City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Special Work Plan Meeting

February 7, 2011

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council special meeting at approximately 6:00 pm. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for January: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe).  Councilmember Pust had previously advised that she would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to a family funeral in Montana; and had provided her written comments as part of the meeting agenda packet as well.

Staff Present: Police Chief Rick Mathwig; Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke; Fire Chief Tim O’Neill; Finance Director Chris Miller; Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon; and City Manager Bill Malinen

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe reviewed the proposed format for tonight’s meeting and the summary of City Council initiatives, along with their “Must Do” and “Ought to Do” suggestions and priorities allowing for freeform discussion.  Mayor Roe suggested priorities be established for those items indicating a common theme by staff and/or City Councilmembers; with remaining items without general consensus then being further discussed.

Councilmember Willmus advised that he would like the opportunity to add a future meeting agenda item; and Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda items be considered at the end of tonight’s meeting.

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.

3.         Council Members – Initiatives and Suggestions

            a.         Council Member Willmus

          Councilmember Willmus reviewed his written comments (Attachment 3.a), and expressed enthusiasm for the areas of agreement. 

          Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included clarifying the authority of the HRA in relationship to the City Council, separate levy and bonding authority all under State Statute provisions; and distinctions between a proposed Park Board similar to the HRA and exploration and potential creation of a Parks District to share area park amenities as mentioned in the Parks Master Plan process; and other efficiencies in delivering park and recreation services in Roseville and the area.

          Councilmember Willmus provided statistics of the City’s annual levy increases compared to annual and cumulative inflation rates, and suggested that additional challenges were evident requiring further review of financial sustainability and prioritizing of needs and services to find additional reductions or eliminated some of those services or programs.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his sincere support of investing in the City’s existing infrastructure and further prioritization of it versus expansion of other uses or new items.

          Councilmember Willmus advocated for greater public access to city council and advisory commission meeting materials and minutes.

          Community Development Director Trudgeon noted that typically meeting minutes for advisory commissions were not posted until approved creating the delay; however, an exception had been made over the summer and fall of 2010 to facilitate the multiple Planning Commission meeting minutes and zoning update discussions, with a disclaimer included that those minutes were in draft form.  Mr. Trudgeon requested further City Council discussion and direction if a change in that practice was being suggested.

          Councilmember Johnson noted that access to meeting minutes had originated from a previous request he’d made; and his intent to get those minutes as soon as possible to assist the City Council in their thought processes and decision-making; and to keep them informed of any significant changes.  In conjunction with Councilmember Willmus’ request, Councilmember Johnson requested a printed scheduled of airing and/or rebroadcast of advisory commission meetings rather than having to scroll through broadcast times.

          Mayor Roe reminded all that City meetings were also streamed through both the City’s website and CTV.

          Councilmember Willmus requested that staff provide background materials to facilitate re-evaluation of reserve fund account ratios.

          Further discussion included how Councilmember Willmus envisioned a Park Board operating on park issues and how it would or could make them more efficient; with the Board having greater control over their levy and park decisions and replacing the existing Parks and Recreation Commission, with the Park Board functioning similar to the City’s HRA.  Councilmembers noted that creation of a Park District would include non-Roseville residents that encapsulated the entire District and require a governance structure for day-to-day management and staffing purposes.

            b.         Council Member Pust

          In the absence of Councilmember Pust, Mayor Roe reviewed her written comments (Attachment 3.b).

            c.         Council Member McGehee

Councilmember McGehee reviewed her three (3) basic initiatives: Civic Engagement, Budget, and Planning (Attachment 3.c) and expounded on each of those items.

Councilmember McGehee advised that in her suggestion to increase civic engagement through creation of task forces to address specific issues, she was speaking for a portion of the community that felt there was a trickle down form of government from the bottom rather than from the top, and opined that it was the City Council’s job to listen to and engage residents of Roseville when they had proposals or needed assistance.  Councilmember McGehee cited several examples, including multi-family housing issues on Rice Street; and the need to be aware of both positive and negative issues and ideas of neighbors as to what was happening throughout the community and specifically in their neighborhoods.

          Councilmember McGehee expressed her ongoing frustration with the current annual budget process and its lack of transparency; as well as the lack of ability for individual Councilmembers to understand and evaluate day-to-day operations within departments and across the City to find effective ways to keep the budget stagnant and/or reduce the annual budget and levy, using those “found” monies to address infrastructure maintenance and that of programs and services.

          Councilmember Willmus opined that he did not need a line item budget to make determinations and was willing to work within the budget process and format as agreed upon by a majority of the Council.  However, if individual Councilmembers and/or members of the public requested such a format, he opined that they should be able to readily access it. 

          Councilmember McGehee advised that she was not suggesting a line item budget; however, since budget codes were now used, all similar costs be combined (e.g. supplies) as well as by department, or available for individual Councilmembers to do so on their own in evaluating the budget data to make it more clear for their use.

Mayor Roe noted that, throughout individual Councilmember comments, there seemed to be a common theme, that the budget process itself needed further refining; and advised that his objective would be to have the information available that worked for all, including past examinations of other clarifications that made sense.

          Councilmember Johnson advised that all he sought was a more detailed check ledger from the Finance Department, showing broader account detail allowing him to review that data on a monthly basis to determine what was being spent and where it was being spent.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that the data was already there, but it was a matter of individual Councilmembers and the public knowing what tools were being presented and how to decipher it with the broader picture.

          Mayor Roe suggested that the overall theme appeared to be to continue to fine-tune the budget process to develop and document the budget that matches how the Finance Department presents quarterly reports to the City Council and addresses the annual audit that would also allow easier evaluation of data and facilitate City Council decision-making.

          Councilmember McGehee requested reports usually submitted quarterly, but done so on a monthly basis.

          Within her Planning initiative, Councilmember McGehee suggested staff support for community-based planning through Charette processes allowing for community buy in and their ideas being brought forward.  Councilmember McGehee noted the example in St. Louis Park of the Excelsior/Grand project, as well as one in Boulder, CO and well documented at the University of Minnesota.

          Discussion included how the Charette process would be applied for private and public properties, with Councilmember McGehee suggesting that the City have a stronger role in developing a better plan for development and/or redevelopment throughout the community; with Councilmember Willmus expressing concern in assuring property rights were maintained and addressing how to balance proposed land uses with less intense uses that may occur.

          Mayor Roe noted that such a process depended on specific sites and their specific situations; with different types of processes often indicated, suggesting that a Charette process may work for development or redevelopment of a multi-family housing facility in a Community Business/Mixed Use area.

            d.         Council Member Johnson

            Councilmember Johnson reviewed his suggested initiatives (Attachment 3.d) and expounded on them further; emphasizing that his major concern and priority was to solve the long- and short-term Capital Investment Plan (CIP) shortages as part of the overall budget process, based on realistic expectations not significant and long-term tax increases.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of a Task Force to specifically and aggressively address this issue, whether composed of two (2) Councilmembers to work with staff and the City Manager, or representing a broader base.  Councilmember Johnson assured all that he understood that Finance Director Miller, while delivering the same daunting message annually on the shortfalls in the CIP, was only the messenger, and that the City Council, working with staff, needed to find some middle ground where everyone could be comfortable but be willing to make some difficult decisions.

          Councilmember Johnson expressed his positive experiences and better understanding of various issues based on his involvement with the Parks Master Plan Process and the Fire Building Committee; and spoke in strong support of both of their processes and community involvement.  Councilmember Johnson noted the history of how business was done in the past and changes moving forward for the community and for planning purposes.

          Discussion on the existing gambling ordinance and proposed and/or necessary revisions ensued, with Councilmember Johnson strongly supporting allowing Roseville charitable gambling organizations to operate in more than one Roseville establishment before considering allowing outside organizations to operate within the City.  Councilmember Johnson reviewed past benefits these organizations have brought to the City’s parks and recreation operations, and the School Districts; and the difficulties they were currently experiencing; and advocated that the City Council do a better job of supporting those organizations in the community.

          Mayor Roe suggested a review of the benefits available from outside organizations during the review process as well to consider their value to the community and potential impacts to local organizations.

          Councilmember Johnson suggested priority development of a task force in the near future talking to principals of local organizations, and offer the City Council’s support of them first and foremost, noting recent technological innovations for automated pull tab and bingo operations.  Councilmember Johnson noted that as President of the Roseville Community Foundation, Councilmember Pust would have valuable input from that perspective as well as that of a Councilmember in revising existing ordinance language; and offered his services to work with Finance Director Miller as well.

          Mayor Roe noted that staff had previously been given direction to review the existing ordinance and bring forth recommendations.

          Councilmember Johnson clarified his last initiative was to evaluate the City’s multi-family residential codes to ensure additional enforcement provisions were available to ensure the health of the community while recognizing the many sensitive issues involved.

          Discussion included recent nuisance property and problem property code implementation; staff resources required for enforcement and inspections beyond basic fire code inspections of common areas; and the need for further consideration of registration and licensing of multi-family residential facilities.

            e.         Mayor Roe

            Mayor Roe reviewed his suggestions for 2011/12 work plan items (Attachment 3.e) in the context of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process; and his desire to keep the community’s engagement in the process going forward as “keepers of the vision.” 

          Councilmember McGehee offered her observations from the community that the visioning process was nice when done in 2005, but based on the current economy, it was no longer realistic, and should be revised based on current situations and economies.  Councilmember McGehee noted that many of the City’s residents were elderly and lived on a fixed income, and hadn’t seen any COLA for several years in their retirement pensions.

          Mayor Roe opined that the process remained a vision and should outlast the current economic situation ; and further opined that he had never considered the Imagine Roseville 2025 process and resulting strategies and goals as a big spending item, but how the stakeholders envisioned their community in coming years; and expressed hope that the City’s budget and the Imagine Roseville 2025 process strove for the same objectives.

          Councilmember Johnson opined that he was Imagine Roseville 2025 as a tool to be compared ongoing annual realities.  In reviewing his notes from previous work sessions, Councilmember Johnson noted that Department Heads and their respective advisory commissions had been tasked with breathing fresh air into the Imagine Roseville 2025 goals and strategies; and questioned if that had been followed through.

          Mayor Roe noted that such a procedure was in place; and Councilmember Johnson suggested it was most-likely incorporated in staff’s lists provided at the last work session.

          Councilmember McGehee suggested, as part of her civic engagement initiative, that the City Council hold several public meetings for discussing that specific issue.

          Mayor Roe reminded all that the Imagine Roseville 2025 process was intended to be from the community to the City Council, not vise versa with the City Council dictating the process.

          Councilmember Willmus opined that he had no problem reviewing the Imagine Roseville 2025 process from that perspective, but not as a budgeting tool, but the ultimate vision of where we want the community to be in 2025.

          Mayor Roe echoed comments of several other Councilmembers and staff in the positive experiences of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Fire Building Committee processes; and the learning from those processes, and how those projects tied into capital management and financing plans, allowing the overall decision-making to be better informed moving forward.

          Discussion included expansion of the geothermal technology for the entire City Campus and how to expand those efficiencies, with staff advising that the company who did the original study estimated approximately $5,000 to update the study from that foundation, with the original report indicating several roof top changeovers scheduled for 2013.

          Further discussion included shared service opportunities with neighboring communities and agencies, recognizing various logistical and political considerations; additional opportunities to pool resources; considering centralized purchasing within the City as well as with peer communities beyond that currently done through the State contract; and policy initiatives needed to assist volunteer providers.

          Mayor Roe noted the need to continue “tweaking” the recently updated Zoning Code, specifically further review of setback requirements for MDR and LDR properties adjacent to other commercial and/or residential properties; and the need for a more detailed analysis through the Planning Commission or public engagement process.

          Councilmember Willmus questioned whether additional setback requirements for more intensive uses may impact smaller parcels zoned for MDR or HDR, and whether such a requirement would diminish the property value of the higher use.

          Mr. Trudgeon advised that Mayor Roe was suggesting a sliding scale, rather than specific setback; that would limit height in practicality and by percentage, similar to that done in the HDR-2 District, but not followed in other Districts.

          Mayor Roe suggested that the evaluation process would vet those uses and recommend any changes.

          Mayor Roe noted the strides being made by the Human Rights Commission and their subgroup; and the need for future support of that process moving forward on civic engagement and neighborhoods.

          Councilmember McGehee referenced and recommended the City of St. Louis Park’s website and their community involvement process.

4.         Prioritization Discussion

a.            Questions and Clarifications

At this point, Mayor Roe led a discussion of staff’s written comments and “Must Do’s” and “Ought to Do’s” for those items needing any clarification and to determine those similar or related items that could be consolidated.

Discussion included clarification of advisory commissions related to the Fire and Police Departments, with neither having advisory commissions, but the Police Department having the Police Civil Service Commission in accordance with State Statute and for use in hiring and firing and other employee relations issues; satisfaction of the Police and Fire Departments with the current consolidated Ramsey County Dispatch services; limitations for any Fire Department EMS service area expansion due to Public Service Areas defined by the legislature and assigned to various organizations; and recognizing the uniqueness of each community and their emergency services needs and response times.

Mayor Roe noted that he and City Manager Malinen had attended meetings of several multi-city organizations, and that a recurring theme in those discussions was emphasis on shared services, including directives to pursue shared services that are coming from the state legislature, which may mean that our neighboring cities may be more open to such opportunities than in the past.

Further discussion included revolving funds for vehicle replacement and needed increases, with the Police Department vehicle fund back on track.

Councilmember McGehee requested additional discussion time with staff outside the meeting on restructuring among and within departments.

Mr. Trudgeon opined that considering the Twin Lakes regulating map discussion before discussions on other items related to Twin Lakes redevelopment policies was premature.

Mayor Roe noted that this item was scheduled on the February 14, 2011 regular meeting agenda.

Councilmember consensus was that additional discussion was preferred to define those “Must Do” and “Ought to Do” items presented by staff and by department from the previous Work Plan meeting to allow for those items requiring more interaction with the City Council for decision-making and those staff driven.

b.         Consolidation of Similar or Related Items / Prioritization Discussion

Public Works Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.a from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Councilmember Willmus sought clarification and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided additional information on those items identified as mandates for 2011 and 2012 and potential impacts or consequences if the City did not participate in those mandates in accordance with federal and/or state law; other agencies that may step in with enforcement actions; and the potential loss of eligibility for grant funds if not completed.

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Police Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.b from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Parks and Recreation Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.c from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Fire Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.d from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Councilmember Johnson noted that the department’s list worked itself into future CIP discussions.

Finance Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.e from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Councilmember Willmus questioned how to determine those items that were of high or low priority; with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Johnson suggesting that it would be defined as the budget process continued.

Mayor Roe noted that the budget calendar was scheduled for discussion at the February 14, 2011 regular meeting, and further clarification should be part of that discussion.

Community Development Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.f from January 31, 2011 meeting)

The written staff comments were amended by consensus to revise language to “[Consider] Sub-Area Twin Lakes Regulating Map in accordance with City Zoning Code;” and to bring check marked item number four (4) from the “Ought to Do’s” to the “Must Do” list, specifically to “Create a comprehensive economic development policy and mission to support existing businesses within Roseville and that also markets our community to attract new businesses.”

“Ought to Do’s”

Discussion included how the Department Heads defined those items on their lists: whether the “Ought to Do’s” were just new ideas they’d like to pursue if they had extra time or those new policies and programs that could improve their department efficiencies.

Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that his “Ought to Do’s” were those items his department would like to pursue if time permitted.

Parks and Recreation Director Brokke advised that the items listed remained open given the ongoing Master Plan process and how the pending survey directed their status.

Police Chief Mathwig advised that 3 out of 4 of those items listed for his department were things that had been done in the past; with 2011 considered the year for expansion of the department-wide restructuring pilot program already initiated and anticipated to become fully operational by mid-summer of 2011, allowing the department to address crime at the street level; and to follow-up on crime trends to address them head on, and based on the input from one of the department’s sergeants.

Public Works Director Schwartz advised that the “Ought to Do’s” on his department’s list indicated areas or tools that would improve efficiencies if time was available to pursue them.

Councilmember McGehee confirmed that Mr. Schwartz would be coordinating with Mr. Trudgeon on ordinance revisions, to which they both responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Willmus requested staff to look at their departments from the perspective of how they were currently operating compared to how they could reallocate things within the department or change out.

Fire Chief O’Neill noted that the items listed for pursuing shared services and increasing community outreach were based on time and resources available.

Mayor Roe noted that the Chief had indicated at the last meeting plans to pursue additional grant funds for those types of opportunities.

Administration Department “Must Do’s” (Attachment 3.g from January 31, 2011 meeting)

Council consensus was in agreement with those items as written.

Priorities

Consolidating staff and Councilmember comments, Mayor Roe provided those items apparently deemed priorities and having similar goals as follows.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Infrastructure Management Process

Discussion included how to address the CIP with the City Council and staff working cooperatively, along with including citizen involvement in the decision-making process. 

Councilmember Johnson suggested formation of a Task Force, perhaps with several Councilmembers initially as the energy force to keep things moving, and to liaison with Finance Department staff for discussion of the budget and capital funding; and if there appeared to be citizen interest in the community to include them in the process as well.

Councilmember Johnson suggested that two (2) Councilmembers meet with Finance Director Miller and City Manager Malinen to establish a foundation for such a Task Force to move forward.

By Council consensus, Councilmembers Johnson and Roe were appointed to the Task force to work with Mr. Miller and Mr. Malinen with the purpose of assessing and developing an action plan.

Mr. Miller offered a cautionary note that it may prove difficult to discuss the CIP in abstract or in a vacuum, as service levels drove the CIP and needed to be considered in concert to allow for better decision-making.

Councilmember Johnson concurred, noting that the CIP impacted services from every department, but expressed confidence that compromises could be found versus attempting to significantly raise taxes to support the CIP.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it was imperative that the Task Force create a framework from which to work and to initiate discussions to move forward without any pre-established agendas or mandates.

Councilmember McGehee concurred, and encouraged citizen involvement as well to help the general public understand CIP needs and why services may need to be altered or taxes raised.

Councilmember Johnson noted that community involvement would be crucial, and serve as a huge eye-opener for those involved, and would subsequently crate ambassadors to provide additional information to the community.

Mayor Roe noted that the Parks Master Plan and Fire Station processes may prove well-informed and near decision-making time for the City Council, in addition to community and parks and recreation survey results, and would determine how bests to move forward on other issues.

Mr. Miller sought clarification on the charge to the Task Force.

Mayor Roe suggested that he and Councilmember Johnson coordinate with Mr. Miller and Mr. Malinen to lay out the issues that they saw needing to be reviewed and a suggested process going forward for recommendation to the entire City Council.  Mayor Roe suggested that the initial discussion include recommended expectations for the time frame to present an end product, with milestones established along the process to present a realistic schedule for the immediate future as well as more long-term.

Councilmember Johnson concurred that the process was important; and suggested a monthly Task Force report to the City Council on their progress, allowing the entire body to provide their feedback as the process evolves.

Mayor Roe noted the need to tie the CIP into the annual or biannual budget on an ongoing basis rather than waiting until the budget was set before doing the CIP; and opined that the CIP may need to be addressed in stages given the magnitude of items in the CIP. 

Councilmember Willmus noted the number of citizens who had professional expertise on managing capital budgets who would be more than willing to assist.

Mayor Roe confirmed Council consensus to move forward on a capital infrastructure plan, with a separate infrastructure management plan as a separate process for reviewing and determining actual allocation of resources.

Infrastructure Management

Councilmember Johnson concurred with Mayor Roe that the Asset Management Program should be a separate discussion that took place while the CIP Plan was being formulated.

Public Works Director Schwartz suggested presentations on how such management programs worked to facilitate additional discussion and how to stretch dollars over a longer period rather than large allocations at one time; along with guarantees for risk and flattened budget needs to avoid major spike.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission was currently looking at such management software programs prior to making recommendations to the City Council.

Consensus was that such an approach should remain a priority, and could serve as a function of the Public Works Department at this time until recommendations were available to fit into the budget discussions.

Discussion included how such management software would fit with existing Finance Department software with staff advising there was no connection; and that the management program would be the City’s purchase of a product or service to provide management as well as taking on some of the risk, flattening annual City budget expenditures.  Mr. Miller further advised that the City’s Information Technology staff did not have that type of software, nor the expertise to manage such a program at this time.

Mr. Schwartz noted a distinction between the roof replacement plans for Public Works Department managed City facilities, and the overall CIP. 

Mayor Roe suggested a program that would manage all departments under the same program.

Mr. Schwartz advised that the asset management program under consideration would cross department lines.

Mayor Roe noted the need for an internal review among departments to ensure efforts were not being duplicated, and if so to consolidate activities and that staff bring potential options back to the full City Council.

Shared Services

Mayor Roe questioned if there was interest by staff and/or Councilmembers on specific ways to approach shared service opportunities, of if the City Council simply wanted to encourage staff to continue to develop, recognizing specific recommendations for the Parks and Recreation Department.

Councilmember Willmus suggested that all staff look at opportunities with their counterparts in other communities for opportunities to purchase supplies and materials, acknowledging that the City Council relied on staff’s expertise to find such opportunities. 

Mr. Swartz reviewed several areas the Public Works Department was working on for shared materials, with the Cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington, and Ramsey County, in addition to state-wide contract opportunities for fuel purchasing; and ongoing research of benefits on the scale of economy, as well as other considerations.

City Manager Malinen noted the resolution on shared services passed by a past City Council; and results of recent St. Paul Area Chamber of
Commerce surveys identifying the success of Roseville in taking advantage of those opportunities whenever an opportunity was available, citing the example of employee health care under a Joint Powers Authority. Mr. Malinen noted that the original Chamber survey instituted several years ago provided a pleasant surprise to see the shared opportunities being taken advantage of by Ramsey County cities and townships, as well as School Districts and other agencies.

Mayor Roe noted the need for any cost savings related to intense personnel-related issues; and noted that this shared services discussion was a common message in regional associations and meetings of mayors and a clear message from the State Legislature.

Multi-Family Issues

Mayor Roe noted that all Councilmembers had identified this as a crucial issue; and concurred that the HRA should be a key resource for the Community Development Department.

Councilmember Johnson expressed interest as to what extent the HRA had looked into this.

Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that this continued to be a high priority item for the HRA on their annual work plan.  Mr. Trudgeon noted their cooperative work with the Police Department in drafting a nuisance ordinance as another tool to address multi-family problem properties; and the HRA’s intent to continue dealing with code enforcement in neighborhoods, as well as providing affordable housing and fostering a safe place for Roseville residents to live.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the need for the City Council to alert the HRA as to how much involvement they want the HRA to have in intervening with problem properties, which would require additional resources, potentially loans for rehabilitation, or potential purchase by the HRA of properties to initiate their redevelopment.

Discussion included the wonderful initiative achieved at the Sienna Green apartment complex and other incentives to encourage developers to make improvements or sell the property. 

Mr. Trudgeon cited several examples of staff working with non profits in the community for long-term improvements, as well as immediate steps provided through the HRA to connect tenants and landlords with programs and educational resources, along with making service providers aware of needs in the community.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that he suspected that this will continue as a high priority with the HRA and brought forward continually as a discussion point.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if the City Council also identified it as a high priority, it would add more fuel to the HRA’s interest as well.

With Council consensus, Mayor Roe suggested that the HRA continue to take the lead on this issue, with Councilmember Pust serving as Council Liaison to the HRA.

Economic Development

Mayor Roe noted distinctions between the written comments of Councilmember McGehee and those of Mr. Trudgeon.

Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the Twin Lakes discussion be a separate issue unto itself.

Councilmember Johnson questioned if nurturing businesses would put undue stress or financial burden on the Community Development Department.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the department’s work force was reduced this year with the loss of a staff person, effectively putting the department out of the economic development business.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that this didn’t stop the department from looking at their role and potential outreach programs, since not everything cost money, but may simply change emphasis.  Mr. Trudgeon sought clarification from Councilmembers on what type of effort and mission they were looking for as 2012 approached, which would allow the department to determine if it could be addressed budget-wise as a mandate.

Discussion included reviewing program areas in the Community Development budget and funding sources that may not be currently taken advantage of; and clarifying the mission of the Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) specific to the hospitality industry.

Mayor Roe suggested, with Council consensus that this item remain as a “Must Do” item, but not on a fast track, but as a consideration for staff and budgeting moving forward.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:14 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:23 pm.

Budget Process

Mayor Roe led discussion on how to deal with the budget process itself simultaneously while working on the 2012 budget and suggested two areas of discussion:

1)    The 2012 budget process; and

2)    Broader things for budget documentation; process aspects of budgeting efforts moving forward in future years, whether annually or biennially.

City Manager Malinen strongly advocated for a biennial budget, as he had recommended to the City Council several years ago, but delayed as everyone acclimated toward the new budget process.  Mr. Malinen noted that this was now running more smoothly, while still requiring additional streamlining, but should facilitate priority-based budgeting on a two-year basis; and free some staff time and resources from annual budget development.  Mr. Malinen advised that staff was internally geared to facilitate a biennial budget, and opined that it would further help the City budget process evolve.

Discussion included timing for implementation of a biennial budget process, with Mr. Malinen suggesting it be instituted in the 2012/13 cycle rather than waiting to start the process in 2013/14.  Mr. Malinen advised that he was confident in the accuracies developed by staff for well-defined costing for programs and services based on priority-based ranking, noting those most recently changed and/or combined.

Mayor Roe expressed his interest in separately discussing, at the February 14, 2011 regular meeting, the budget calendar itself, and to review the types of information provided in documentation to ensure that everyone was on board from the beginning.

Councilmembers concurred.

Staff Reorganization/Staffing levels

Mayor Roe noted that this was staff driven, other than the City Council’s need to approve new job descriptions or repurposing of positions.

City Manager Malinen concurred, in addition to salary range approval by the City Council.

Mayor Roe noted that this reorganization was more allocation of existing resources, and would be addressed more broadly as part of budget discussions.

With Council consensus, Mayor Roe encouraged staff, opining that there was broad support to make any staffing reallocations that made sense to achieve more efficiency in day-to-day operations.

Various Aspects of Zoning Code Update

Discussion included a brief review of those issues, including pending ordinance revisions related to the Zoning Code; notice issues; land use processes to achieve community buy in as applicable; setback issues; zero-scaping; and subdivisions.

Mayor Roe questioned Councilmember preference for addressing these items.

Mr. Trudgeon suggested that staff prepare an initial list of those items identified for discussion purposes at the City Council level; with individual items identified by the Council as a whole to consider majority support and specific direction to staff from the City Council and potential ways to approach the issues, rather than staff resources taken on those items that may not have Council consensus.

Further discussion included a timeframe for staff presenting that list, with Council consensus being for staff to return in March of 2011 with the list.

Additional Items Outstanding from Individual Councilmembers

Councilmember Willmus questioned whether efforts would continue regarding pursuit of a local sales tax option, noting the apparent lack of support from the legislative delegation at a recent meeting.

Councilmember Johnson noted that he also heard the legislative delegation say that, if the City were to pursue it, there was no better time than now to do so.

City Manager Malinen advised that this discussion item had been included on the February 28, 2011 regular City Council agenda following further discussions with Rep. Scalze, and her role on as Chair of the Tax Committee.

Councilmember McGehee questioned how the business community would react to a local sales tax, and impacts on them, in addition to which items would be taxed.

Mayor Roe noted the need to review which items were taxable and which were exempt, and a percentage that could be considered by the City.

City Manager Malinen advised that staff continued to gather research and information to bring forward to the City Council on February 27.

Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in hearing staff’s perspective on the potential creation of a parks District.

Mayor Roe noted that the Roseville School District Superintendent and board representative would be attending an upcoming City Council meeting.  Mayor Roe noted that this was a sensitive political and emotional issue, with turf and ownership issues being impacted, and needed to be approached thoughtfully.

Parks and Recreation Director Brokke advised that such a possibility had been identified in the Master Plan process as worth pursuing, and had been initially brought up during discussions with other communities and areas when recognizing that Roseville residents, and outside residents went beyond City of Roseville boundaries in using facilities.  Mr. Brokke noted that it would take legislative approval to establish a Park Board, and cited several examples in Minnesota, North Dakota and Illinois, with the City of Maple Grove having a quasi-park board that was more involved in establishing specific tax levy.

Mayor Roe suggested staff provide a report on options, ramifications, timing and other considerations; with Council consensus indicating it to be brought forward later in 2011, and include discussions on a Park District and shared services.

Mayor Roe reviewed Councilmember Pust’s written comments to address any outstanding issues.

Transit

1) Trails/sidewalks – connections and walkabilty

2) NE Corridor

City Manager Malinen noted that the walkability portion could be addressed through the City’s existing Pathway Master Plan, as well as the new Parks and Recreation Master Plan, in addition to CIP discussions.

Mayor Roe noted the need for sidewalks and/or pathways to be incorporated into development/redevelopment activities for multi-family projects (e.g. Sienna Green) where there were short gaps but a large number of residents needing to access various transit options; and that this item needed to tie into the City’s zoning code as well as pathway planning.

Councilmember Willmus noted, and Councilmembers concurred with, the need to address maintenance aspects as part of that discussion.

Additional discussion included current and potential redesign of maintenance of sidewalks and pathways (e.g. clearing snow) for residential and commercial areas.

Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to have multi-family residential units do their own snow removal, since they needed to have snow removed from their parking lots anyway.

NE Corridor Discussions with the Metropolitan Council

Mayor Roe noted the need for additional advocacy with legislators for connecting with the Metropolitan Council and increased efforts to recruit Roseville back into regional transportation lobbying efforts.  Mayor Roe noted that the southwest metropolitan area received substantial attention based on their population density; however, there was a significant need in this area, and discussions were indicated for the City Council in their budgets for such resources.

Public Works Director Schwartz advised that it took regional efforts to move those projects forward. Mr. Schwarz noted that there would be additional opportunities for additional service and access moving forward now that the Central Corridor was getting underway.

Councilmember Johnson requested that this item be included on the February 14, 2011 regular meeting agenda to allow Councilmember Pust the opportunity for additional comment.

Geothermal Technology

Councilmember Johnson requested that this item be included on a future agenda to initiate an update of the original study to move forward.

Mayor Roe noted the need to incorporate those numbers into the CIP process.

Imagine Roseville 2025 Initiative

Mayor Roe advised that he would pursue this with staff for ideas on how to reinvigorate this community process and continued citizen involvement; and may return with recommendations for a future agenda item.

Further discussion was held related to those items on individual department “Ought to Do” lists.

Public Works Department

Public Works Director Schwartz briefly reviewed infrastructure replacements planned in 2011 and 2012 and a pilot project getting underway as part of a routine department process.

Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission was currently reviewing overhead/undergrounding policy considerations for subsequent recommendation to the City Council.

Police Department

Discussion included partnering with retailers within the community beyond Rosedale; implementation of leadership and training incentives for the next generation of officers; and support for the New American Forums.

Councilmember Willmus questioned whether once dollars are affixed to the list of “Ought to Do’s,” the City Council would gain a different perspective.

Councilmember Johnson opined that this would then clearly distinguish and redefine the “Ought to Do’s” and the “Must Do’s.”

Parks and Recreation Department

Mayor Roe noted the need to be cognizant of repeated past cuts to the Parks Improvement Program (PIP) during current budget discussions.

Parks and Recreation Director Brokke noted his interest in aggressively pursuing management efforts for community volunteers.

Councilmembers by consensus expressed their strong support of management of volunteers as a “Must Do.”

Fire Department

Fire Chief O’Neill briefly reviewed the current grant to implement volunteer programs, which would be coming before the City Council in the near future.  Mr. O’Neill further addressed the department’s interest in pursuing the needs of the City’s senior population for their overall health before and after emergency care to ensure their quality of life and long-term health.

Finance Department

A brief discussion ensued on the near completion of the five-year phased installation of fiber optic among public buildings; and ongoing discussions with school and Ramsey County partners on any additional extensions.

Community Development Department

Community Development Director Trudgeon addressed scanning records as a budget issue due to the extensive staff resources required; with City Manager Malinen addressing city-wide record management efforts.

Administration Department

City Manager Malinen addressed city-wide record management and advances made to-date; with Mayor Roe requesting a report to the City Council next month on the status and next steps required.

Discussion included pending results of the community survey currently underway and resulting indicators from the public; revising the location of the community survey on the City’s home page website rather than its current location; and request for a written guide of the showing times or rebroadcast times of City Council and Advisory Commission meetings, and their frequency.

Mayor Roe requested that staff provide an update on available air time and programming options at CTV to the City Council.

Further discussion ensued regarding the regulating map for Twin Lakes as a separate issue from the City’s role in marketing the area for development. Councilmember McGehee requested a copy of the Twin Lakes Design Standards document from staff.

5.         Implementation

Mayor Roe thanked Department Heads and individual Councilmembers for their participation in discussions; and suggested they provide their critique of the process, opining that he would like to see more of these opportunities moving forward.

Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items

Councilmember Willmus requested a brief discussion at an upcoming meeting pertaining to the Old Highway 8 rezoning, allowing individual Councilmembers to state their position for the benefit of neighbors to determine their next steps in the process and whether it was of any benefit for them to pursue a rezoning application process, based on super majority support of the City Council.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that a report was scheduled to return to the Board of Appeals from the Planning Commission at the February 14, 2011 meeting.

Councilmember Willmus clarified that it was not his intent to schedule additional public testimony related to this subject.

Mayor Roe concurred, clarifying that the purpose would be to allow individual Councilmembers to expand any of their comments previously made.

Councilmember Johnson noted additional discussion was indicated on Councilmember Pust’s comments related to the NE Corridor.

6.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:24 pm.