms. Brogeer noted regional traffic was alleviated
by County Roads C and D, but questioned how that would be based on her personal
experience with west and east bound traffic, opining that the projected traffic
patterns didn't make sense to her and questioned why it was even listed as a
Brogeer reiterated that it was important for the City Council to understand how
their neighborhood was used, as spoken to by others tonight, opining that this
roadway would only serve as a lose-lose for the neighborhood; and if hit by special
assessments again, would also negatively impact residential property values.
referencing the traffic study and assumption that I-35W was going to be expanded
to six lanes, Mr. Yunker noted how devastating this would be for the
neighborhood during construction, opining it would be a nightmare. Mr. Yunker
suggested that, rather than rushing the Parkway extension through now, it would
be better to wait and see if it was needed after I-35W was expanded to see if
it was needed through another traffic study. Mr. Yunker opined that given the
amount of regional traffic now going through Roseville, if this Parkway was approved,
that was only going to get worse.
Strandberg, 1776 Millwood Avenue
not sure of the conclusions from this recent traffic study, Ms. Strandberg
addressed her situation when previous construction occurred on I-35W. Ms.
Strandberg advised that she had to contact the Police Department and they installed
a portable speed board on Fairview Avenue, with impacts felt there as well as
County Road C-2, Maple, Wheeler, and Stanbridge. Even though that project is
now completed, Ms. Strandberg expressed concern with the next project and increased
traffic down Fairview Avenue yet again, especially with the children in the
neighborhood, as well as older residents, pedestrians, bikers and dog walkers.
Strandberg also questioned who would be paying for the road, since no one in
their neighborhood wanted it to go through, she asked that the City Council
please listen to its residents.
Sanders, 363 S McCarrons Blvd.
Sanders stated that she was present tonight to support the great neighbors in
this neighborhood, opining that this was a citywide issue, not just a
neighborhood issue. Ms. Sanders noted that the rationale for extending the
Parkway was based on the need for business growth in the area. However, Ms.
Sanders opined that the road would obviously compromise green space, and
therefore pled with the City Council to help these neighbors and work together
to make things work if this was their intent.
Sanders, 363 S McCarrons Blvd.
Sanders stated that he was also here to show his support for this neighborhood,
and as a former resident of southern CA, one of his reasons for moving to
Roseville was due to its great parks. Mr. Sanders opined that he loved this
area and didn?t want to see it changed, and that the park was an asset to the
community, and he hoped the City Council listened to those speaking tonight,
and seek a compromise. Mr. Sanders noted that people would not have taken
their personal time to speak with their community leaders if they didn?t love
Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue
her review of tonight's City Council Agenda packet and other materials, Ms.
Ihlan noted that she had not seen any cost benefit analysis done for extension
of Twin Lakes Parkway to Fairview Avenue, nor had she seen any documents addressing
how this would impact the neighborhood or parks, but only documents about how
to pay for construction costs. Ms. Ihlan opined that the traffic study update
was not sufficient to address that necessary information. Ms. Ihlan further
opined that a fiscal impact analysis should address the property tax base of
residential neighborhoods and how they are connected to the community by a
market analysis if a throughway from I-35W was created and funneled traffic
into a currently thriving residential neighborhood.
a resident of the neighborhood, Ms. Ihlan asked the City Council to provide
their vision of the future of this residential neighborhood and how extending
Twin Lakes Parkway fit with that vision, whether it supported it or if it
served to challenge or threaten the neighborhood; and what their expectations
were for the neighborhood when this was built. Ms. Ihlan questioned if the
City Council had sufficient information to make that judgment, without a
benefit analysis or comprehensive cost of what will happen in the neighborhood
once the Parkway was connected. Ms. Ihlan opined that the City Council didn't
know current conditions, demographics, trends with property values and housing
stock, and who would live in the neighborhood in the future once the Parkway
was connected and traffic significantly increased, or if it would be attractive
to your families from a safety perspective.
the City Council votes to approve this without careful analysis for fiscal and
neighborhood impacts, Ms. Ihlan questioned what value that meant and what it
said to the community of what was important to the overall community for those
living in currently flourishing neighborhoods for over sixty years.
1708 Millwood Avenue
Scholten seconded those comments of the previous speaker; and expressed his
disagreement with the placement and connection of the Parkway as a connection
for I-35W and potential increased traffic into the residential neighborhood.
Mix, 3207 Old Hwy. 8
Mix, residing in the Sandcastle Park area, spoke to the fact that Langton Lake
and Park are citywide resources; and with attempting to connect a road to that
area would create too much disruption.
Mix opined that the water quality of Langton Lake would already be affected and
should also be part of the consideration for the cost of putting in this road.
Ms. Mix opined that the City?s park assets could not be restored once
disrupted, and referenced the small protected wetland area near her home that
provided a huge amount of wildlife habitat, which would be eliminated if the
road went through. Ms. Mix asked that the City Council respect the residential
neighbors as well as that existing water asset.
Easterling, 1850 County Road C2 West
Easterling noted that Twin Lakes Parkway had been addressed over twenty years
ago when he?d first moved to Roseville as a connection to Snelling Avenue.
However, when it was determined that another connection would not be approved
on Snelling Avenue, he thought the issue was gone, since it was originally
intended as an optional northbound option.
Easterling expressed his concern with this extension for safety issues, and as
a professor at the University of Northwestern, noted the extensive pedestrians
from the School?s Nursing School in the former Edina Realty building, with students
walking to campus and adjacent resident halls. As an aside, Mr. Easterling
advised that the university was working with students to discourage your jaywalking.
Mr. Easterling expressed concern with not only students, but senior citizens
from Eagle Crest along Lincoln Drive, and potential problems with increased traffic
in an already crowded commercial area. Mr. Easterling concluded that he was
opposed to the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway economically, environmentally
and for safety reasons.
no one else coming forward to comment, Mayor Roe closed public comment at
approximately 7:37 p.m.; at which time Mayor Roe and staff members responded to
questions asked during public comment, and not related to how or if the City
Council may or may not support a particular point of view going forward.
on his recollection of previous discussions, Mayor Roe noted that wider area
assessments were considered as one of several conceptual options by the City
Council as a way to pay for infrastructure improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area, but by consensus the City Council had eliminated that as an option.
Manager Trudgeon concurred with Mayor Roe?s recollection, stating it was
absolutely correct. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in those original discussions
last held last summer, the reaction received from the City Council was that
there would be no assessment of residential properties for public improvements
in that area. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that staff was not of the opinion
that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 process would justify or prove benefit to
those properties anyway, therefore not making that a viable option, even
without receiving clear direction from the City Council that they would not
support such an option. Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that there was no intent to
consider special assessments of residential properties within the larger area.
Roe clarified that zoning discussions were ongoing and a follow-up discussion
at the City Council level was scheduled for the March 23, 2015 City Council
meeting as they reviewed results of the neighborhood planning process in which
many residents had participated to consider acceptable uses and those uses not
preferred in the broader areas of Twin Lakes. Mayor Roe advised that to-date
he found guidance from those discussions, and also found that the preferences
of the residents didn?t differ that much from the thoughts of the City
Council. Mayor Roe advised that future discussions would determine the next
steps in that process, with no definitive determination yet made, and that
those discussions would still involve neighbors of that area considered for
rezoning. Mayor Roe clarified that those discussions did not get superseded or
cut short in any way with this Parkway extension discussion and action.
Roe personally committed to the community that comments from residents would
still absolutely be received at City Council meetings throughout the process,
whether through public comment, through neighborhood meetings, or in other
Encroachment on Langton Lake Park Land
Willmus asked staff to address perceptions that the Parkway would encroach on
park land, and to delineate between the park and stormwater treatment area east
of the main park area.
Works Director Schwartz advised that, while not clearly shown on the displayed
map, the city-owned area was combined with the park space as part of the 2009
Comprehensive Planning and Rezoning Process although previously defined for
stormwater purposes, even though it and similar parcels throughout the community
were designated as ?Park/Open Space? in zoning district definitions but often
reserved for stormwater treatment. Mr. Schwartz advised that stormwater ponds
had been built in that area in the early 1990?s as part of the redevelopment
north of County Road C, and if viewing aerial photos, the ponds actually narrowed
at that point leaving a strip of land, long intended for the Twin Lakes
Parkway. Mr. Schwartz reiterated that this parcel had been reserved for stormwater
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the parcel
currently served as an infiltration basin to assist in water quality for Langton
Lake as well as mitigation for other adjacent properties, with stormwater outlets
into that pond from those adjacent properties.
Quality and Permitting from Watershed Districts
Roe asked Mr. Schwartz to clarify and confirm that any road projects, including
this one, require permits from local watershed districts, in this case the Rice
Creek Watershed District, and any projects had to meet their requirements and
not leave a drainage situation worse than current, with incentives available if
and when actual improvements over and beyond current circumstances were possible.
Schwarz concurred with Mayor Roe?s comments, noting that from a regulatory
concept, a property owner - including the City - could not increase any new
impervious surface draining into this pond without a corresponding mitigation
to address that additional surface. As part of the proposed Parkway project,
Mr. Schwartz clarified that some of the existing impervious surfaces from
existing trucking terminals will actually be redeveloped into green space,
further improving the overall area.
McGehee stated that, as part of that ongoing mitigation process, very large
holes would be dug with pipes installed, which she opined was very disruptive
to surrounding areas.
Schwartz agreed that often this occurs, but clarified that in this instance
most of the disruption would be within the disturbed roadway area or within
remnant parcels adjacent to the roadway.
McGehee questioned how that would work on the section now defined as Green
Schwartz responded that the particular area in question required an embankment,
and any impact to the existing stormwater pond would need to be mitigated at
that site or somewhere within the City according to current watershed regulations
that required the City to replace anything disturbed.
McGehee questioned if mitigation efforts for this site could occur at Victoria
Street as an example or at another park.
Schwartz advised that, generally the watershed district wanted mitigation to
happen within the same sub-watershed area; but clarified that this was not yet
determined as it was part of the analysis during the design process itself.
McGehee opined that the question and result she had posed was still potentially
possible, and wetland could be destroyed by Langton Lake while satisfying the
permitting requirements by replacing it in an entirely different area of the
Schwartz advised that such a potential could be generally allowable within
watershed district regulations depending on the situation.
Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:47 p.m., and reconvened at
approximately 7:55 p.m., continuing discussion of the requested action detailed
in the RCA
moved to TABLE the recommended action until community visioning and planning
was completed as promised at last week?s community meeting.
Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.
an attendee at that referenced meeting, Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember
McGehee what promise was made.
McGehee referenced Community Development Director Paul Bilotta?s comments that
made a commitment to the planning process, and the lack of understanding or
realization from the neighborhood that the Parkway would be pulled out as a
completely separate piece. Councilmember McGehee opined that if that were the
case, Langton Lake and Park as a major component of this neighborhood would
also need to be pulled out.
Laliberte noted that, while the visioning process for this area was ongoing
long before her City Council tenure, seven months ago the City Council had
paused their discussions on zoning designations in this area to allow neighbors,
developers, property owners, and other interested parties an opportunity to
provide their input. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she did not perceive
tonight?s requested action as a reopening of that visioning process, but
anticipated the Parkway discussion would move forward, which she saw as a
separate issue beyond zoning and land use. Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her appreciation for Community Development Director Bilotta and staff for
undertaking this public process to receive feedback on zoning land use issues;
but opined that she did not see any promise made as referenced by Councilmember
moved, Etten seconded, award of a Design Services Contract (Attachment C) with
SRF Consulting Group for the design of Twin Lakes Parkway, Phase III, in an
amount not to exceed $117,014.
Attorney Gaughan clarified that the motion should state that the award of the design
services contract should be subject to City Attorney approval, as the draft
included in the RCA was not the final form of the contract.
Willmus and Etten, as makers of the motion concurred that the motion be amended
to read as follows:
moved, Etten seconded, award of a Design Services Contract (Attachment C) with
SRF Consulting Group for the design of Twin Lakes Parkway, Phase III, in an
amount not to exceed $117,014; subject to City Attorney review and approval as
Individual Councilmember Position Statements
Willmus noted that the discussion and planning for Twin Lakes Parkway had
been ongoing since the late 1980?s and original discussions about truncating
County Road C-2 at Langton Lake Park. Councilmember Willmus noted that those
discussions had occurred with the expectation that at some point in the future
another roadway connection would be located somewhere in that area, at which
point Parkway discussions were initiated.
the City Council?s vision for this area, Councilmember Willmus expressed
appreciation for the public?s good and fair questions, responding that he
envisioned a CenterPointe District 2 and that type of office or small business
type use. If that is the vision the community aspires to, Councilmember
Willmus opined that the means needed to be put in place to make that happen,
whether through incentives for developers if and when the market warrants it,
help in providing roadway infrastructure to provide access to parcels, and
other means. If the City steps away and says no to the Parkway, Councilmember
Willmus opined that the remaining parcels would likely develop in large chunks
supporting larger retail type uses, which he did not think the community wanted
reviewing the updated traffic study, and as a personal resident on Hamline
Avenue understanding well traffic volumes and impacts, Councilmember Willmus
opined that if the City did nothing, the volume of traffic increased but with
connection of the Parkway the increases are projected at only 4% over the next
15 years, and with future improvements at County Roads C and D and Cleveland
Avenue the benefits would be realized. While recognizing the needs and
preferences of adjacent residential property owners, Councilmember Willmus
opined that the City Council also needed to take into consideration property owners
in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area who have routinely come to the City
Council asking for connections to facilitate access to the interior parcels of
Willmus further noted that had been initial discussions about applying tax
assessments on a broad area, but when the Council reacted and stated they were
not interested in assessing residential property owners for this roadway, it
was no longer a consideration. Councilmember Willmus stated that he would hold
to that determination.
McGehee opined that while $10 million had been spent to-date on Twin Lakes,
and while most was tax increment financing (TIF) money, it was still taxpayer
monies and yet had not resulted in cleaning up the parcels for a variety of
reasons, and only focused on infrastructure resulting in a parking structure,
WalMart, and other developments not necessarily of interest. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it was difficult for her to see any benefit in this Parkway
since one business owner had already come forward saying it was fine with him
if the City did or did not extend the Parkway, and he was not locating on the
section being discussed tonight. Councilmember McGehee opined that there was
not a single parcel in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that was not already
accessible from a current road, and further opined that it was up to property
owners to divide their larger parcels. However, Councilmember McGehee opined
that if the City had used some of the money spent on infrastructure for
cleaning up the parcels, it could have remained competitive for developers
interested in locating their corporate headquarters in Roseville rather than
turning to competing suburbs with land already shovel ready and cleaned up of
contaminants, perhaps by using a tool like the City?s Port Authority
established for that very purpose. When discussing a community amenity like
Langton Lake and parcels adjacent to it, Councilmember McGehee opined that it
was not an amenity to have a Parkway located between developable properties and
Willmus echoed Councilmember McGehee?s support of using the City?s Port
Authority powers to clean up and redevelop some of those parcels; however, he
reminded her that in the past when that tool had been discussed or used, she had
been a very vocal opponent and had not advocated for its use, at least during
his tenure on the City Council,.
McGehee stated that she had not advocated for use of Port Authority powers
outside the Twin Lakes Area originally given to the City by statutory authority
to clean up and develop Twin Lakes as a transportation center, which had never
been used for that; and when it was used it was not for something done with the
original intent and so far never used for this type of project. Frankly,
Councilmember McGehee stated if the City was to subsidize projects to get ones
the City and neighbors want, she thought Port Authority powers would be a more
valuable and fair tool than TIF. Councilmember McGehee opined that
opportunities had been missed often and for a number of years because parcels
were not ready for development, which should be the responsibility of the City
Council under its Port Authority powers given in 1987.
Etten thanked the public for their comments, recognizing their passion and
how similar circumstances in the past he had been intimidated appearing before
the City Council. Councilmember Etten also recognized that the residents would
not be here if they didn?t care. Councilmember Etten stated that his support
for this Parkway is centered around more than traffic, which would be there one
way or the other as Twin Lakes developed, and opined that background traffic
would be there no matter what. Councilmember Etten referenced data provided
from experts in traffic study, and noted that the traffic was projected to
improve around major intersections with extension of the Parkway, actually helping
residents move to and from their homes more quickly. Councilmember Etten
reminded everyone that there were a number of roadways and intersections in Roseville
that were not controlled by the City, but noted that recent dialogue between
City and County staff as well as among Councilmembers and County Commissioners
was ongoing and things were starting to happen. Councilmember Etten noted that
City staff had brought in Ramsey County staff as part of the SRF Traffic Study
update, and their cooperation on the Fairview Avenue situation is beginning.
Councilmember Etten stated that the City was well aware of problem areas and
things that needed to happen, but admitted that it couldn?t be done alone.
Councilmember Etten noted dramatic improvements to many neighborhood areas,
including the intersection of Fairview and County Road C Avenues, and eroding
service rates now and in the future if nothing was done,. In his consideration
of the best thing he could do for the neighborhood, Councilmember Etten opined
that it would be to support construction of this reliever piece. Councilmember
Etten advised that he had intentionally driven through that neighborhood during
rush hours to personally experience what the residents were experiencing daily;
and assured residents that this action was not an attack on them but an attempt
to make things work better. Councilmember Etten reiterated that if the road is
not installed, the traffic situation will only get worse.
worked for a number of years as an advisory commissioner on the Parks &
Recreation Commission focused on improving park systems and the overall
environment, Councilmember Etten noted that one of the first steps undertaken
in the Park Renewal Program was to dedicate funds and work cooperatively with
Ramsey County to get more sidewalks in the community, with the City even stepping
up to fund them on County roads if necessary. Councilmember Etten committed to
continuing to do so for all neighborhoods in the City.
Etten clarified that tonight?s action in ordering the Feasibility Study did not
guarantee that the Parkway would be built, but provide details on how to
accomplish it and how best to mitigate impacts. Councilmember Etten spoke in
support of considering Port Authority bonds, but clarified that they would need
to be paid with tax dollars as well, and would not provide any escape from
taxes, but just a different way to fund improvements in that area; with no free
way to accomplish improvements.
Laliberte also thanked residents for their attendance and those who had
called and/or e-mailed over the last few weeks. In addition to those not
wanting this to happen, Councilmember Laliberte recognized comments from those
wanting to see something happen, even though they typically didn?t show up at a
Council meeting to speak, but still expressed their opinions, which she appreciated
Laliberte recognized that the neighbors feel that the City Council is not
listening to them or hadn?t performed due diligence; however, she noted that
whatever decision is made on the Parkway, it would not be the last decision
made on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and expressed her hope that the
neighborhood would continue to stay involved and voice their opinions. Councilmember
Laliberte also recognized that it was difficult when the decision didn?t
necessarily align with the desired outcome; but she assured residents that
their opinion always helped in City Council decision-making.
their role as Councilmembers, Councilmember Laliberte stated that they needed
to look at the bigger picture, and verified that she would therefore be supporting
the motion to proceed with the Parkway, as she saw it as a separate decision
from the other pending zoning and development discussions underway and still
needing more vetting.
Laliberte advised that the requested traffic study update had answered many of
her questions, even though it paused this Parkway project for a time, and recognized
this as a solution or reliever down the road. While that may be hard to see
now or even in the next few years while it?s under construction, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that in the long run, she saw destination trips in that area
that would free up regional trip traffic volumes, even though she didn?t agree
with the study?s findings that there were not currently that many regional
Laliberte also noted that this process had opened up discussions with Ramsey
County, a discussion that had been badly needed for some time, and now staff
from the City and County were working cooperatively on remedies along Fairview,
which was part of and critical to all of this playing out in a positive way.
Laliberte opined that new infrastructure was needed for proper and future
development, and while some of those parcels are large, the City?s vision was
for smaller, more intimate business, and those businesses would all want
frontage to attract customers, and without some kind of structure in place, the
parcels would remain large and only encouraging larger uses with no one
motivated to subdivide them without the Parkway. Councilmember Laliberte noted
that many opportunities in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area had been lost or
stalled over time, causing Roseville to gain the reputation of being difficult
to deal with and slow to bring things to completion compared to other
communities in this increasingly competitive development market, causing
Roseville to lose. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was not
prudent for the City to wait any longer and not be ready with this extension in
McGehee opined that it was obvious the point had been reached indicating
everyone would vote for this project except her. Councilmember McGehee advised
that she would be voting against the motion, with her reasons providing in
writing as part of the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
in addition to the reasons expressed by neighbors attending this and other
meetings during the process. As a resident on this side of Roseville, Councilmember
McGehee noted that she drove through this neighborhood all the time, and opined
that Terrace Drive is a community/neighborhood street allowing access to the
smaller shopping areas versus the larger regional shopping centers and used
frequently for people in that area. Even though the complexion of the area had
changed with the changed use of the former County Inn and Suites to a dormitory
filled with students from the University of Northwestern, it was still a
heavily used community area for young and old pedestrians alike.
this action, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council was bringing
regional traffic into that area with all the proposed changes at various
intersections proving costly, as well as mitigation required around Langton
Lake, which will prove to be a big cost to taxpayers. Councilmember McGehee
opined that there would be an even bigger cost to the livability of the
neighborhood and the park that was valued by the neighbors and community.
McGehee further opined that this side of Roseville served as a dumping ground
for other areas of Roseville, creating increased crime, traffic and only a few
areas of green space. But when neighbors asked that that little bit of green
space be properly protected by considering other options or changing the route
of the road at the last leg to enter into an offset configuration rather than
lining up with Terrace Drive by providing a back door to parcels east of
Fairview, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was not something this City
Council was willing to consider.
her discussion with City Manager Trudgeon earlier today, Councilmember McGehee
confirmed that the City had paid $15,000 of taxpayer money for a consultant to
create a regulating map for this area with the direction from staff to the
consultant that the Parkway was located where it was to be and should be worked
around in the regulating map, even though that road was designed 35 years ago
and many changes had occurred since that time.
turning in her personal findings as part of the record, Councilmember McGehee
summarized her findings based on her concerns with negative environmental,
financial, planning, traffic, resident trust, and business impacts; and reiterated
her opposition to the motion.
Roe stated that there was no question that at one time or another as a
Councilmember you are faced with making decisions that proved unpopular with a
number of residents, many of whom had spoken previously or this evening about
this issue. Under those circumstances, Mayor Roe advised that he struggled
with his desire and commitment to engage the community in city decision-making
while balancing that with how to proceed with this item for the benefit of
Roe clarified that during his tenure on the City Council since 2003, he had
supported Twin Lakes Parkway so his decision to support this motion should not
come as a surprise to anyone.
Roe opined that getting neighborhood feedback on future zoning and land use,
buffers and setbacks, and height limits was critical and very important to his
decision-making, and felt those preferences far outweighed the extension of the
Parkway, which had been going on for some time, with the rights-of-way acquired
since the mid-2000?s, at which time the previously approved project went away,
as grant monies and TIF became available. Mayor Roe noted that the City Council,
including Councilmember McGehee, voted unanimously just last year to acquire
the remaining needed rights-of-way for Twin Lakes Parkway, and every indication
at that time was that the Parkway was going to be installed. Mayor Roe advised
that the delay was caused to update previous traffic studies to verify that
information and validate why the Parkway extension made sense.
Roe advised that, for him personally, it came down to the benefits of the
Parkway on County Roads C and D in terms of alternate connections between
points east of Fairview Avenue and the area between Fairview and Cleveland Avenue
and those not wanting to take the I-35W route to County Road D. Mayor Roe noted
that the intersection at County Road D and Fairview was currently not working
properly and would only get worse with construction or weather issues, but
those were upset conditions, and plans had to be based on normal conditions,
Roe opined that the latest traffic study demonstrated to him that the intersections
along Fairview Avenue north of Terrace Drive actually performed better under
full 2030 development and with Twin Lakes Parkway completed than they would
under no further development and no connection of the parkway in 2030.
extending Twin Lakes Parkway, Mayor Roe opined that it served to improve the
overall situation, and while acknowledging that it may not be easy to accept or
fully understood by the neighborhood now and perhaps not for some time yet to
come, Mayor Roe stated that he was supportive of the motion.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
thanked the public for their comments and agreed with the comments regarding
the value of public input stated by Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten, opining
that they were well stated.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:28 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:31 p.m.
Continued Discussion of Civic Engagement Module and Request for
Motion to Contract for Module Development and Website Integration
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, Chair of the Community Engagement Commission
Grefenberg, as Chair of the CEC, and through working with Communications
Manager Garry Bowman, advised that after reviewing a number of potential vendors,
the CEC unanimously on a 7/0 vote supported moving ahead in recommending this
particular vendor as detailed in the RCA. Mr. Grefenberg introduced fellow
members of the CEC, Scot Becker and Jonathan Miller.
Bowman noted the responses provided by the CEC and staff to previously asked
questions of the City Council at their last presentation (Attachment A), at
which time Mayor Roe opened discussion at the discretion of Councilmembers.
Laliberte thanked the CEC for their responses to previous questions; however,
stated that she still had some concerns about moderation of the site. While
not wanting staff to have to filter through comments, especially if the intent
was to strive for conversation transparency on the site, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that just having a profanity filter didn?t preclude the site
from degrading for a variety of other reasons. If this request proceeds,
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in receiving additional
suggestions from the CEC and staff on how to continually improve moderation of
the site and a threshold if a comment received a certain number of thumbs down
responses, that it could be hidden from the site. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that she was seeking more versus fewer options for providing a safe
environment while still being able to monitor comments.
Bowman responded that when anyone - whether staff or resident - signed up to
the online community, you obtained the right to flag an inappropriate comment,
and once flagged, it immediately came off the system and went into a section
for review. Mr. Bowman advised that, if a comment seemed to make someone uncomfortable,
but staff determined it was actually appropriate, it would be put back online.
Mr. Bowman clarified that such an entry only required one thumbs down to be
pulled for review before going back on line if it ended up doing so.
his discussions with other communities, Mr. Bowman reported that the general
feeling he got was that since this was not a random message board and an official
government site, the level of discourse was automatically at a higher level and
more respectful, with people more genuine and using their real names, who accepted
that there was a higher threshold. Mr. Bowman clarified that this was not to
say that there still weren?t some problems or areas of abuse, but Mr. Bowman
reported that other communities had seen them as minor and those communities
had actually been surprised at how minor the infractions actually were.
his professional work in communications, Mr. Miller advised that overall he had
found that this type of online community was positive and those of a more negative
vein or in attacking format were typically not the norm. Mr. Miller opined
that he had been pleasantly surprised by the positive tones in these online
Becker opined that the tenor of the comments could be addressed in how this
online community was initially rolled out and how the tone was set for
anticipated content. Mr. Becker noted that this could be accomplished by
seeding the online community with topics of conversation that could later be
refined by what topics of discussion the community was seeking to pursue.
Bowman suggested that this site was not a ?if you build it, they will come?
type of situation, and people may need to be enticed to join the conversation
through offering topics such as the one discussed earlier tonight: the
extension of Twin Lakes Parkway. Mr. Bowman reported that some of the cities
he?d interviewed had actually found their level of staff and/or city council
e-mail traffic reduced with such topics addressed in the online community, when
discussion was focused and out in the open. Mr. Bowman clarified that
developing the site would take some work, but when he asked other cities about
how much more staff time was required for this effort, he was surprised with
the analogy he?d frequently received in that it took about as much time as the
efforts toward social media. Mr. Bowman advised that social media was part of
staff?s work week, and while not an overwhelming part it was one brought on by
the city itself. While all of these communication efforts take time, Mr.
Bowman clarified that they were not overwhelming and nothing staff could not
easily handle. Mr. Bowman expressed his appreciation for the responses he?d
received from staff in other communities using this tool.
Laliberte clarified that she was excited about this opportunity; however, she
just wanted to ensure that it was transparent and didn?t provide a perception
that staff was filtering anything.
on another response on the survey module, Councilmember Laliberte asked if
there was a way to limit responses by IP address rather than account.
Bowman responded affirmatively, stating that there was a method to use various
options to track responses and limit them by IP address or by limiting them to
one household or one per device.
Etten opined that one person could use four different devices.
Bowman admitted that this was a possibility, but questioned how significant
that became when it only accounted for four votes or opinions out of how many
potential voices. Mr. Bowman opined that, while many safeguards were built in
to limit abuses, it was not a perfect system.
Becker noted that this tool was not intended to be a substitution for the annual
McGehee agreed with seeding the site and setting the tone, as well as comments
about it not serving the same place as the community survey, stating that she
saw it more as s discourse module. While supporting this module, while it is
still new to the City Councilmember McGehee suggested an annual versus three
year contract as a pilot and determine the City?s experience and how well it
was going to be received by the community, since not everyone could or would be
using this forum.
Becker responded that there was an option to engage the vendor for one to three
years, which is ultimately a decision to be made by the City Council. However,
in anticipation of the seeding part, Mr. Becker noted that it may take 8 months
to get it set up and may only just be starting to lend results at the end of a
one year period, and suggested a longer term to allow a better understanding of
this tool and its reception in the community.
Bowman concurred with Mr. Becker, opining that it would be a minimum of four
months to deploy and integrate the website before it even went online. Mr.
Bowman also assured the City Council that the CEC would be an integral part of
assisting staff to make sure the discussions remained free-flowing and
transparent. Mr. Bowman opined that one year is not sufficient to have
residents get used to the forum, or obviously even to become aware of it during
the first 4-5 months of development; and suggested a minimum of two years for
the initial trial and to work out the kinks, and have the CEC work with staff
to make sure the site is serving its intended purpose.
Etten thanked the CEC and staff for their work on this additional tool to help
connect with the community with a two-way dialogue. As to flagging items or
censoring them through staff as needed, Councilmember Etten suggested a rubric
of expectations for users of the system and expectations, and how an item may
be pulled off in accordance with the user agreements for citizen sign-up and
their agreement to abide by the rules for appropriate content. Councilmember Etten
spoke in support of a three year contract to get this moving forward, opining
that $14,000 was a small amount to commit to this open dialogue, further
opining that after one year of operation there wouldn?t be a complete picture,
but after two years at a minimum it would provide some more refined information.
Councilmember Etten noted that this is not the only communications tool being
used or considered by the City, but opined that standards should be created by
the CEC and staff to set the tone and use those principles to make decisions
easier to pull any inappropriate comments.
Becker concurred with Councilmember Etten 100%, noting that some cities used
guidelines similar to those used for social media sites.
Bowman also concurred, noting that it was incumbent upon staff to alert a user
when their comments were going afoul of the reasons for pulling their comments,
and a warning that if those types of comments continue, you would no longer be
allowed on the site, with the overall goal to keep in mind that the discourse
needs to continue to be two-way.
Roe asked for public comment on this item. No one appeared to speak.
moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a contract with
Granicus to develop a civic engagement module for integration with the City of
Roseville website for a term of two years and at a cost not to exceed
McGehee clarified that she saw the two years as a time for reviewing the site,
and didn't expect it to be perfect in two years or else, but saw this as a way
to not make as large of a financial commitment on the front end.
Willmus concurred with the comments of his colleagues.
Laliberte advised that she would have supported a three year contract, however,
agreed that she was amenable to a two year contract as well.
Laliberte asked staff to provide a recap of one-time and ongoing expenses
coming from the Communications Fund on an annual basis, and the status of that
fund; with the request duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
Mayor Roe also
requested that the staff report include anticipated revenues into the fund over
the next few years, in consideration of pending cable franchise negotiations
and potential changes in those revenues.
thanked the CEC and staff for their work on this website integration module
Request by HR LLC for Approval of a Final Plat at 2750 Cleveland
Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for Final Plat approval as
detailed in the RCA, noting affiliated site plans and conditions, typically
required for submittals for the City Engineer and Planning staff to support.
Mr. Paschke advised that submittals had been completed and staff recommended
approval of the Final Plat, conditioned as indicated for the proposed
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11214 (Attachment D)
entitled, ?A Resolution APPROVING the Final Plat of Twin Lakes Hospitality
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon distributed upcoming preliminary meeting agendas; and noted that the
majority of the March 9, 2015 meeting would taken up with advisory commissioner
interviews, with twenty-four applications received as of today. Mr. Trudgeon
suggested that the regular business portion of the meeting begin at 5:30 p.m.,
followed by those interviews for the remainder of the evening.
There were no
Councilmember initiated items for Future Meetings.
the City Council concurred.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
announced that, in accordance with State Statute Chapter 13.B.5, the City
Council could meet in Closed Executive Session for the purpose of discussing
the City Manager?s Performance Evaluation. Mayor Roe advised that part of that
statutory citation afforded the opportunity for the employee to choose to hold
the discussion in open session; with City Manager Trudgeon expressing his
preference that the evaluation be held in closed session.
8:53 p.m., Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, moving into Closed Executive
Session for the purpose as stated by Mayor Roe.
convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session pursuant to the previous
motion. In addition to the City Council, City Attorney Gaughan and City Manager
Trudgeon were in attendance.
McGehee seconded adjournment of the closed session and return to open session
at 10:00 p.m.
summarized the City Council?s review of the City Manager?s performance as being
very satisfactory, and indicated the Council's approval of a salary step
increase for Mr. Trudgeon. Mayor Roe noted that the Council was pleased with
Mr. Trudgeon's work, and had encouraged Mr. Trudgeon to focus on a couple of
area of growth and improvement in his positon for the year to come.
Willmus concurred with the Council's praise for the work Mr. Trudgeon has done
over the last year, and thanked him for that work, with the rest of the Council
expressing concurrence in those remarks.
Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:04 p.m.