Questions posed to all 2005 Roseville City Council candidates
by the Roseville Citizens League (www.rosevillecl.org)

Joy Anderson: Naturally we all want to pay as few taxes as possible, but I believe that until one has carefully reviewed the budget, the city priorities, the citizen requirements, the current financial commitments of the city, and the options available that this decision cannot be made.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: In light of the significant property tax increase last year to make up for lost state aid funding, I believe the city needs to be conservative in spending for 2006 and plan carefully for the future. I would support increasing taxes only to the extent needed to maintain the city's current level of services (a reasonable "cost of living" levy increase), with possible additional allowances for costs that are outstripping inflation (such as health-care and energy costs) or important programs that have suffered significant recent losses in state or federal support. 

Tom Kough: I suggest a 5% increase over 2005

Gale Pederson: The 17% increase in Roseville homeowner property taxes came from several sources, state deficit, county assessments, and Local City government levy.  While I would rather not increase taxes, it will be necessary to adjust for cost of living and skyrocketing healthcare costs.  As a community, we have to decide what we want and need in our City and how we want to pay for it.  For that we need more citizen input during the budget process

Tammy Pust: Unfortunately, property taxes cannot be reduced or frozen without cutting city services. Approximately 75% of the city's budget is spent on personnel who patrol our neighborhoods, fight fires, repair our streets and administer city operations. With the ever-increasing costs of health care, our personnel costs will continue to rise even if we keep our staff levels constant. Of the remaining portion of the city's budget, a large percentage is devoted to meeting infrastructure costs, the most obvious of which is gas needed to power our police, fire, park and street maintenance and other city vehicles. Today, gas costs an average of $3.00/gallon in our area. In effect, with these uncontrollable rising costs we have to pay more this year to have the same services we enjoyed last year. 

Given these economic realities, I would support raising local taxes the very minimum necessary to ensure that we can afford the services our community defines as essential. I would not look to add additional costly services at this time. 

Dan Roe: From my analysis of the proposed 2006 city budget, it looks like a 3% to 5% increase in the city levy amount is going to be needed to meet our obligations, not the 10% requested by the city manager and staff. If we can keep the city’s tax capacity growing (a function of property values), we can work to minimize the impact of increases to the levy on individual taxpayers by spreading the burden over a larger pool of taxable value.

Bob Venters: We have had double digit increases in our property taxes for too many years. One way to stop some of the increases is to not use property taxes to support more Big-Box retailers in future developments.

Joy Anderson: Some of the programs sponsored by the HRA are very useful to the community. However, I do not support the HRA as a separate taxing body

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: I believe that the city's housing programs should be funded through the city's budget, not through a separate levy and budget controlled by unelected HRA members. I support restructuring our housing programs so that the city council exercises the legal powers of the HRA (including its powers of taxation, spending, and eminent domain) with the assistance of staff and an advisory citizen housing commission (similar to other existing commissions). 

Tom Kough: I support the HRA generally, but any property tax levy should be only as approved by the elected city council.

Gale Pederson: The HRA, since its inception, has been working towards revitalizing Roseville's housing stock. While I was not initially in favor of having an HRA in Roseville, it is proving that it can be a valuable tool for the community and it's homeowners.

Tammy Pust: The HRA took on and now operates many of the programs that have been effective in Roseville for over a decade. It does so at budget levels similar to those the programs required when they were under the authority of the city departments. To this mix, the HRA has added some important services for Roseville residents. I congratulate the HRA for the recent series of listening sessions they conducted to gather resident's views related to housing issues, and would support the continued work of the HRA at budget levels that can be accommodated within the city's resources. 

Dan Roe: The original funding for the HRA when it was established was approximately equal to what the city had been spending on housing within the city budget before. That is a good starting point, with adjustments to funding based on the programs that we as a city deem important to maintaining the quality of our housing in the community

Bob Venters: With the large increases in property taxes we need to closely evaluate where we are spending Roseville residents' tax money. 

Joy Anderson: As a council member I will work to achieve an appropriate development scenario for Twin Lakes that improves the environment, the tax base, the housing stock and the surrounding neighborhood. I will work to find creative solutions to improve and maintain the Fairview Community Center and the Harriet Alexander Nature Center. I will work to bring fiscal responsibility to our budgeting process and our redevelopment projects. If defeated, I will work on all the same projects. I believe citizens can and should work on projects within their community.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: (1) Fiscal Responsibility - I believe our city budget should be kept under careful control, and that public money should be spent wisely for important community needs. I strongly opposed the recent decision to give more than $40 million in subsidies for the controversial Twin Lakes big box retail project. Public money should be spent only for public goods and services -- not for private profit. I will continue working to limit the use of costly subsidies like tax increment financing, as well as excessive spending on consultants.  (2) Livable Neighborhoods - I'll keep working to preserve our parks and natural spaces, control neighborhood traffic, support public transit, and make our streets safer for walking and biking. I will continue to advocate careful, planned development that protects our environment, neighborhoods and local businesses, and provides family-supporting jobs.  (3) Protecting Roseville's Environment - I believe that our lakes, wetlands, woods, open spaces, and wildlife are Roseville's most precious resources. I support adopting local policies to address critical environmental issues (including storm water runoff, loss of natural spaces and wetlands, air, noise and light pollution) and to ensure that environmental impacts are fully analyzed and addressed in planning and land use decisions.

If I am not re-elected, I will continue to work on these issues as a citizen activist, just as I did before being elected to the council.

Tom Kough: Top three items:  (1) The budget and the related levy (property tax levy needed),  (2) Too much retail development and use of eminent domain,  (3) Create a task force on senior citizen issues.

Gale Pederson: Top three priorities I would like to address:  (A) Balancing the financial responsibilities of the City with what residents want and need in our community. To address this issue, I would like to see more comprehensive town meetings, without having to do City business at that same meeting.  (B) I would like to pursue a cooperative agreement with the School District and surrounding communities for a community center to go to referendum for voter decision.  (C) Help develop criteria for revitalizing Roseville's aging housing stock.  If defeated, I will continue to be actively involved in my community through volunteer efforts. 

Tammy Pust: If elected, I will work to:  (1) Strengthen Roseville's neighborhoods by balancing the housing options affordable to seniors and young families, maintaining our parks and community space, and reducing traffic problems.  (2) Keep Roseville affordable by ensuring that every tax dollar produces measurable results on citizen-approved goals.  (3) Increase citizen involvement so that our local government respects the diverse views of our changing population and also reflects the shared vision of the community as a whole.

If I am not elected, I will continue to do my part along with the countless other citizens who serve our community in a variety of ways. I will work to accomplish these same three goals through the community volunteer work that I do with the North Suburban Senior Council, the Roseville Rotary Club, the ROMAFH League of Women Voters, through my service on advisory commissions with the Roseville Area Schools (District 623), as an election judge, in my faith community and in my neighborhood. 

Dan Roe: The top 3 items that I would address if elected are (1) creating a sustainable program of community long-range strategic planning, to better prepare us for changes that we know are coming in our community, as well as goals that we aspire to; (2) encouraging more citizen input into public safety issues through creation of a Public Safety Advisory Commission; and (3) working out a long-term budget plan that (as much as possible) keeps us from having unnecessary large fluctuations in the annual tax levy.  If defeated, I will work with the elected council and other community leaders to keep those issues at the forefront of discussions in the city.

Bob Venters:  (1) Restrict the use of property taxes going to support Big-Box retailers in future developments.  (2) Find procedural ways to make the City Council more effective and more responsive.  (3) Listen and respond to residents.  [If defeated] I would continue to write letters to the editor, speak up at Council meetings when necessary and talk with other Roseville residents. 

Joy Anderson: I think the biggest challenge is re-establishing our city government as a service to the community. This includes proper positioning and long range planning with citizen input, more opportunity for meaningful citizen contributions to the government and to the planning process.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Quality of Life. Roseville offers a lot: a great park system, two wonderful school systems, proximity to St. Paul and Minneapolis, and convenience to quality shopping and restaurants. But we are facing significant pressures which threaten our high quality of life: traffic, increased pollution, more rental housing and even more big-box retail. In order to attract young families to our city, and keep our senior residents, we will need to work hard on maintaining the livability of our neighborhoods. That means resisting 'traffic engines' like big-box retail and encouraging small-scale and high-tech commercial and office development. It means greater emphasis on pedestrian and bike-friendly roads and pathways, as well as transit options. And it means careful environmental planning and study. Above all else, our city should be a good place to live, not just shop and work. 

Tom Kough: To continue to maintain services and quality of life for our residents, at a reasonable cost  and with a limit on retail development.

Gale Pederson: The biggest challenge for Roseville in the next 10 years is keeping Roseville a vibrant first ring suburb that has the amenities to serve our multi-generational demographics. We need to keep and maintain essential city services, police, fire, roads and infrastructure, along with our award winning parks and programming. By doing this and working with the School District, our surrounding communities, and our valuable business community, Roseville will remain a place where people are proud to live.

Tammy Pust: Roseville's biggest challenge is a lack of long-term vision. Our community faces the obvious challenges of most first-ring suburbs: aging housing stock, lack of development options, and a changing population. Our last community visioning project was published in 1992 and looked forward to "Vista 2000." We're already five years past that vision. We need to again engage our community members in organized and broad-based discussions about what we want Roseville to be -- in 2025. With that vision, we can then direct and measure Council action against defined goals and work to ensure that Roseville remains a great place to raise a family, start a business and enjoy retirement. 

Dan Roe: The biggest challenge we face in Roseville in the next ten years is keeping our city a vibrant and viable first-ring suburb. This means we will have to in certain ways re-invent ourselves, while keeping our character as a community. We need to keep our residential and commercial properties, as well as our public amenities, attractive to prospective buyers and tenants who will continue to bring vitality to our city for years to come.

Bob Venters: Continuing the wonderful quality of life in Roseville while stopping the double-digit tax increases. 

Joy Anderson: Roseville needs to begin to seriously enforce its current city codes, not just on housing stock but on businesses as well. 

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Increased enforcement of the existing code is the first step. I support a review of Roseville's building and housing codes, but believe we need to go beyond this to an overall review of our land use and planning policies and processes. Preventing deterioration is a small piece of the larger picture of maintaining livable neighborhoods and high quality of life. See also my answer to question 4, above.

Tom Kough: Code revisions: No, except for rental properties.  Enforcement: Yes, we need to implement code enforcement.

Gale Pederson: We do have an aging housing stock in Roseville. We are also fortunate that many residents are still able to properly maintain their homes. One of the reasons the HRA was created, was to help assist the residents in our community with this problem. Low cost home loans and assistance finding contractors are available for residents in need. I would like to see some criteria developed for when a homeowner does sell their home, so that it is in good condition for the new homebuyer. We also need to have this available for rental properties. These also need to be maintained properly.

Tammy Pust: In my work on the Planning Commission, I regularly review reports picturing the code violation matters reported to the city. Citizens are genuinely concerned about how some people's inability or unwillingness to keep their property up to code negatively affects the overall look and value of their neighborhoods. 

If elected, I'd like to work to improve code enforcement. Given the city's resource limitations, however, it will be difficult to do this without increased funding. I'm interested in working with volunteer organizations throughout our community to find ways to help those in need of assistance do necessary minor repairs in order to keep their homes in good condition and our neighborhoods strong.

Dan Roe: Yes. I think we need to do 2 things along those lines: First, more effective enforcement of the codes that we have on the books now, and second, carefully thought-out changes to the codes, where necessary, to address changing realities that we face, such as increased single-family rental housing, among other things.

Bob Venters: It is a concern but I also concerned about the high cost of homes in Roseville. 

Joy Anderson: Roseville certainly has plenty of senior housing but I am not sure that we have the right mix of senior housing options.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: I don't think the council has sufficient information on this issue to take a position. The council needs to undertake some serious analysis and policy discussion on this question - in the context of long term planning and cooperation with the school districts, Ramsey county, and other government and housing agencies. I would support asking the staff and HRA to do a preliminary report pulling together available data and resources to begin the study process. 

Tom Kough: Too little.  Seniors need slightly more opportunities to sell their homes and go to condos, etc, where maintenance is done for them

Gale Pederson: Right now we have a substantial amount of senior housing. Seniors, these days are younger and more active then our grandparents were, and they are choosing to stay in their homes as long as they can. As a city, I hope we continue to provide options for seniors and empty nesters that want to downsize to a smaller place with less maintenance.

Tammy Pust: The vast majority of the development projects completed in the past ten years included a component of senior housing. They have been great additions to the housing mix in our community. Unfortunately, the market rates of the units have priced them out of the range of many of Roseville's seniors. In the future, I would like to see a focused effort to encourage the development of a more balanced mix of housing options affordable to young families and seniors in our community. 

Dan Roe: I believe that, given the demographic reality of an aging population, senior housing can continue to be a part of new housing opportunities in Roseville. Senior housing should not be the only part, however. And we do need to think about what happens to that housing as the population "bubble" eventually passes. Another important consideration is affordability of the senior housing we build. We need to maintain a variety of types and price levels of housing in order to keep our city housing stock healthy.

Bob Venters: I would like to have more but I would be cautious in trying to significantly influence the housing market, this could be expensive. If there is a way to encourage more housing for seniors and for families I would be in favor of it, if it was not cost prohibitive. 

Joy Anderson: The citizens of Roseville should be consulted. I would propose several meetings around the city to determine interest and obtain a broad outline of what is wanted. It would be extremely important to assess how much each household appears willing to pay. A proposal could be developed and RFP (Request for Proposal) circulated to get estimated costs and a questionnaire sent to each household. Opinions could be tallied and decisions made. Given these current economic times this decision should not be made without citizen input during the whole process.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Through direct citizen input - which could take many forms - public meetings, forming a citizen advisory task force, or a referendum question on whether a publicly-funded community center should be built.

Tom Kough: A community center at this time is out of the question, because of Twin Lakes, etc.  If proposed, it would have to be by a vote of the people.

Gale Pederson: There has already been a lot of community input over the last 20 years regarding a community center. At this point we need to look for cooperative partners, the School District and possibly our neighboring communities to go forward with a plan for a multi-generational community center that the citizens can vote on.

Tammy Pust: I would ask them. I understand that a 1997 survey revealed that a majority of residents supported a community center, but I further understand that the residents' responses indicated that they weren't interested in paying for much of the anticipated costs of that project. Given the changes that have taken place in our economy in the past eight years, I'm not confident that the 1997 survey is sufficiently reliable at this point to justify the investment of millions of tax dollars necessary to build, operate and maintain a community center.

So I would ask the residents if they want a community center, and if they are willing to raise their taxes significantly to pay for it? It's their money. They are smart people. With all the facts, including all the anticipated construction, ongoing maintenance and capital improvement costs associated with this type of a project, they can decide if this is a priority for their community and worth the investment that is required. 

If the community chooses to go forward with this type of project, we should do it in close cooperation with the school district. Roseville Area Schools is working to reduce their budgetary needs in light of declining student enrollment, and is assessing its options with regard to continued operation of the Fairview Community Center. For the most part, Roseville taxpayers are also taxpayers of the school district. They deserve to have the governments that serve them work together to make sure that their tax dollars are utilized in the most cost-effective manner possible. 

Dan Roe: We should assess the community facility needs that are not adequately being met now, assemble a proposal, complete with costs, and bring it to the voters in a manner very similar to the city hall police and public works expansion a few years ago. A thorough, scientific survey of the residents may be a sensible part of the process to determine what the appropriate composition of a community center should be, but that should not be the only factor that is taken into consideration. (Since it may not clearly narrow the scope enough.) Community groups should be involved in the process as well. The city council should in 2006 commit to an action plan and a time-table to get the process started, and keep it on track.

Bob Venters: One of our best resources in Roseville is our residents. I would be in favor of a task force made up of residents exploring this problem. I would also be interested in trying to find ways to keep the costs down. This could include sharing the Community Center with neighboring cities. If the costs were significant I would be interested in letting the residents decide by using a referendum. 

Joy Anderson: I believe the change was unreasonable. Non residential properties typically use the roads more, bring in traffic from outside the community, and contribute to our already substantial congestion.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: I would support reviewing the current policy, and evaluating other alternatives.

Tom Kough: Yes, this change is reasonable, except for "state aid" roads.  No assessment where state aids are received and paying for the improvements.

Gale Pederson: While I understand that non-residential properties would like a tax break on street improvements, I believe that our residents would also like a tax break. If our residents pay 100% of their assessments and share 75% of non-residential properties assessments, the residents are essentially paying twice. Somehow, this doesn't seem fair to Roseville residents. I think we need to reevaluate this policy and make it fair for everyone.

Tammy Pust: I think it is reasonable to expect the cost of improvements to be borne by all who benefit from the improvements, in proportion to their benefit. A street improvement project on Fairview, for example, benefits the residents who live on Fairview to some extent, by making it easier for them to get into and out of their homes. But such a project would likely benefit the commercial businesses on that street to a much greater extent, by making it easier for their customers to get to and spend money at their businesses. With more discussion and input from the business community and by learning from the experience of other communities, we can define a payment allocation system that requires commercial properties to pay an equitable share while ensuring that every household that benefits pays its fair share as well. In all of this discussion, we will have to be mindful to comply with state law that restricts local assessments from exceeding the increased value of the affected properties. 

Dan Roe: I believe that a more equitable treatment of all properties is an appropriate goal. Generally, the policy issue is: who benefits from the improvements, and who pays for them? The city as a whole does benefit from basic improvement projects such as road reconstruction, so it is appropriate that the city as a whole pays a portion of the cost. The tricky question is what should be the split between the city as a whole and the individual property owners? I would like to see what have been the effects of this current policy relative to project funding, the city budget, and the taxpayers, before making any changes. Perhaps the percentages may need to be adjusted, but I do not know yet if that is needed.

Bob Venters: [did not feel informed enough to supply answer - RCL webmaster]

Joy Anderson: Citizens should be allowed to speak and be listened to with respect. If citizens are speaking too long maybe some thought should be given as to why? Have their questions been answered satisfactorily? Are they frustrated because they feel the Council is not really listening to what they have to say? If there is a topic on which many individuals wish to speak perhaps there should be a special session to hear all views.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: I believe that citizen input at council meetings is valuable and should be encouraged. The current policy of allowing public comment at the beginning of meetings for items not on the agenda is reasonable. I also think it is reasonable to limit such comments to 5 minutes in length, and to rule as 'out of order' comments that have nothing to do with city business or which are purely personal in nature. I think these same guidelines should also apply to public participation on agenda items - they should be limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and limited to the specific agenda items under council discussion. Members of the public should be allowed to participate or comment before, but not during, council deliberation.

Tom Kough: Leave as is.  I support the present public comment policies

Gale Pederson: Institute an appropriate time limit on public comment.  State your opinion on the subject at hand only.

Tammy Pust: I would do two things. First, I'd deal with everyone respectfully so as to engender trust and not animosity, the latter of which leads to lengthy debates about personality conflicts disguised as disputes on substantive issues. Second, if necessary I'd institute equitable time limits on all speakers so as to maximize the Council's ability to get the city's work done in a timely manner.

Dan Roe: I am not convinced that citizen input at city council meetings is interfering that much with the work of the city council. There are, of course, some instances where individuals might go over the line. Generally, I believe that if the rules are clear to people, and fairly enforced, only a small number of basic rules are necessary. A limit of one appearance per agenda item may be helpful. Generous time limits can be appropriate, too, especially on issues with a large number of potential speakers. Exceptions to the rules can be provided in special circumstances, at the discretion of the mayor, with input from the rest of the council. 

To be fair, some consideration should be given to rules for council members as well, since council members can also consume a lot of time at meetings.

Bob Venters: I am frustrated by the length and the tone of some of the City Council meetings. However, I do not think that restricting citizen input is the answer. We should look at how to increase the efficiency of the City Council by exploring other procedural rules.

Joy Anderson: Given what I have seen I would like to see the limit remain at $5000 until more faith in the government of the city can be restored. This question implies that since we have an excellent staff we should grant them even more latitude to spend our money without representation. I believe that many residents feel that their money is being spent inappropriately - even on very large items. I think the Council should review the process to look for ways to streamline the approvals without giving up its rights to review when necessary.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Given that one of the primary functions of the council is to exercise fiduciary control over taxpayers' money, I think it is appropriate for the council to have oversight of expenditures in excess of $5000. But I think there are ways to structure the oversight process to make it more effective and efficient, save time and discussion at council meetings, and avoid unnecessary council interference in administrative decisions. For example, the council could use and enforce specific budget line items to set the amount of appropriate spending on certain items - then leave staff the discretion on how to spend that budgeted amount. Another approach is for the council to set policy guidelines on how certain kinds of expenditures are to be made - for example, the hiring of professional consultants - and then rely on the staff to administer them. These kinds of policies would improve council oversight of city spending, while avoiding the need for the council to be actively involved in the staff's specific spending decisions.

Tom Kough: Leave as is.  It is my duty to approve all expenditures, and I want this opportunity.  This policy is not the reason for long meetings

Gale Pederson: We have an excellent city staff, competent and honest. While I understand council members concern over certain expenditures, I don't feel the need to micromanage the staff to this level. I feel the Council needs to decide how to address the expenditures that are a problem, in doing so, maybe we can reduce the amount of discussion time needed at the Council meetings.

Tammy Pust: The negative impact of the current policy is that it could wrongly imply some lack of trust of the city staff, which has not been earned or deserved. To rectify that negative effect, I would support an increase in the City Manager's authority to make financial decisions on behalf of the city to an amount more in line with other cities of our size and financial resources.

In my experience, however, it is not the expenditure limit that takes up time at Council meetings but instead the desire of council members to discuss the appropriateness of various expenditures noted in the city checkbook. Publication of the checkbook is not only required by law in every Class B city, it is also a necessary investment in the openness of government. Publication of the checkbook allows citizens to know where their money is being spent. Without that information, it would be more difficult for citizens to question or challenge their elected officials about the wisdom of their financial decisions, which is critical to a strong democracy.

Dan Roe: I do not see the $5000 limit as adding excessive time to the council meetings. Generally, as a consent agenda item, that spending is approved without discussion. At times, some items may be removed from the consent agenda and discussed more fully, but those occasions are relatively rare.

Bob Venters: I would be in favor of raising the dollar amount if it saves time. 

Joy Anderson: Protection appears to be adequate.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Yes.

Tom Kough: Yes.

Gale Pederson: We have an excellent, well-trained Police Department that serves and protects our community well.

Tammy Pust: Our police department is a vital and important resource in our community. As I visit with people throughout Roseville I consistently ask if they feel safe and well protected. With very few exceptions, I am told that they do. On behalf of these residents, I thank the department for their constant service in work that is too often thankless. 

I am aware that the Chief has proposed a significant budget increase associated with some reorganization within the department and the addition of a few positions. While I respect the Chief's determinations regarding the necessity of these additions to the force, I do not believe that the city budget has the resources to allow these additions at this time. If elected, I will continue to work with the Chief to make sure that our police department has the resources it needs to adequately protect and serve the residents of Roseville, looking first to changes that can be accomplished within existing funds and to ways to expand the funding sources available to pay for the department's important work. 

Dan Roe: Yes. I do believe that we need to keep it that way, and that a citizen Public Safety Advisory Commission can help by looking in greater depth at issues such as pedestrian safety, traffic enforcement approaches, staffing concerns, and community relations issues. 

Bob Venters: I do not think that the question should be "is the police protection adequate". We should be asking can we do better, and I think that we can.

Joy Anderson: I do not believe there is a problem. I do believe that we should have them trained as paramedics to respond to community emergencies. Given our senior citizen population I also believe Roseville should have its own ambulance service. 

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: No.

Tom Kough: Yes, there is a problem getting volunteers.  We are considering one full time fire fighter.

Gale Pederson: Our volunteer Fire Department is well trained with very committed volunteers. The only problem I see at this point is the staffing situation during daytime hours. We are currently well-staffed evening and weekends, but most of our volunteers have full time day jobs. The Department is currently in the process of finding committed volunteers for its daytime shift. Roseville is an aging community with a large retail component. Our Fire Department must be available for our citizens and those visiting our fine retail establishments whenever the need arises, day of night.

Tammy Pust: In the past, we have had a difficult time recruiting a sufficient number of volunteers to staff our fire stations. We still have an inadequate number during some afternoon shifts and must continue to better publicize and tailor our recruitment efforts to match the needs of today's workers and community volunteers. 

In addition, there are strong feelings by some that we are not adequately utilizing the EMT talents of our firefighters. This should soon improve given the Council's recent decision to allow firefighters to respond to vehicle accidents with injuries in tandem with the police department. 

I am aware of the continuing discussions about the adequacy of the ambulance service available in Roseville. According to the thorough review of this issue prepared by the Roseville - Falcon Heights - Maplewood League of Women Voters, there is no need to change the city's current ambulance arrangement. If the relevant facts change, we will obviously have to reconsider that conclusion. 

Dan Roe: Generally, no I do not. The fire department has expressed concern about providing adequate personnel for day shifts. I believe that we should look more closely at appropriate solutions to that issue that have been brought forward by the department. Again, public input through a Public Safety Advisory Commission would help the city council consider the possible solutions with wider citizen input.

Bob Venters: I am concerned with the fact that we pay some of our firefighters $8/hr to fight fires. This is not appropriate for the job of protecting our homes and our lives. 

Joy Anderson: Wi-Fi should be discussed by and with the citizens.   According to Mr. Beets only 50% or our citizens use the Internet and there are at least three providers of local high-speed access.  One would have to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of any citywide Wi-Fi proposal.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Council has authorized staff to research whether this would be a feasible or profitable service for the city to provide - depending on the outcome of this study, I would be willing to consider supporting a municipal Wi-Fi service for Roseville.

Tom Kough: No.  Let the cable commission or private business do this.

Gale Pederson: No.

Tammy Pust: I am aware of the decisions of some communities to make an investment in this technology on behalf of their citizens, apparently having decided that this is a wise use of public resources. I don't see this as a viable option for Roseville at this time. A significant proportion, perhaps even most, of Roseville's citizens enjoy internet connectivity, but many do not. Those that do connect to the internet bear this cost as private citizens. I don't see a reason to shift this cost to the public taxpayers given that not all members of our community would benefit from it and that it would likely exacerbate the "digital divide" that already exists between those with and those without financial resources in our community. 

Dan Roe: Yes, if it is financially viable to do so. We should consider it.

Bob Venters: It is too early to say if we should or should not provide Wi-Fi to residents. We need to know more before making a decision. I think that it may be possible to provide Wi-Fi to residents at a low cost and create revenue for the City. If this is possible then it should be seriously considered. 

Joy Anderson: Single stream is being promoted as a means of getting more people to recycle but I am not convinced that the quality of the end product is really an asset to recycling based manufacturing. I am also concerned that the public will loose sight of what recycling is all about and this becomes just another means of throwing out trash. At this time, with only one (and possibly two) single stream vendors, the increased price to the city and to individual residents for single stream, and the potential actual loss of quality recycled material, perhaps Roseville should continue with its current dual stream while continuing to evaluate developments in the field.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Whether or not single stream is the most environmentally- and cost-effective recycling option for Roseville will depend on what bids and proposals the city receives for various recycling alternatives. It is important for the city to do an open call for proposals on a wide range of recycling programs before deciding whether to switch to single stream, so that the council can make the best choice of available options, balancing all relevant factors. 

Tom Kough: Yes, I'm willing to look at this if it is cost effective.

Gale Pederson: Recycling is important to our environment. If single stream recycling with one barrel with wheels is cost effective and will retrieve more recyclable, it should be given a chance.

Tammy Pust: I support instituting whatever recycling system proves to be the most cost-effective while also the most environmentally-protective. Rather than prejudge the result, I will review and analyze all the proposals we receive in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine whether a single stream or a dual stream system will best meet these two criteria.

Dan Roe: Yes, if the price is right, as compared to our current dual-sort method. It is probably worth a few dollars more to have a covered container and a simpler sorting method. The key will be to see what the bids are that come back as a result of the city’s recent request for quotes

Bob Venters: It depends on how much it will cost and how that compares to the cost of other services.

Joy Anderson: With the cost of gas rising and continuing to rise for the foreseeable future, it might be more prudent to encourage MNDOT to put in a mass transit line down the middle of 36. Our first priority should be to focus on the increasing traffic problems within Roseville.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Although I do not think that expansion of Highway 36 is the best or only available way to deal with traffic congestion problems, I think it is important for Roseville to work with MNDOT and the state legislature so that scheduled improvements to Highway 36 are funded and made in a timely manner. 

Tom Kough: Yes.  I have for the last two years attended meetings with MN DOT and senators.

Gale Pederson: Although I am not totally up to speed on the Highway 36 project, I am in favor of expanding Highway 36 from 35W east to help relieve traffic congestion in Roseville. I do feel that we need to expand both sides of this highway to a point where we do not add more congestion into our residential neighborhoods, especially in the Dale and Rice street area.

Tammy Pust: I support finding cost-effective and timely solutions to our traffic congestion problems. Highway 36 is one part of that problem, but I don't view this as an issue for Roseville alone. The Highway 36 expansion is a regional problem given the highway's use by people commuting through Roseville on their way to Minneapolis, St. Paul or the surrounding suburban communities. In the discussions regarding Highway 36, I am mindful of the "If you build it, they will come" argument. I would work with our regional and state partners to ensure that we don't do anything that would inadvertently increase the load on Highway 36 rather than fix the problem as it affects Roseville. 

Regarding the broader issue of traffic congestion throughout our area, I would support expansion of light rail or express bus lines, more frequent and more direct public transit options for Roseville citizens, and efforts designed to increase car pooling and the use of bikeways. Given gas prices over $3.00 per gallon, we can't continue to insist on a car for every driver and a non-congested street for every car.

Dan Roe: Some expansion of Highway 36 is probably warranted, especially in western portions of the city. However, I do not favor Roseville spending our money to accelerate the project, especially if the upstream and downstream problems on I-35W are not being addressed at the same time. Westbound 36 is backed up in the morning largely due to issues with access from 35W into downtown Minneapolis, as well as the squeeze in the number of lanes on 35W at 36. Eastbound 36 is backed up in the evenings largely due to congestion north of 36 on 35W and on 694. If those issues are not addressed, a wider 36 will just be a conduit to move congestion issues farther into our community or places east. 

Bob Venters: Yes, Yes

Joy Anderson: This depends on what street improvement means. We need bike paths along many streets to connect neighborhoods to schools, shopping, and recreational areas. We need safe pedestrian and bike crossings on many major streets, especially in some of our high retail areas such as Har Mar, the new Target, Rosedale, and Rosedale's satellites. We need to find solutions to curb traffic on residential streets that are now being used as alternative traffic routes to by-pass areas of traffic congestion around our retail centers.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: All of Roseville's streets need maintenance and improvement on an ongoing basis. This requires planning through our own public works department, and cooperation with Ramsey County and MNDOT for adequate funding and scheduling of needed projects. We should make sure that all of our road improvement projects include needed infrastructure and safety features for walking and biking. The city should position itself to take full advantage of the $25 million in federal grant money that will be available for trails and pathways in the Twin Cities area.

Tom Kough: Hamline and Lexington Avenues need improvement.

Gale Pederson: Streets are analyzed and upgraded by our Public Works Department on a regular basis or as funding becomes available. Concerns regarding a particular street should be brought to the attention of the Public Works Department for further discussion.

Tammy Pust: I think that our public works department does a great job of trying to stay ahead of street maintenance issues and will rely on them to prioritize which streets are most in need of improvement. With respect to traffic reduction measures, I think the city needs to find ways to improve the B-2 traffic issues around Rosedale, the ever-increasing traffic on Fairview Avenue and other major arterial roadways, and the growing traffic issues affecting local neighborhoods, such as those on Josephine Road.

Dan Roe: I do not have a specific agenda for street improvement beyond Roseville’s ongoing assessment of pavement conditions, and maintenance work through the Pavement Management Program. Of course, the area around Rosedale will continue to require attention, which has begun as part of the expansion project there. That project is a good example of how the city can be more proactive in working with MNDOT and Ramsey County to bring their attention to imminent capacity issues with their roads.

Bob Venters: I would be concerned if City Council members were deciding which streets need to be fixed based on how they felt. There should be a objective process for deciding which streets need to be repaired. If there is a problem with this process then that needs to be addressed. 

Joy Anderson: The city has a noise ordinance and it should be enforced.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: Traffic can cause significant problems for residents, including noise and air pollution, as well as safety issues. The best way to prevent such problems is to adopt policies and plans which minimize traffic increases and direct traffic as much as possible away from residential neighborhoods. Traffic-calming methods should also be used. In some cases, other methods may be needed to prevent 'cut-through' commuter traffic. More specific noise problems, such as loud stereos and mufflers, should be controlled through local ordinances and police enforcement (which I support). 

Tom Kough: Yes.  It's going to get worse with the Twin Lakes development.

Gale Pederson: Yes, traffic and other sources can create a noise problem. Some of these problems can be looked at by appropriate City staff, and if a solution is available, forwarded onto the City Council.

Tammy Pust: In my speaking with neighbors throughout Roseville during this campaign, this issue has not been identified as something that people are concerned about and want addressed. 

Dan Roe: The city should always try to address noise problems as a quality of life issue for our citizens. How the problems get addressed is really a function of what kind of problem it is, and who should be responsible for addressing it.

Bob Venters: This depends on the area, the type and the level of noise.

Joy Anderson: No! I believe that the current Twin Lakes development proposal is bad socially, economically, financially and environmentally.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: No. I support the city's Comprehensive Plan for the area, which calls for office, housing, limited support retail, and no big-box retail. I do not support the Rottlund/Roseville Properties plan because I think Roseville already has enough big-box retail and can do much better with this valuable and environmentally sensitive land. The last thing we should be doing is subsidizing a hugely profitable big-box retailer like Wal-Mart or Costco. Instead we ought to call for competitive bids on proposals which reflect our long term goals, rather than giving exclusive rights to a developer determined to put in more big-box. Based on emails, calls and letters I have received, and comments made at meetings, the public is very much opposed to this plan. I believe there is opportunity for consensus support in the community and on the council for a plan with housing, office and support retail of the sort envisioned in our comprehensive plan and codes. But so far three members of the council have expressed no interest in pursuing that opportunity.

If anyone would like to know more about my views on Twin Lakes, they can consult my answers to the 77 questions posted on the Twin Lakes section of the RCL website.

 

Tom Kough: No!  I never have.  I don't support cleaning up others peoples' contaminated land with city money.  I don't support $40 million of subsidies over the next 26 years.  I don't support using eminent domain for commercial development.

Gale Pederson: I support the mixed-use concept plan proposed for the Twin Lakes Development. While no plan could be perfect, this one cleans up extremely contaminated land to residential status and gives our community 730 additional housing units while preserving Langton Lake Park. Also, the future tax revenue that will be generated for the City after the TIF district is closed is substantial. This will go a long way in funding what our residents need and want in their community in the future.

Tammy Pust: I generally support market-based redevelopment that keeps our community vital and our tax base expanding. I always support broad-based citizen input into public decisions, and I consider the Twin Lakes Citizen Advisory Panel to be a good example of the type of process that should be undertaken with respect to important government decisions. 

I respect the fact that there are significant differences of opinion about many aspects of the Twin Lakes project, including: whether big box retail is necessary or advisable; whether the amount and length of the TIF funding is appropriate; and whether the project will negatively affect the neighborhoods in the area of Langton Lake. While I am happy to discuss my views on these issues in more detail in a more appropriate forum, I have identified my opinions on some of the bigger topics below.

Big Box. With respect to the issue of the big box retail component of the project, I agree with the majority of the citizens who served on the Twin Lakes Advisory Panel. The overwhelming majority of this group of citizens decided that the project should go forward with the big box retail component included. These people sat through all the meetings, reviewed all the information, asked all the necessary questions and then decided together what they believed would be best for the community. I will not second guess the wisdom of their choice. At the same time, I respect the rights of the minority group, who opposed the big box idea during the Panel discussions, to continue to raise issues about its advisability for the public's consideration. Democracy thrives on a vigorous and public debate about important ideas, and the Twin Lakes' minority's continued expression of their views has led to some valuable improvements in the project. 

TIF. I support the use of TIF funding to clean up environmentally blighted areas. Everyone agrees that the Twin Lakes area is heavily polluted from the trucking operations located there for decades. Without the use of TIF, the city would not have the financial resources to clean up this area and it would remain contaminated for decades to come. Using TIF will allow us to hand the area over to the next generation in a much better condition than it is today. This type of community improvement is a proper and necessary role of government.

Traffic. I am most concerned about the traffic congestion that could result from the Twin Lakes redevelopment and negatively affect the surrounding neighborhoods. As I did when the project came through the Planning Commission, I will continue to work to improve the Twin Lakes project so that it significantly reduces traffic in the neighborhoods. To me, it is not sufficient to continually note that the area already has traffic problems and that Twin Lakes' addition to those problems is within the congestion limits predicted in the Comprehensive Plan. The fact is that there is too much traffic in that area now. We should utilize the Twin Lakes project as an opportunity to address the existing and predictable traffic issues through design decisions and also engage in more long-range planning to reduce traffic congestion throughout our community. 

Dan Roe: Yes. I support the Twin Lakes redevelopment program. The plan going forward meets or exceeds the vast majority of the objectives set forth in the Twin Lakes master plan. The process has involved significant public input, and the project plan has evolved and improved as a result. The "big box" retail component has shrunk significantly, and the housing component has grown significantly. The plan incorporates pedestrian walkways and green spaces to break up the large parking areas. The plan is much more balanced and more conscious of its location because of the input of citizens. The city will benefit both in the long term and the short term from the environmental clean-up, the added businesses, and the new neighbors that Twin Lakes will bring.

Bob Venters: No. I am concerned about who will be paying for the city services provided to the new property owners in the development. For approximately two decades the new property owners will be using a large portion of their property taxes to pay off the $30-40 million of TIF bonds. During this time the city will still have to provide all of the city services to these new property owners (including the additional Big Box retailer). However, they will not be paying for all of these city services. So other residents and businesses will have to pay the unfunded portion. This is not fair to our existing businesses (who may be competitors of the Big Box retailer) and the residents (who do not want to pay for more Big Box retail). The first phase of the development will likely be finalized before January 2006 when the new Council Member(s) take office. So, I will probably not vote on anything related to Phase I of the project. But this issue will come up again in future Twin Lakes developments or in other developments in Roseville. 

Joy Anderson: No. I believe that Roseville has more than enough retail. Big box retail adds nothing to our current retail scene and would, I believe, damage many of our existing smaller businesses. It also uses up vast quantities of land, which we have in short supply, and provides very poor tax return. It would increase our traffic congestion while not paying its share for infrastructure maintenance. Big box is not a good neighbor, a good member of a community, a good taxpayer and typically not a good employer.

Eugene Bahnemann: Mr. Bahnemann chose not to participate.

Amy Ihlan: No. Roseville already has more retail per capita than any other city in the state. And we just made one of our big-boxes (Target) even bigger, The costs of big-box retail to the community and environment are high - including more traffic congestion, pollution, increased crime, low-wage jobs, and giant parking lots. I know we can do better. To promote real, sustainable economic growth and protect our neighborhoods and environment, we need to think outside the big box. We should work to attract family-supporting jobs, support our local business community, and keep our existing shopping centers healthy and vibrant. 

Tom Kough: Absolutely not!  Roseville retail is over developed with over 82 sq. ft. of retail per capita, the highest in the metro area. 

Gale Pederson: Roseville is a retail destination; people want to come to our community to spend money. These retailers also supply a much needed tax base for Roseville, keeping our residential taxes lower. Having said that, we are also a vibrant residential community and I would be concerned with adding more big box in Roseville. We have our current retailers to support and a new big box would have to be unique and supply something that is not currently available in and around our community. 

Tammy Pust: I think that Roseville would benefit in having a more contemporary plan for its redevelopment options. While "big box" development is supported in the market today, that will not necessarily be the case over the next twenty years. Roseville's redevelopment in the future must be tied to efforts designed to meet its needs for a more balanced mix of affordable housing options. If we don't find ways to attract and retain families with young children into our community we will witness a precipitous decline in the quality of our public schools. As go the public schools also goes the vitality of the community they serve. As a result, we cannot continue to focus all of our efforts on the "big box" versus "outside the box" debate we've been embroiled in for the past year. We need to move beyond this one redevelopment project and put together a planning tool that will help us grow Roseville into the future. In community-wide discussions designed as part of a revisioning process, we can discuss the pros and cons of big box as one issue while we keep our eye on the broader topic of how best to plan for and accomplish the future we want for our community.

Dan Roe: Frankly, I am not sure where there is room in Roseville for more "Big Box" retail outlets. We do not have any new areas programmed for large-scale retail. Perhaps some existing retail area may have a proposal come down the road for re-development into a "Big Box." If that happens, I would have to consider how it would fit into the existing location and how it would affect traffic and accessibility issues. While I am not philosophically opposed to "Big Box" retailers as a factor of market economics, I do believe that we have to consider any proposed project in the context of its location and its impact on the city. I do not believe that this point of view is contradictory with my view on Twin Lakes, because I took those factors into account in the conclusions I came to in support of Twin Lakes. 

Bob Venters: There are advantages and disadvantages of Big-Box retailers. When we use property taxes to support more Big Box retailers, then the questions is easy. We should not use property taxes to pay for more Big Box retail in Roseville. Thank you for taking the time to read my answers and the answers of the other candidates. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to e-mail me at bobventers@yahoo.com or call me at 651-207-9769. Thank you again.