Candidate responses to a 23 issue questionnaire assembled by RCCFOG with input from the community
The questionnaire was sent by certified mail to all ten candidates running in the 2003 Roseville primary election. According to the US Postal Service online reports, all ten questionnaires were delivered on August 7, 2003. Seven of the ten candidates responded in the time allotted. Existing mayor John Kysylyczyn didn't make his answers to the questions public until about two weeks later on September 2, 2003. His answers, therefore, were written with the knowledge of the other candidate's replies. All their answers appear below. The office the candidates are running for appears in parenthesis after their name. Al Kehr and Tom Kough did not respond.
Question 1: Should Roseville's Ethics Commission be reinstated?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I support an Ethics Commission, but in light of the revelations of the past two years we may wish to request that the commission seek assistance from the state legislature to aid enforcement of ethical behavior. We have learned over the past two years that the Ethics Commission as structured can, in fact, be dissolved by a simple majority vote of those elected officials it is charged to monitor. We also learned, sadly, that even in the case of misdemeanor offenses by our elected officials, state statute does not protect cities between 500 and 50,000 from such wrongful acts. The problem is with state statute; this solution is at the state level. We should, however, continue to offer our citizens an opportunity to have a commission that monitors our city government for wrongdoing looks into matters of misconduct within the city, and has the ability to bring serious and substantiated allegations to the proper authorities for examination.
Pust (mayor): I favor reinstatement of an ethics commission, but with changes to the structure to ensure that the commission's authority is clear and defined in accordance with the law. While an ethics commission charged to oversee the city's elected officials should be an effective way to ensure compliance with the city's Code of Ethics, the existence of a commission does not relieve every citizen of his or her responsibility to hold their elected representatives to the very highest ethical standards.
Roe (mayor): No. It is very difficult to have a locally-based municipal government watchdog group that can be truly unbiased. For the sake of fairness to both the accusers and the accused officials, objective third parties need to be involved Unfortunately, as currently defined, that can lead to legal proceedings that can be very costly to the individuals involved. I would advocate an effort by the legislature to more clearly define an ethics investigation process for municipal officials that can be applied to cities across the state in an evenhanded and fair manner. Certainly, I would be willing to be involved in that process as a representative of Roseville's interests.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Yes. The ethics commission was correctly dissolved because it had simply become a tool for political fodder at substantial taxpayer expense. I do believe that a new ethics commission should be reinstated strictly as a state-wide commission which would be under the control of an organization like the League of Women Voters or the League of Minnesota Cities. This will eliminate the partisanship which Dr. David Schultz of Hamline University stated could not be eliminated by a Roseville city commission.
Maschka (council): Yes, It should never have been dissolved in the first place and the timing of the dissolution was completely wrong.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 2: Should Roseville have a community center?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): This issue has been around since I came here in 1979. I would like to see it fully discussed and evaluated by the residents. To that end, I would like to see the council set up a task force to evaluate the possibilities for a Community Center. Such a task force would be a volunteer commitment on the part of interested residents. This group would be charged with visiting and evaluating other facilities in our area, understanding and reporting funding, management, use, etc. They would then develop a preliminary document outlining their findings and their recommendations. This information would be made available to the public and at least one "Town Meeting" on the subject would be held. The city would then poll the residents to measure public support. If there were majority support, the city would then begin to work on a formal proposal
Pust (mayor): Roseville cannot "have" a community center unless the citizens of Roseville choose to raise their own taxes to pay for it. I do not think that now is the right time to ask the citizens of Roseville to vote to raise their taxes for this purpose, for the following reasons: (1) the recent state economic forecasts are still pessimistic about the state's economy; (2) from the 2003 Legislature, we have learned what level of cuts can be directed at local governments when the state is faced with a serious budget deficit. They've cut cities once (Roseville lost $1.4 million) and they could do it again; and (3) the citizens just voted to increase their taxes to pay for the improvements to the public safety and police buildings. Those increased taxes will first show up on our 2004 tax bills. Until that increase is absorbed by families in Roseville, I don't believe that we should ask the voters to take on another tax increase
Roe (mayor): Yes. Roseville should have a community center. That is an interest that the citizens have had for some time. The question is how to get from community interest to bricks and mortar. I intend to work with the council during my term to set in motion the specific steps toward first defining the form that a community center will take, and then defining the cost and how it will be paid for, and finally the time frame in which it will be built. One concern that I have is that we do not build facilities that duplicate those already available in the community. I do not want to have a building that is nothing more than a monument to the politicians who built it.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : It is the people’s choice. Since construction costs would most likely exceed $10,000,000 with operation costs running at about $200,000 per year, the decision needs to be made by the voters at an election. As an alternative, I have been working with a group of community leaders to encourage private business to construct a facility, with the actual users paying the full costs. This project would have little to no financial impact on the general taxpayers, and may be a better alternative for our community.
Maschka (council): Personally I believe we should have one. However that decision should be left up to the voters. The economic reality is that with the state of the economy and our level of bonded indebtedness the possibility of such a referendum will have to wait a few years.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 3: Would you work toward more affordable housing for seniors so that there homes would be available for young families?
Klausing (mayor): Yes, but I don't see the goal as getting seniors out of their homes but rather giving them options
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Our community should support our seniors and help them to stay in their own homes as long a possible. These are the people who have built this community, raised their families here, and wish to retire here. They have acquired our parks, supported our schools, built our tax base, and volunteered for a multitude of projects that have created the city we have chosen to call home. To imply that our seniors are second-class citizens who are taking up space we need for young families is repugnant and disturbing. This is discrimination, and I do not support it in any way.
Pust (mayor): I would work to increase the availability of affordable housing in Roseville at every opportunity. I would not work, however, to pressure our community's seniors to move out of their homes in favor of "young families." We should honor the decades of investment that our seniors have made in our community, and support those who choose to stay in their homes for as long as they are safely able.
Affordable housing is a basic human need. Most reliable sources define "affordable" housing as housing that does not require more than 30% of a family's gross/net income. In all of the development, redevelopment and planning that the city undertakes, we should remain mindful of the need to increase the stock of housing options affordable to residents of Roseville no matter what their age or income level.
Roe (mayor): Yes. I would also work toward making those seniors' homes more affordable to those young families.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Yes. The council has been doing this for years. I have personally worked very hard to make the Applewood Pointe project and the Hamline Avenue project a reality. This is also an issue where we need to work with other community leaders in our region. It is good public policy to encourage home builders to provide options for seniors who no longer wish to remain in their single-family homes.
Maschka (council): No, I believe we have enough senior housing. There is a need to have all ages represented in our City. The question of what is affordable is also a subject of much debate. I don't think we should always be sending the message of getting the seniors out of their home, for many of them their current housing ,a single story rambler all on one floor rambler may be the best age in place residence for them. If anything we should be exploring way to support them staying in their homes.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 4: Should efforts be made to add turn lanes throughout the city at busy intersections?
Klausing (mayor): I don't know. It would depend on the intersection and the engineering report
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Our busiest streets are typically state or county roads. These roads are part of the traffic control system in this entire sector. Any efforts would and should be done in conjunction with the appropriate state and county agencies. If the city has identified specific intersections and substantiated their needs, the council should assist the city in any way possible to facilitate the creation of methods to improve traffic flow.
Pust (mayor): Turn lanes improve safety and traffic flow on busy streets. The city and the county have done a good job of adding turn lanes during normally-scheduled road improvements where appropriate. I support the continuation of these cost-effective efforts
Roe (mayor): Yes. Through the normal course of road construction and re-construction processes.
Ihlan (council): I believe that the city government ought to pay more attention to traffic issues, with input from residents and local businesses. However, without further information, I can't say whether or not it would be a good policy to add turn lanes at intersections throughout the city. There might be other design alternatives to reduce congestion and delay, and there may be other transportation issues the city needs to address - for example, encouraging other modes of transportation, and making our streets pedestrian and bicycle friendly so that fewer cars are on the roads.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : This is strictly a county government decision. The city only has authority over side streets, not high traffic roads.
Maschka (council): Yes and we are moving more and more to that approach as we re-stripe and re-construct our streets.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 5: Should the Roseville City Council take a leadership role in getting highway 36 expanded from 2 to 3 lanes each way from I35W to I35E?
Klausing (mayor): No, at least not based on what I know currently. I am concerned that a 3rd lane will simply mean more traffic in Roseville.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Again, I am unsure as to what a “leadership role” is when dealing with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The agency surely knows that they have a bottleneck on Highway 36 not just from 35W to 35E, but often as far back as Industrial Boulevard toward Minneapolis and to White Bear Avenue in Maplewood. But once again, this is a state road, subject to consideration with all the other state projects. Naturally the council should be aware of the problems caused by this congestion—noise, pollution, speeding through residential neighborhoods—and should do whatever possible to work with the appropriate agencies and other communities to resolve the problem in the best manner for all involved.
Pust (mayor): Traffic on Highway 36 has continued to increase over the past several years, and the effects of that increased traffic are endured by both Roseville and non-Roseville drivers alike. While Roseville has an interest in this problem, it doesn't have the ultimate authority to solve it. That rests with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT), which plans to expand Highway 36 in approximately 2016 after the Rice Street bridge and the Lexington Avenue bridge have been replaced.
While I would support Roseville being involved in the planning for MDOT's proposed expansion, I do not believe Roseville should offer up any significant public funds to try to get the project moved up on MDOT's schedule. The traffic problem on Highway 36 is a regional problem in the state. It should be solved with input from all communities in the region and funded by the state, not by Roseville's taxpayers
Roe (mayor): Yes. The plans should be in place for when the need becomes a priority, which is likely a number of years down the road. Where the city can participate, I think we must play a part in that planning.
Ihlan (council): Please see my comments for #4 above. Without further information, I am not sure whether widening Highway 36 is the best alternative to deal with traffic congestion. Creating new lanes on Highway 36 could actually cause traffic to increase. However, I am not opposed to the Roseville city council taking a leadership role in analyzing the problem and exploring possible solutions.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : This regional issue is already being addressed by multi-city organizations which Roseville is a part of. I personally have been taking a leadership role on this issue for four years. Progress is slow because upgrades first need to take place on 35W between DT Minneapolis and Roseville. Also, the legislature has appropriated little new money, and Roseville does not have the legal means to raise the millions necessary to accomplish this project on its own.
Maschka (council): Yes we should however our success with MDOT has been less then effective. In addition our state legislative delegation has been of no help on these matters. Unless we get some Federal dollars from some place I don't know how we get this done.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 6: Would you support a review of ambulance service in the city
Klausing (mayor): ? Toward what end?
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Absolutely
Pust (mayor): Yes. This issue has generated a significant amount of public discussion due to the increasing average age of our community's population and the corresponding need for emergency medical services. Roseville should have ambulance and first responder services that are available and accessible to residents within the recommended response times. A review of current service will tell us if we are appropriately meeting our citizens' needs in times of crisis.
Roe (mayor): Yes. As part of our ongoing review of public safety in the city.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : This is already being done by the City Council and the League of Woman Voters.
Maschka (council): Yes as part of the over all review of how we deliver public safety we need to look at how we should deliver this service and if we should change the manner in which we deliver
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 7: Should only the Full Council interview and appoint commission and citizen advisory committee members?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I believe that at least the full council should interview and appoint commission and citizen advisory board members. It might also be useful to have the current chair of each board or commission and a designee from the discipline involved participate in the interview process as well
Pust (mayor): I favor full council participation in all important decisions, including appointment of commission and citizen advisory committee members
Roe (mayor): Yes. Absolutely. That is a power that the council holds as a body. No council member should be willing to abdicate that power to an individual member. Commissions and committees are intended to advise the whole council, and should therefore be made up of representatives that are chosen by the whole council.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : All appointment processes, with the exception of the HRA, by law are determined by a majority of the council. The Mayor appoints to the HRA by state law. The Full Council has voted on every appointment for every commission for the past four years. The last two years, the majority of the council decided to ask the Mayor to make recommendations for very good reasons. Under previous council leadership, many commission members were selected based on how much work they put into a council members campaign. What we had were commissions that did not reflect the makeup of the community, but rather the makeup of political campaign committees. With a good Mayor, the political shenanigans were eliminated, and even more qualified people were appointed to our commissions. There were no losses, just substantial gains.
Maschka (council): Yes, the full council should interview and appoint citizen advisory commissions. That is how the system is setup, but the mayor and supporter changed it. As a result we have lost an incredible amount of experience on our advisory commissions. While new blood is good not having enough members with experience is worse.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 8: Would you favor a review of the new street assessment policy?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Absolutely
Pust (mayor): City policies should meet the needs of the community and comply with applicable law. The city changed its street assessment policy in 2002. While I am not interested in revisiting every decision made by the city council in the last 2-4 years, as mayor I would seek the recommendation of the city staff concerning the ramifications of this policy change with respect to: (1) the extent of any additional financial burden borne by the city taxpayers as a result of the 2002 change; and (2) the equitable split of cost allocation between residential, commercial and other property.
Roe (mayor): Yes. I favor reviewing all city policies on a periodic basis as a matter of practice. Conditions change, and the city should be willing to change its policies to reflect the conditions. If a policy does not work, the council should admit it, and either eliminate or correct it.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Yes. The street assessment policy, in addition to all other city policies should be reviewed annually by the city council. The old street assessment policy was discriminatory in that it doubled taxes for businesses, non-profits, and other properties. The old policy also allowed the city to pocket state funds, while billing property owners for 100% of the cost of a project. The policy was changed to ensure that everyone paid their fair share.
Maschka (council): I would favor a return to the one we had. Changing the assessment this late in the street reconstruction program was a complete injustice to everyone who has paid their share to this date
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 9: Would you favor a reinstatement of work sessions to be held separately from the regular Council meetings?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I strongly support work sessions. I believe that it is not possible to have the type of participation by citizens or the open discussion of issues required of good government without them.
Pust (mayor): I favor reinstatement of separate work sessions that are publicly announced and open for public participation as a way to increase the involvement of citizens in the decisions of their government.
Roe (mayor): No. Not necessarily. I do support the idea that the council's time needs to be divided in an organized manner between less formal discussion of issues and action on issues. I believe that can be accomplished under a structure that does not have to involve separate meetings, but rather re-organized meetings.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : We already have separate work sessions at every council meeting. (As a historical note, work sessions are a relatively new to the city council. They only have been used for about 10 out of the last 50 years.) The old method of scheduling work sessions was not citizen friendly because those who had business before the council were often times delayed. Having both work sessions and regular meetings on a weekly basis has made business run more smoothly and quickly for citizens. Our current work sessions operate the same way as they have for the past 10 years.
Maschka (council): Yes the major thing we have lost is good process, work sessions give a forum to discuss things in more detail and in a more informal setting.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 10: Do you favor acting on items of council business only when public prior notice is given?
Klausing (mayor): Yes although there may be the very rare situation where immediate action is required.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Absolutely, unless it is a very minor issue such as paying a normal operating bill or something similar.
Pust (mayor): Yes. Requiring prior public notice ensures that the community's citizens have an opportunity to be heard by their elected decision-makers on issues that are important to them. For the past several years, our city council has often taken action without public input and after very limited public debate. Roseville needs new leadership that understands that it is the citizens - not the elected officials - that are the important voices in government.
Roe (mayor): Yes. Except in emergency situations, it is essential that the council's business be conducted in an open manner, with public notice of all items to be acted on.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Yes. But over my objection, the council has set a policy which does not require notice. Council members Maschka, Klausing, and Kough, through a series of votes have created this “anything goes” policy which is now in place.
Maschka (council): I have always favored that.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 11: Should tax increases be held to the change in the cost of living?
Klausing (mayor): Yes although there may unique situations requiring higher increases.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Tax increases should be held to as small amount as possible, perhaps even less than the change in the cost of living if there is no need to raise them. In general I believe that taxes should reflect a careful examination of the budget and input from the citizens before raising—or lowering taxes.
Pust (mayor): Tax increases should be avoided if at all possible, in any amount. I would not favor any increase in taxes without broad public discussion and consideration of all other, reasonable alternatives for meeting the community's prioritized needs. Taxes are not "government money; " taxes are "the people's money." The people should decide if, when and in what degree they want to invest more of their money in their community.
Roe (mayor): No. Taxes should be based on the needs of the citizens of Roseville, and not on an artificial standard. I am concerned that, by limiting our tax rate increases to the rate of inflation, we are creating the environment that accepts as a foregone conclusion that tax rates must increase in the tirst place.
Ihlan (council): Not necessarily. All other things being equal, this is a sensible principle. However, there may be special circumstances that could require a larger increase in a given budget year. In addition, if there are significant decreases in available funding from state, federal or other sources, it may be necessary to have a larger increase in local taxes to continue to provide necessary city services.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Everyone knows that cost of living is only one of a number of factors in determining tax policy. All of the factors must be used when setting the tax rate. Since the council has never taken an in-depth look at the budget since 1994 (according to Maschka), there are probably many adjustments which could be made to lower or eliminate tax increases. Last year, I worked with Kough and Schroeder to make reductions in the budget, and lowered taxes, without sacrificing any city services.
Maschka (council): Yes, it has always been my yard stick and in fact in real dollars the cost of government has decreased in Roseville over the last ten years.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 12: Do you agree that the Council should be policy making only and the city manager is responsible for administration?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Absolutely
Pust (mayor): Roseville's citizens chose to create their community as a "Plan B city" under Minnesota law. In a Plan B city, the council should be policy-making only and the daily administration of the city should be directed by the city manager.
Roe (mayor): Yes. Still, the council has a very important role in oversight of the city administration in order to be sure that city policies are being implemented and enforced. That ought to be achieved through periodic, planned, and public reviews of policies and their effects.
Ihlan (council): Yes -but the city council needs to provide clear, adequate guidance on the policies the city manager and staff administer.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : This is not an issue to agree or disagree about; rather it is a matter of law. State statute and city attorney opinions lay out the form of government in Roseville
Maschka (council): Yes, I understand the system of government we work under.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 13: Should the city's reserve funds be used only for the purposes for which they were established?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): This city is blessed with very specific and carefully designated reserve funds. I do not see any reason to alter the defined uses or exhaust the funds.
Pust (mayor): The city's reserve funds should be used in accordance with the purposes for which they were established and in compliance with the law.
Roe (mayor): Yes. However, there are two types of reserve funds. Some are established with very strict purposes, and others over which the council has more discretion. The council should maintain the ability to alter the policies on the use of those more discretionary reserves to best meet the current and future needs of the city, rather than being handcuffed by policies based on past needs that may no longer be relevant.
Ihlan (council): Yes. I think the city should strive to maintain its reserves, and to draw on them only sparingly, for the purposes for which they were established.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : Reserve funds must be used for the purposes set out in Minnesota Statutes. Funds which are not statutorily dedicated may be legally spent by any city council for city purposes.
Maschka (council): Yes, especially the funds set aside for the permanent maintenance of streets.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 14: Is there a need for an official city council meeting parliamentarian?
Klausing (mayor): No
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): No. I do not believe that a parliamentarian would have helped during our recent crisis of rudeness, and I do not believe one is necessary during meetings held in a reasonable and normal manner. I think it would be an additional city expense we do not need. We have plenty of lawyers at the meetings to give us advice.
Pust (mayor): There shouldn't be. Some have suggested that the current city council would have done a better job for citizens if it had had a parliamentarian to restore order in meetings and keep the council on task. I disagree. We don't need a "meeting cop;" we need new leadership to focus on the serious business of the city
Roe (mayor): Yes. It is my understanding that the city attorney acts in that function during council meetings. I see no reason to change that practice.
Ihlan (council): It depends on how the new council works together. If there are frequent disputes over parliamentary procedures, it might be useful. It might be even more useful to have a meeting facilitator or mediator present, depending on the nature of the disputes.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : The City Attorney is already the parliamentarian. The attorney is the parliamentarian in most cities and counties. While he doesn’t know all the answers to every question, he does a pretty good job. The problem we have on our City Council is that we have two other Council Members who think that they are the presiding officer. Only the Mayor is the presiding officer under state law.
Maschka (council): No, we have one in the city attorney we just need a mayor who understands that.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 15: Should Roseville continue to have a Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA)?
Klausing (mayor): Yes. I was opposed to its creation but since the council has created it I think we ought to at least see if it can be of some value.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I believe that Roseville does not need both an HRA and a Community Development Program. Those things that the HRA has assigned itself I believe belong in Community Development. I do not think the city needs to be or should be in the business of rehabilitation of houses. I do not think another entity that can levy taxes against the public is needed. It seems to me that the HRA has functions that could easily be done by the Council in terms of financing and direction. I believe that the HRA was simply an accounting ploy to get more funds into Community Development. This is the type of duplication of services that costs taxpayers money
Pust (mayor): The current city council created the HRA just over a year ago. Already, the HRA has come to the council to request a significant budget increase. While it is too early to assess the HRA's ultimate usefulness, we should examine closely its work in the next year to ensure that it is serving a necessary public need. If it does not show an appropriate return on investment in that timeframe, we should determine whether it is merely the latest example of unjustified growth in government.
Roe (mayor): Yes. Subject to periodic, planned, and public review by the council, as with all city policies.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : The HRA was recommended and strongly supported by staff. Evaluation of the HRA should occur after it has been in existence for about two or three years. Interestingly enough, the two members who did not support the HRA, have expressed no interest in holding a joint meeting with them, or just simply attend a few of their meetings. The rumors of the million dollar HRA budget are also untrue. The HRA was given close to a million dollars worth of loans to hold on to. It is called a revolving loan fund, which means that as money is paid back, it is re-loaned to other people. The council gave them debt, not cash.
Maschka (council): I did not support the creation of the HRA. I believe it was a solution that was determined before we figured out what the problem was and what tools we already have available to solve the problem. When setup we were told we could transfer some housing funds into the program and this would take care of the program for a number of years. Now one year into the program we have a proposed budget of approximately one million dollars and a proposed levy of $490,000. These programs have a way of taking on a life of their own and can quickly consume large dollars.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 16: Should any individual council member lobby on the city's behalf without the authorization of the whole council?
Klausing (mayor): No
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): No
Pust (mayor): No
Roe (mayor): No. Any lobbying before the legislature on the behalf of the city must be done as the result of a vote of the council, and must be done by a representative that is authorized by a vote of the council
Ihlan (council): No
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : No. In 2000, I caught Finance Director Burrell, City Manager Sarkozy, and Council member Maschka, illegally using city staff and funds to lobby on an issue that had not been brought to the attention of a majority of the council. After this episode, I had a council policy enacted which has prevented future abuses from occurring. This policy now requires that council consent be given on these issues.
Maschka (council): No
Shwiff (council): No
Question 17: In cases of council vacancies would you favor an election?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I do not believe that council seats should be filled without an election. Even though this is an additional expense, I feel that with only five council seats in all, to fill one by appointment is taking too much power from the citizens and giving too much power to the council.
Pust (mayor): Minnesota law allows city councils to enact local ordinances requiring special elections to fill vacancies in elected positions. As mayor, I would propose and work for passage of such an ordinance to ensure that all the citizens of Roseville have the opportunity to choose who represents them.
Two current council members, Tom Kough and Craig Klausing, are running for mayor in this race and are not resigning their council seats. Because neither of them (or their fellow council members) have sponsored and passed a special election ordinance in Roseville, the citizens will not have a chance to elect their successor on the council if Mr. Kough or Mr. Klausing is successful in their bid for mayor. Instead, the four remaining members on the council will pick someone to appoint to the council, and that person will serve for two years without ever having been elected by the people. While this might be in the self-interest of these council members, it does not appear to me to be in the best interest of the citizens of Roseville.
Roe (mayor): Yes. An election should be held, where the remaining time in the term permits, after an interim appointment by the council In other words, I see no reason to change the current practice.
Ihlan (council): Yes. (An interim appointment might be necessary pending an election.)
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : I lean in support of elections, but I do have concerns about costly special elections that may occur during a time of year where we would only get a 5% voter turnout.
Maschka (council): Generally I would favor an election for terms of a year or more. I think the appointment process works well and saves money where the unexpired term is a year or less.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 18: Would you support a new community visioning process similar to the 1990 Vista 2000?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): We should have community visioning to confirm or modify our master plan. We have just begun another discussion of more retail with the Twin Lakes proposals. An earlier question in this series raised the issue of a community center. Whether or not this “visioning” should be similar to Vista 2000 I don’t know. I do know there must broad citizen involvement
Pust (mayor): As mayor, I would work every day to increase citizen involvement in government. The people of the community should have a strong voice in the decisions that affect their lives in Roseville. The Vista 2000 process was an excellent example of how to engage community members in strategic planning for their city, and one that should be recommenced.
Roe (mayor): Yes. This was intended to be an ongoing process, and I believe that we are overdue for another review.
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : I have proposed a Vision 2020 plan which would empower the citizen advisory commissions to work with the community to develop long range policy and financial plans for our community. This would be much more effective than the 1990 based “Vista 2000” process. The failure of Vista 2000 was that the recommendations had no connection to financial reality.
Maschka (council): Yes, I think it is time we re-visit this process.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 19: Have you reviewed the city's Comprehensive Plan and do you support it?
Klausing (mayor): Yes. I don't claim to be familiar with every aspect of it.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I have reviewed the comprehensive plan and its broad outline seems fine. I could not tell if the “parkway” in the Twin Lakes areas was part of the plan or not. If it is, that is certainly a portion I do not support at this time. Any changes should be made in a new “visioning” process involving the entire community.
Pust (mayor): I have and I do. I also support the process by which the Comprehensive Plan is amended and changed over time to ensure that it represents the current needs and plans of the city.
Roe (mayor): Yes. An important part of the Comprehensive Plan is periodic review and update. Again, that process appears overdue at this time.
Ihlan (council): Yes and Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : We must remember that the comprehensive plan is a working document which is frequently changed with the recommendation of the planning commission. It is not a rigid document, and must change with the community. My only concern about the Comprehensive Plan is that previous councils identified land for future park purchase, but did not set aside funding to accomplish it.
Maschka (council): Yes, But, I think it is important to understand this is a framework document not document written stone.
Shwiff (council): No/No Not reviewed Need new plan
Question 20: Do you favor a change in the Twin Lakes plan allowing "Big Box" retail?
Klausing (mayor): No
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Absolutely not.
Pust (mayor): The Twin Lakes property should be redeveloped in a manner that supports the growth of business in the city and increases the city's tax base and stock of affordable housing. The latest plan for the development, however, relies heavily on a "big box" retail anchor, most likely Costco. This proposal has generated significant resistance from neighbors and others raising legitimate concerns about increased traffic on the already-stressed Fairview and County Roads C and D; negative environmental impact on Langton Lake; and an undesirable increase in retail business. In an attempt to meet the concerns raised by Roseville citizens, the developer has tabled the proposal for several months.
I applaud the individuals who respectfully raised their voices in concern, which is not only the right but the responsibility of interested citizens. I also applaud the developer, Roseville Properties, for listening to the residents' concerns, taking them seriously and trying to take them into account in their planning.
My own questions about the proposal have not yet been sufficiently answered, including the following:
What is the plan for handling the increased traffic flow on the major existing streets without causing unmanageable commuting delays for local residents?
What planning has been given to transit needs associated with the proposed development, and who will pay for meeting those needs?
How much of the proposed residential housing will qualify as "affordable housing" available to Roseville citizens, and how does that percentage relate to the city's existing housing needs?
What happens if Costco pulls out - either now or after five years of operation? Will the city be left with a huge warehouse-type space and roads leading nowhere?
What affect will the proposed increase in retail space have on Roseville's existing businesses, including Rosedale and HarMar?
If the developer does not have the capacity to fund the project without reliance on the city's use of its condemnation powers and/or authority to create a tax increment financing district, what return on investment will the Roseville taxpayers see on their investment of public funds in this project - and when?
I cannot support the proposed development unless and until these questions are answered to my satisfaction and there has been a city-wide public discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal resulting in a consensus regarding what is best for the city's taxpayers.
Roe (mayor): Yes. But subject to a review and approval of the specifics, such as market viability, traffic impacts, buffers, and others.
Ihlan (council): No. The current Master Plan for the Twin Lakes area specifically recommends against big-box retail development. I do not favor amending the Master Plan to allow big-box retail development.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : The Twin Lakes plan already allows Big Box, and any other type of development which is market driven.
Maschka (council): This is one of the most difficult issues facing the city. It presents an opportunity to create a very unique place, with both retail, housing and offices. The problem is the amount and type of retail needed to make the concept work. In its present form I think the housing component is needed and is very good . I currently have a problem with the amount of retail. My hope is that with the time we now have, that we can work on the concept and find a way to bring all the elements together to make it work. At this point in time it is a concept worth exploring, but it needs more work and input. The housing component would be a great asset to the neighborhood and the city. We can always wait but, with the amount of vacant office now available because of the economic down turn it will be some time before any development occurs.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 21: Do you support the continuation of Roseville having a city primary election?
Klausing (mayor): Yes
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): Roseville should continue to have primary elections to handle cases where there are more than two candidates for a single seat.
Pust (mayor): Yes. I will always support the right of Roseville citizens to be actively engaged in the efficient selection of their elected representatives.
Roe (mayor): Yes
Ihlan (council): Yes
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : What I would support is finishing the discussion process which was halted earlier this year on a split council vote. The next step in the process was to bring in professional experts on the issue to provide further information to the council. I believe that some people wanted to stop the discussion part way because they were afraid that the facts might not support their position.
Maschka (council): Yes, And I voted to continue the current primary.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 22: Do you favor code changes to address the increasing noise levels from vehicles, stereos, etc. in our neighborhoods?
Klausing (mayor): ? I need more information on this
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I would have to see the proposals before I could agree or disagree. I do believe that citizens should be able to enjoy their homes and neighborhoods. Chronic problems that interfere with their tranquility should be managed by ordinance or code changes.
Pust (mayor): Enacting more government regulation is not the most efficient way to reduce disruption in our neighborhoods. More regulation leads to more public investment in compliance measures. When we are trying to do more with less as a result of state budget cuts to local government, it will be difficult to expect an increase in resources related to code compliance. Instead of passing additional regulations, as mayor I would work with neighborhoods and community members to identify the sources of the problem and design effective solutions that can be accomplished with existing resources.
Roe (mayor): No. I favor consistent and fair enforcement of existing codes. In some cases, new and more effective techniques for enforcement and even prevention should be investigated.
Ihlan (council): I am in favor of considering code changes to address noise issues. I can't express an opinion on any specific changes without more details.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : The council is already working on this. The main issue though is enforcement. A motorcycle patrol has proven effective in accomplishing this. I, Schroeder, and Kough support the motorcycle patrol, while Maschka and Klausing are opposed.
Maschka (council): Yes, I would be willing to look at it, but from experience with similar problems we have had in other parts of the city it is a very difficult problem to deal with and prosecute.
Shwiff (council): Yes
Question 23: Will you accept campaign contributions from people who have or could reasonably be expected to do business with the city?
Klausing (mayor): No as to people having business with the city.
Kough (mayor): Did not respond to questionnaire
McGehee (mayor): I have not and will not take campaign contributions from businesses that could reasonably have dealings with the City of Roseville.
Pust (mayor): I do not accept campaign contributions from people who have or could reasonably be expected to do business with the city.
Roe (mayor): Yes. As long as a contribution is legal according to campaign finance laws, I will accept it I will disclose my contributions in accordance with all statutory requirements. I welcome contributions from anyone that supports my candidacy because they feel that my views best coincide with theirs. Anyone who makes a contribution to me in hopes that it will change my views to their position will have wasted their money.
Ihlan (council): I think this principle is probably too broad, because almost anyone who lives or works in Roseville might reasonably be expected to have some business with the City, and that would make it effectively impossible to accept contributions from anyone except complete outsiders with no connections to Roseville. But I understand the concerns behind the question, and here's how I would address them: 1. I have stated publicly that I do not intend to accept campaign contributions from any of the real estate developers having an interest in the pending Twin Lakes development proposal. 2. In the event that some person who contributed to my campaign makes some request for city council action, I will disclose my potential bias/conflict of interest, and abstain from voting on the matter if appropriate. 3. I intend to voluntarily disclose the identity of anyone who contributes more than $100 to my campaign, even though this is not currently required under applicable state law. I also propose that Roseville should adopt its own ordinance requiring similar disclosure.
Kehr (council): Did not respond to questionnaire.
Kysylyczyn (council) : This is really a poorly worded question. Accepting contributions from people who did business with the city in the past, before being elected, is not an issue. The issue is whether you are going to accept contributions from people that are reasonably expect to do business with the city in the future, during your term in office. To date, I have not accepted donations from anyone who was planning on doing business with the city during my term in office. I do not plan to do so in the future.
Maschka (council): No, I will not.
Shwiff (council): No