City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 19, 2012

 

1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe).  Councilmember Pust had previously noted her inability to attend tonight’s meetings.

 

Closed Executive Session

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council is permitted under Minnesota Statutes section 13D.05 to hold a closed session for the purpose of evaluating the performance of personnel who report to the city council, unless the person in question opts to keep the meeting open for those purposes. Mayor Roe asked City Manager Malinen if he wished to keep the meeting open for his evaluation, and City Manager Malinen responded in the negative.

 

          Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to adjourn to closed executive session for the pur-         pose of evaluating the performance of the city manager.

 

          Ayes:  Willmus, Johnson, McGehee, and Roe

          Nays:  None

 

          Mayor Roe convened the City Council in closed session at approximately 5:08 pm.      Those present in addition to the city council members included Human Resources Di-       rector Eldona Bacon, City Attorney Gaughan, and City Manager Malinen.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:15 pm and reconvened in regular session at approximately 6:22 pm.

                   

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe thanked the public for their patience during the City Council’s closed session; and announced that the Roll Call had already been taken, with four of five Councilmembers present for tonight’s meeting.

Mayor Roe noted that staff had removed Agenda Item 12.e entitled, “Court citation – 3261 Old Highway 9 – Outdoor Storage,” for resolution at the staff level.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.k entitled, “Accept Petition and Order Feasibility Report for the Construction of Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue;” advising that he would be recusing himself during discussion of that particular item.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Items 7.d, g and h respectively entitled, “Request by United Properties for Approval of Vacation and Rededication of a Drainage Easement to Accommodate the Final Phase of Development at 1996 Langton Lake Drive;” “Twin Lakes Overlay Ordinance Repeal;” and “Cancel November 26 Council Meeting.”

 

Audience member Steve Gjerdingen requested removal of Consent Item 7.j entitled “Approve a Resolution for the Final Acceptance and Maintenance for Public Improvements Constructed for Sienna Green.”  Mr. Gjerdingen clarified that he was making this request as a Roseville resident, and not in his role as a member of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

                                   

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.      

            Nays: None.

         

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.

 

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

Mayor Roe announced for public information the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers; specifically a public forum to discuss implementation of rental licensing in Roseville for rental properties of four (4) units or more. Mayor Roe advised that rental property owners, tenants, and all residents were invited to provide their comments and suggestions on how such a licensing program should or could be implemented in Roseville.

 

Mayor Roe announced a fundraiser held the second Monday of each month from 5:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the White Bear Lake V.F.W. on Highway 61, just south of Highway 96, with proceeds going to the North Suburban Ramsey County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program; and sponsored in part by the Roseville Lion’s Club.

 

Mayor Roe announced three separate donation opportunities during the holidays with collections to be dropped off at City Hall: Roseville Community Education donations of basic need items (e.g. gift cards to Rosedale or Cub Foods, personal care items, clothing, backpacks and school supplies); Keystone Food Shelf (e.g. non-perishable food products, personal care items, gift cards), as well as those interested in volunteering at the food shelf; and specific to the holiday season, Roseville Fire Angels (e.g. personal care items, toys and clothing).  Mayor Roe advised that donations would be accepted through December 7, 2012 for the Roseville Fire Angels; with donations accepted year-round for the first two community services.  For additional information, Mayor Roe recommended calling Carolyn Curti at City Hall at 651/792-7026.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

 

a.            Accept a Donation from Hugh and Julie Thibodeau

Police Chief Rick Mathwig introduced and recognized Hugh and Julie Thibodeau, describing them both as “wonderful stewards” in the Roseville community.  Chief Mathwig acknowledged their most recent donation of $12,625.88 for technological upgrades to the Police Roll Call Room and Investigative Conference Room, in their ongoing generous support of the Roseville Police Department.  Chief Mathwig advised that the donation included installation of an Arbitrator camera monitoring system in the front lobby; and update to the personal needs room used by officers working extended shifts; and tourniquets for each police officer.

 

Hugh Thibodeau

Mr. Thibodeau expressed his family’s pride with this most recent donation that signified continuation of their long-time support of public safety – both of the Police and Fire Departments.  In explaining his family’s rationale in supporting public safety specifically, Mr. Thibodeau opined that it served as part of the bedrock on which a community is built; and without a strong public safety presence, Roseville would not continue to be a living, vibrant community.  Mr. Thibodeau further stated that public safety affected all residents; and therefore, by supporting public safety, his family’s donations could have the most impact for the most people.

 

Mayor Roe, on behalf of the public safety departments and City staff, the community, City Council, and himself, expressed the community’s pride in having the Thibodeau family in the Roseville community and their willingness to support public safety efforts.  Mayor Roe thanked the Thibodeau’s for allowing the City to publically thank them for that support; and expressed appreciation for their continued support of public safety efforts throughout the community.

 

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, accepting the generous donation in the amount of $12,625.88 from the Thibodeau’s to the City of Roseville Police Department.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed his personal appreciation to the Thibodeau’s for their support.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked the Thibodeau’s for their contribution to the cost of a K-9 dog for the Police Department last year.

 

Mrs. Thibodeau noted that they planned to return in January of 2013 with a donation for another K-9 dog.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

6.         Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

a.            Approve Minutes of October 22, 2012 Meeting

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 22, 2012 meeting and the November 14, 2012 meetings as presented.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Johnson thanked all four (4) candidates running for municipal office this fall; and congratulated Councilmember-elect candidates Lisa Laliberte and Jason Etten in their respective elections to the Roseville City Council.  Councilmember Johnson specifically thanked municipal candidates Bill Hoffman and Karen Schaffer for their participation in the election.  Councilmember Johnson expressed appreciation for the number of citizens voting in Roseville for the various offices. 

 

Councilmember McGehee also thanked Roseville citizens for the good voter turnout.

 

Mayor Roe concurred; noting that Roseville tended to have great voter turnouts during elections.

 

7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

 

ACH Payments	$1,057,984.80
67990 – 68300	1,628,920.94
Total	$2,686,905.74

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location	Type of License
Pawn America, LLC; 1715 N Rice Street	Pawn Shop & Precious Metal Dealer
B & J Trees; 2300 Hamline Avenue N	Christmas Tree Sales
Bork Evergreens; 1201 Larpenteur Avenue	Christmas Tree Sales
Massage Xcape, LLC; 1767 Lexington Avenue N	Massage Therapy Establishment
Dona McGlennen at Mind, Body & Soul Wellness 2201 Lexington Avenue N, Suite 103	Massage Therapist
Elizabeth Harris, Stephanie Lankfard, Timothy Brinkman Massage Xcape; 1767 Lexington Avenue N	Massage Therapist
Heather Marnell at Massage Envy Roseville 2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120	Massage Therapist
Waste Management of MN, Inc. 10050 Naples Street NE	Solid Waste Hauler
Walters Recycling & Refuse; P. O. Box 67 Circle Pines, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Highland Sanitation & Recycling, Inc. P. O. Box 10; Vermillion, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Randy’s Environmental Services P. O. Box 169; Delano, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Inc. 1214 Hall Avenue; West St. Paul, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Waste Management of MN, Inc. 10050 Naples Street NE	Recycling Hauler
Walters Recycling & Refuse; P. O. Box 67 Circle Pines, MN	Recycling Hauler
Highland Sanitation & Recycling, Inc. P. O. Box 10; Vermillion, MN	Recycling Hauler
International Paper; 2425 Terminal Road	Recycling Hauler
Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Inc. 1214 Hall Avenue; West St. Paul, MN	Recycling Hauler

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000.

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following purchases and/or contracts for service:

 

Department	Vendor	Description	Amount
Utilities	Ferguson Waterworks	Master Meters for Arden Hills connection (cost to be reimbursed by the City of Arden Hills)	$12,832.89
Streets	Konrad Material Sales, Inc.	Crack Sealing Material	12,354.75

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Certify Unpaid Utilities and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11023 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2013 or Beyond.”

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

f.             Approve 2013 City Council Meeting Schedule

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,, approval of the 2013 City Council Meeting Schedule as presented.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

i.             Adopt Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Apply for SCORE Funding Grant

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11024, “Resolution Requesting 2013 Score Funding Grant for Use in Roseville’s Residential Recycling Program;” in the amount of $69,613.00 as amended.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

l.             Authorize Expenditure of Roseville HRA Funds for the Acquisition of 2325 Dale Street and Adjacent Vacant Lots on Cope Avenue

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, consent to the acquisition by the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of 2325 Dale Street; and Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Block 1, O’Neil’s Addition, in an amount not to exceed $638,000; with costs funded from HRA Multi-Family Program revenues in HRA Fund No. 724.

 

 Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

d.            Request by United Properties for Approval of Vacation and Rededication of a Drainage Easement to Accommodate the Final Phase of Development at 1996 Langton Lake Drive

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 19, 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the condition of approval recommended by staff (Section 7.0 of the RCA) and whether approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) would still be applicable.

 

City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that staff had been and continued to work with United Properties on drainage for the site.  Ms. Bloom noted that since the next phase of the development was new, a new RCWD permit would also be required; and as always, assured the City Council and public that it would be in compliance with best management practices as outlined by RCWD requirements.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that her intent was to make sure that approval authority was not disregarded.

 

Mayor Roe noted that neither the City of the applicant could do so from a statutory level.

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11022 entitled “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement at Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake (PF07-006).”

 

Ms. Bloom clarified the parameters of this action, with Engineering/Public Works staff and the developer continuing to work together on a new drainage easement; noting that this action was not approving that new easement at this time.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

g.         Twin Lakes Overlay Ordinance Repeal

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 19, 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was anything the City could do to recoup some of the infrastructure costs already paid for by Roseville citizens in this area.

 

City Manager Malinen reviewed several options being pursued by staff as applicable, including connection fees to water and sewer infrastructure to reimburse the City for a parcel’s share of pipe capacity, as well as use of Chapter 429 special assessments to properties as applicable.  City Manager Malinen advised that outcomes should be comparable to the City’s consulting engineer, SRF, projections.

 

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1429 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 1417, The Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.”  Due to Ordinance 1417 being repealed, an ordinance repealing chapter 1022 of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code was repealed under Ordinance No. 1430.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Gaughan advised that this required no functional need for an ordinance summary, as the action simply appealed Ordinance 1417, previously adopted.

 

h.         Cancel November 26, 2012 City Council Meeting

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 19, 2012.  City Manager Malinen noted that the 2012 schedule created some conflicts with the Thanksgiving holiday week and business needing to be conducted; and based on the City Council’s previous cursory discussions, business had been adjusted to accommodate canceling the November 26, 2012 meeting as indicated.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she had inadvertently asked for the wrong Consent Item to be removed; and was in concurrence with this proposed action.

 

          McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, cancellation of the November 26, 2012 regularly City Council meeting.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

j.             Approve a Resolution for the Final Acceptance and Maintenance for Public Improvements Constructed for Sienna Green

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 19, 2012.

Public Comment

Steve Gjerdingen, 2211 N Dellwood Street

Mr. Gjerdingen clarified that he was appearing as an individual Roseville resident, and not in his role as a member of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission.

 

Mr. Gjerdingen expressed his appreciation to the City Council for the new portion of sidewalk associated with the Sienna Green project, stating that it was “fantastic.”  However, Mr. Gjerdingen asked that, prior to the City Council taking the proposed action for final acceptance of the public improvements and verifying that all work had been completed in accordance with plans and specifications, brush and excess vegetation needed to be cleared that was currently intruding along the pathway.  Mr. Gjerdingen opined that when a new sidewalk is installed, such items should be addressed; and asked that the City Council not approve the project until that had been completed.  Mr. Gjerdingen further opined that future projects have as a standard requirement a forestry provision that all vertical and horizontal clearances be followed for similar brush removal issues.  Mr. Gjerdingen addressed several other pathway segments needing vegetation and/or vines to be cleared (e.g. Fairview Avenue project recently constructed north of County Road B-2). 

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that staff would talk to respective property owners to see that those issues were taken care of.  However, Ms. Bloom opined that such details needn’t hold up the two-year public improvements warranty period, which was intended to address such concerns.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11025 entitled, “Final Acceptance and Maintenance for Public Improvements Constructed for Sienna Green.”

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

k.            Accept Petition and Order Feasibility Report for Construction of Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue

Councilmember Willmus advised that, since the property was owned by his father, he would recuse himself from the dais and then left the Council Chambers.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that while there may not be a personal reason for any conflict of interest for Councilmember Willmus from a financial perspective, in an effort to avoid any perception of a conflict, Councilmember Willmus had chosen to leave the Council Chambers during this discussion.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.  City Manager Malinen noted that 100% of the costs of these improvements would be borne by the property owner in accordance with the Chapter 429 assessment process.

 

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11026 entitled “Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for 3040 Hamline Avenue Utilities;”

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she had personally walked the property, and the plan was a good one, and lots already approved.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.         

            Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Willmus returned to the Council Chambers and dais.

 

12.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Adopt an Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 314.05: 2013 Fee Schedule

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted elements of staff’s recommended adjustments to existing fees for the annual fee schedule for 2013, as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012; and as outlined.  Finance Director Miller noted that supporting document was included in the RCA as Attachment D; and advised that several new fees included rental registration fees, seasonal pool fees, and minor subdivision escrow fees.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, page 4 of Attachment D (Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance) had an incorrect number for Residential Park Dedication Fees, with the correct number being $3,500 per unit, rather than the stated $3,000 per unit. 

 

Mr. Miller also advised that staff had a question regarding liquor licenses, and the new category as requested by Pour Decisions as acted upon by the City Council in August of 2012, and comparable fees of $7,000 annually for other on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses; with the Pour Decisions firm questioning that amount.  Mr. Miller advised that staff recommended that the fee remain at $7,000 unless otherwise directed by the City Council.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller clarified that, since this was the 2013 fee schedule, if the City Council chose to take action on 2012 fees, it could do so as a separate action.

 

Discussion included proximity to year-end for 2012 licenses and pro-rating licenses as per standard procedure on fees; clarification that to-date, Pour Decisions was not doing liquor operations and their fee remained unpaid, pending clarification by the City Council, with Pour Decisions alleging that the license fee was prohibitive to their doing business.

 

Councilmember McGehee read a section of State Statute related to brewery language and number of barrels produced; Mayor Roe added that Subd. 6 of State Statute specific to tap room licenses; and stipulation between State and City fees and their relationship to on-sale categories.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding the unique license category created for tap rooms and applicable fees; comparables for tap room licenses and whether or not to base them on the number of seats available, similar to on-sale wine licenses; with Mayor Roe recommending that the license fees be disconnected from the seating since the number of seats was specific in state statute for wine licenses, but not necessarily brewery tap license fees.

 

Additional discussion included hours of operation and traffic generation; Pour Decisions specifics versus future license holders for similar operations.

 

Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on other areas of the fee schedule brought to his attention by the public, including the proposed seasonal pool fee, and public concerns that this may apply for setting up a kiddie pool for birthday parties, as an example.

 

Mr. Miller clarified that the fee applied to a pool larger than 3,000 gallon capacity or forty-two (42) inches in depth.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the fees for window replacement, wondering if this fee was per project or per window (page 14).

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that he needed to research that before responding; however, his perception was that it was a minimum fee per project.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would provide a response to the City Council at a future time.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that, in an effort to encourage residents to upgrade their homes, even if on a pay-as-you-go basis, the City should not discourage those improvements by adopting onerous fees.  Councilmember McGehee also noted, as another example, the $75 fee to replace hot water heaters, opining that this could add substantially to the cost of doing so.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was cognizant of costs of improvements; however, he advised that the attempt was to cover staff time and efforts in the process, while attempting to keep things in balance.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that there were inspection costs for staff on many of these improvements.

 

          McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1431 entitled, “An Ordinance mending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2013 Fee Schedule” as presented; as amended to correct Attachment D (page 4) and Exhibit A to the Ordinance as referenced for the 2012 Residential Park Dedication fee from $3,000 per unit to $3,500 per unit; adding a new liquor license category “On-Sale Brewery Tap Room” at an annual established fee of $750.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

          Mayor Roe noted that approval of an Ordinance Summary required a Super Majority (4/5) vote of the entire City Council.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1431 (Attachment B) entitled, “Amending Chapter 313.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2013 Fee Schedule.”

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

          Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, establishing a Brewery Tap Room License Fee to the 2012 Fee Schedule at $750 annually.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

13.         Presentations

 

a.    Public Works 2013 Annual Work Plan

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz presented the 2013 Public Works Work Plan as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this was a considerable proposed work plan for 2013, including: mill and overlay; pathways and parking lots; sanitary sewer lining and replacement; water main replacement; storm sewer system improvements; seal coating; and pathway projects.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the only anticipated reconstruction project, as previously authorized by the City Council, was for County Road D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street, a joint project with the City of Shoreview, and partially funded by Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds.

 

Discussion ensued on the Rice Street corridor and various segments proposed for reconstruction by Ramsey County, some delayed until 2016 unless funding was acquired and based on reconstruction along the I-35 roadway; timing of City infrastructure work in the corridor and cost perspectives for less invasive versus total reconstruction depending on those projections, possibly prior to Ramsey County’s work at their preference rather than as part of their project.  Mr. Schwartz advised that, due to other utilities located in the corridor, it may prove less expensive to actually do the work prior to Ramsey County’s reconstruction.

 

Mr. Schwartz reported on staff’s meetings with Xcel Energy staff and their intent to do a major gas transmission project on the south end of the corridor in 2013, creating a significant impact to the City’s pathway, and replaced with full ADA improvements as part of that project and at the expense of Xcel Energy.  Mr. Schwartz noted that, following that project, Ramsey County planned a mill and overlay on that south end of Rice Street.

 

Regarding sewer lining, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City Council had previously authorized staff to seek grant funds through the Metropolitan Council; and staff expected to hear within the next few weeks if their request for $400,000 toward this approximately $1 million sewer lining project (6.5 miles of sewer main) had been approved.  Mr. Schwartz displayed several problem sections as viewed through televising of the system; noting that the City was slowly making progress in its sewer rehabilitation efforts.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that, when relining sewer lines at offsets, typically they required digging up and repair prior to lining.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the City addressed a number of spot repairs annually; and if a significant number were found in one area, or found to be sagging, it was usually best to replace that section rather than line it.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that lining appeared to be holding up well to root intrusions due to the liner not having any seams.  Mr. Schwartz further advised that the City was trying to address how to take care of private service lines and connection and alert homeowners of any apparent problem areas as indicated.

 

Mr. Schwartz concurred with Mayor Roe’s observation that usual intrusions of roots are due to leaks in the pipe and roots seeking moisture; with the lining addressing that problem most effectively.

 

Mr. Schwartz reviewed the estimated total of $4.1 million for the overall 2013 projects; with staff still reviewing potential storm water improvements, pending receipt of Clean Water Legacy Funds already applied for.  Mr. Schwartz noted that any and all projects would come back before the City Council for authorization prior to moving forward.

 

Based on public feedback, Councilmember Willmus noted the need for some sort of signalized crosswalk at Chatsworth and County Road D in the vicinity of the Emmet D. Williams School.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that such a resolution was currently under discussion with the City of Shoreview. 

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2013 Preliminary Public Works Work Plan as presented.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted another problematic crosswalk north of Larpenteur Avenue at Lexington (cross street Dionne); and his observations of significant and frequent public safety issues for pedestrians at that intersection.  Councilmember Johnson questioned how those and similar situations could be sufficiently addressed.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that the referenced crosswalk was the one receiving the most complaints and concerns fielded by staff regarding the crosswalk and public safety issues.  Mr. Schwartz noted that staff had discussed the situation repeatedly with Ramsey County; but unfortunately that particular intersection, from a signal warrant perspective and disparate amount of side street traffic, did not score well.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the next step, beyond the temporary signs installed by the City, would be a pedestrian active, push button type of light; and advised that staff continued to work with Ramsey County seeking their support for such a solution.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested approaching newly-elected Ramsey County Commissioners; and offered to continue those efforts as a citizen, even after his City Council tenure ended.  Councilmember Johnson reiterated his concerns with Lexington Plaza on both sides, based on his observations.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey County would most likely approve installation of such a cross walk solution, if the City paid for it, based on similar situations in the past.  However, Mr. Schwartz emphasized that this would be totally a City cost; and noted that all such similar remedies on County roads already installed, had been done at City cost as well.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz estimated the cost to the City for a pedestrian activated signal to be between $15,000 and $20,000, depending on electrical and/or solar connections available.   Councilmember McGehee noted that a $20,000.00 expenditure to insure public safety and save lives seemed appropriate and necessary.

 

b.         Emergency Management Update

Fire Chief Tim O’Neill introduced Emergency Managers Battalion Chiefs Greg Peterson and David Brosnahan to provide an Emergency Management Update.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, while sirens may be intended to be heard outside, in many cases with windows closed or air conditioners running, they needed to be heard inside buildings as well.

 

Chief Peterson advised that there was a value to that, but there was also an additional cost related to additional decibel levels; thus the push for and value of weather alert radios for citizens.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the sirens had to meet existing outdoor warning standards, but indoor standards were not applied.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she raised the question based on the safety of the community and residents, with the type of structures and residents in Roseville; and suggested those elements be considered, opining that with current technology, there must be wireless or internal systems available for multi-family and/or larger senior populated areas to alert them.

 

Chief Peterson advised that the technology was out there, but was limited to what could be realistically paid for.  While citing several examples, Chief Peterson noted that typically those killed during a storm were those going outside to look at it or capture it on video.  Chief Peterson noted the need to educate and remind people behaviorally of the dangers.

 

Chief Brosnahan reviewed some new Emergency Management components based on recent reorganization of the Fire Department and their role for Emergency Management.  Chief Brosnahan addressed initiatives, including updating 2006 FEMA training for all city employees and to substantiate grant applications and elected officials, whether through on-line or classroom training.

 

Councilmember Johnson thanked the Fire Department and expressed his appreciation for the work they did and its importance to the community and collective community throughout the region, state and country.  Councilmember Johnson referenced his emergency training and certification as an elected official when first elected as a Councilmember; and while no longer a requirement beyond the Mayor, suggested that a certification program be reinstated as standard operating practice for elected officials.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it provided a very informative, in-depth training beyond his previously held shallow view of what actually occurred in local government during an emergency situation. 

 

Chief Brosnahan advised that it was the intent to get the City Council back into such a certification program, as part of FEMA command requirements for elected officials; at a minimum to provide an overview of the Mayor and Councilmember roles during an emergency.

 

Chief Peterson concurred, noting that the more elected officials knew about the emergency system, the better for the community.

 

Mayor Roe thanked staff for their presentation and their work with emergency management for the community and its residents.

 

14.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Liquor License Renewals

Mayor Roe introduced Finance Director Chris Miller who briefly presented those licenses for renewal for 2013, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 19, 2012.  Mr. Miller noted that those license renewals included: ten (10) off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses; eighteen (18) on-sale 3.2 non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses; eight (8) off-sale 3.2 non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses; twenty-five (25) on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses; four (4) club liquor licenses; and twelve (12) wine only liquor licenses.

 

Mr. Miller apologized for leaving Pour Decisions off the list included in the packet; but advised that they should be included on the list for 2013 for an on-sale and off-sale liquor license.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that Pour Decisions had applied for an on-sale liquor license, but had yet to pay the fee; however, he anticipated that they would facilitate that before year-end.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:45 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment as the City Council considers renewal of liquor licenses for the 2013 calendar year; with no one appearing for or against.

 

15.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Liquor License Renewals

          Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approved 2013 liquor license renewals for those establishments as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012; amended to add an On-Sale Brewery Tap Room license and an Off-Sale Malt Liquor license for Pour Decisions; with all 2013 approvals subject to receipt of full payment of applicable license fees.

 

          Councilmember McGehee provided her research and reading of State Statute for second class cities related to issuing off-sale liquor licenses to grocery stores, expressing concern regarding the Rainbow Grocery Store license.

 

          Mayor Roe clarified that the Rainbow license was for 3.2 non-intoxicating beer only, a different license category than referenced by Councilmember McGehee.

 

          Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

         

b.            Continue Discussion on 2013 Tax Levy Budget

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller referenced ongoing 2013 Tax Levy and Budget discussions, with the current RCA dated November 19, 2012, building on those previous City Council discussions and actions.  Mr. Miller noted that the RCA address those remaining items for City Council consideration and or direction prior to final adoption in December and year-end 2012.  Mr. Miller noted that those items included the work and recommendations of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee and their most recent recommendations to ensure transparency for the general public and as a reminder of previous decisions.  Mr. Miller noted that upcoming Budget Hearing scheduled for December 3, 2012, allowing for another question and answer opportunity between the City Council and residents.

 

Councilmember Willmus referenced his previous request in October regarding cash reserves, specifically in the Recycling Fund.  Councilmember Willmus suggested City Council discussion on whether those reserve funds continue to be maintained or used, at the City Council’s discretion, to decrease recycling rates for residents.  Councilmember Willmus sought what implications there would be if the City Council made a decision to return some of those funds to households having paid for recycling services over the years.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the City Council could direct that revenues received from all residential customers, both single-family and apartments, be returned; however, he noted that this would leave the City and that Recycling Fund more vulnerable to future declining revenues (e.g. SCORE grant funds).  City Manager Malinen cautioned that a bigger concern was if the City became heavily reliant on revenue sharing, currently being received from Eureka Recycling, if that goes away again as experienced in the past, the City would become more vulnerable and susceptible in the future.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that, at the core of his question, was his observation that even with revenue sharing, Roseville households were paying comparable to recycling rates in other communities without revenue sharing.

 

Finance Director Miller, with respect to other communities, a comparison would need to include their cost structure and direct and indirect costs; and offered to look into that in more depth at the City Council’s direction.

 

Mayor Roe recognized Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt.

 

Mr. Pratt offered to provide comparison rates as provided by Ramsey County for residential recycling; and stated that Roseville residents continued to pay the lowest rates in Ramsey County, $6.10 per household per quarter.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned the rationale in evaluating the merits of a contractor shown who offered revenue sharing versus those who do not offer it, if the pretense was that revenue sharing would be used to help subsidize recycling rates paid by households.

 

Mr. Pratt, while not aware of the source of Councilmember Willmus’ data, advised that in conversations with recycling coordinator peers, the City of Roseville’s rate remained lower than those with open collection.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned why revenue sharing was not used to subsidize rates.

 

Finance Director Miller clarified that those funds were used and included in projected costs. While recognizing that it was not an exact science, Mr. Miller advised that the $21,000 was projected as an operating surplus in 2012.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the annual budget averaged $500,000 in 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, unless she was unaware of something, the City was currently falling short by approximately $1.5 million short of its reserve targets, and unless those targets were adjusted, there didn’t appear to be much surplus available.

 

Related to using cash reserves for operating costs, Mayor Roe cautioned Councilmembers of two (2) considerations or issues to consider, as addressed in the RCA.  Mayor Roe noted that final year-end numbers remained variable and should provide for a cushion, with remaining 2012 revenues available for use in 2013, further reducing budget needs.  Mayor Roe opined that the public and City Council needed to be cognizant that to the extent reserves were used for ongoing levied costs, it simply deferred that levy increase to subsequent years, or necessitated use of those reserves again, and didn’t ultimately solve the problem, but simply deferred it. 

 

Regarding recycling, Councilmember Willmus questioned the need for a reserve fund for a service contracted on a three (3) year basis.

 

Mayor Roe questioned, while reserves could be put back into the rates, to what extent would be indicated to run a $500,000 program with limited reserves.

 

Finance Director Miller concurred, and also reminded Councilmembers of the timing of payments to the recycling contractor monthly and availability of cash flow with households paying recycling bills quarterly.  Mr. Miller noted that this required that a certain amount of reserves be available upfront for contractor payments before revenue was available from customers.

 

Mayor Roe noted that recycling fees were paid on a staggered basis by customers, providing a monthly cash flow, but not necessarily being sufficient when needed to meet the monthly contractor payment; however, noted that they were paid by customers in advance.

 

Finance Director Miller clarified that customers pay for three (3) months of service, after they had consumed that service, based on standard procedures; with the cash flow still needed by the City.

 

City Manager Malinen also noted in his review of the Recycling Fund financial summary, his recollection under the existing contractor when the market went bad, revenues were not meeting current projections, allowing for further vulnerability of the Fund.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that this was one of the pitfalls of a contract based on the commodities market.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she had less of a problem keeping some reserves available if and when needed to address a shortfall rather than passing it on to the customer.   This would allow some flexibility to achieve the goal and retain a level consumer fee.

 

Mayor Roe referenced (page 3 of 4 under Preliminary CIP Budget) the statement regarding items listed in the CIP or 2013 CIP not equated to the funding amount in the budget, or that set-aside versus expenditures.  Mayor Roe suggested the budget include revenue averages on an annual basis as well as reflecting expenditures on an annual basis.

 

Finance Director Miller noted that the City Council could do so; however, the budget would then experience huge fluctuations.  Historically, Mr. Miller advised that the City has shown averaged out expenditures, and while perhaps not clear in the documents, staff was not changing the City’s practice, nor trying to count things twice.

 

Mayor Roe advised that his concern was to have operating and capital budgets with an understanding that the operating budget is a balance of expenditures annually.  While this may be the best way to address it, Mayor Roe sought clarification on what the expenditure line item in the budget was if an annual CIP amount was averaged.  Mayor Roe advised that his intent was to ensure the budget adequately reflected and accounted for how best people could track it.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted receipt of a bench handout from Recycling Coordinator Pratt entitled “Comparison: Total Residential Recycling – Curbside, Multi-Unit, and Municipally-Sponsored Drop-Off Sites and Clean-up Events: pounds of Recycling per Household per Year, 2011.”  Regarding those rates, Councilmember Willmus questioned the accuracy of current rates and future projected rates.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the intent in sharing this with the City Council was for that particular column as referenced by Councilmember Willmus, was to provide a comparison across Ramsey County with other recycling fees by municipalities as reflected, with Roseville still the lowest rate.

 

Mayor Roe noted a consideration was needed to recognize that there may have been other changes in those other communities as well since 2011.

 

Finance Director Miller, attempting to link one more item, noted that in 2012, Eureka charges were $2.58 for pick-up, and in 2013 were at $2.63 per month, or $7.89 per quarter.  Mr. Miller noted that the City charged residents $6.20 per quarter, with the difference made up by revenue sharing and the SCORE grant.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Miller for responses to tonight’s discussion, and the materials as presented and detailed.

 

Mayor Roe reminded the public of their next opportunity to comment on the 2013 Budget and Levy at the December 3, 2012 regular City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m.

 

c.            Adopt Assessment Policy

Mayor Roe advised that, during tonight’s meeting, staff had found a potential problem with the draft Policy as presented; and that it had subsequently been pulled from tonight’s agenda and would be included on a future agenda for consideration.

 

d.            Adopt Electric Undergrounding Policy

Public Works Director Schwartz briefly reviewed revisions and/or new language to the Policy since last heard by the City Council at their July 2012 meeting (lines 79, lines 84-86), as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that the revisions represented his understanding of those previous discussions; and complimented staff on making those revisions.

 

Mayor Roe, regarding Attachment A, questioned if “City” or “City Council” was most applicable (lines 13, 16, 22, and other areas); opining that this was actually a City policy, not a City Council policy; and suggested making an adjustment to the language accordingly and as appropriate.

 

City Attorney Gaughan suggested that in leaving language as currently written, it required City Council action before exercising a provision of a policy, not delegating authority to staff, but requiring City Council action.

 

Discussion ensued on current language; definition of authority and action of the City Council; with the ultimate decision to defer to the recommendations of the City Attorney and leave language as presented.

 

          Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Overhead Electric Undergrounding Policy (Attachment A) as presented; and as recommended by the City Council’s Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Advisory Commission.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Court Citation – 3261 Old Highway 8 – Outdoor Storage

As previously noted, this item was removed from tonight’s agenda.

 

f.             Approve Contract for Prosecuting Legal Services

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed his recommendation to approve a 2013-2015 contract for prosecution services with Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn, as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.  City Manager Malinen advised that this was the result of previous City Council authorization for the City Manager to negotiate with the current firm for civil and prosecution services for 2013 – 2015.  Mr. Malinen advised that he had determined that an agreement was unable to be reached for civil legal services and was currently out for proposals for those services.  Therefore, Mr. Malinen advised that the requested approval was specific to prosecution services only, as addressed in Attachment A.

 

Discussion ensued regarding any impacts in separating services, with it noted that the City had two separate firms in the past, and often services and/or interest was based on areas of expertise of bidding firms.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2013 – 2015 contract for prosecution services (Attachment A) with Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn, as recommended by City Manager Malinen, and as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

g.            Consider Accepting the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Subcommittee Reports and Recommendations

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller, provided a brief background and history of reports to-date of the CIP Subcommittee consisting of him, Councilmember Johnson, Mayor Roe, and City Manager Malinen.  Mr. Miller noted that those recommendations were detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012. 

 

Mr. Miller advised that the intent of the requested action was to memorialize those efforts and expectations for future City Councils to retain funding mechanisms for capital needs of the City.  Mr. Miller noted the intent that those recommendations be revisited and amended as appropriate with each future biennial budget cycle.

 

As a member of the Subcommittee, Mayor Roe emphasized one item (line 326 on, page 9 of 10 of the September 10, 2012 report) and additional recommendations included that further recommended changes adopted to the existing CIP to require biennial review of projections to ensure they keep pace with inflation, etc. and graphs met moving forward.  Mayor Roe noted that this would make sure such action remained on the radar for future City Council consideration.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred; and thanked his fellow Subcommittee members for their fine contributions to what he considered a great effort in the right direction to keep the City on track over the long term.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it had been a privilege to work with each of the Subcommittee members; and that there had been good feedback to-date from the public; and expressed appreciation to the full body for their buy-in with CIP Subcommittee recommendations.

 

Going forward, Councilmember McGehee questioned if it would be possible to have a look ahead, because the public had brought to her attention, to be sure that when major vehicles were replaced (e.g. fire trucks) those allotted budget funds would not simply piggyback on what was set aside for those expenditures.  She requested some assurance that there would be a mechanism in place to keep that from happening.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that those funds used for major equipment be used to reduce other financial impacts.

 

Also, Councilmember McGehee requested that rather than laying all expenditures for water, sewer, storm water on fees to be paid by residents, that consideration be given to bonding for those expenditures, similar to practice by other communities.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this would relieve some of the burden on residents; noting that the City of Roseville’s fee for basic water hook up was extremely high compared with other cities.  While in overall agreement with the CIP, Councilmember McGehee suggested that some of the burden be shifted from individual residences; and to encourage conservation efforts.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that, if there was no plan to purchase another major vehicle, there would be no need to set aside that money.  However, Mayor Roe noted that vehicles would continue to need replacement unless restructuring departments or reducing the amount of apparatus needed to serve the public was done, the intent was that those needs would be handled through the CIP policy.  Mayor Roe emphasized that the purpose of an annual set aside for CIP needs was intended to stabilize annual needs versus levy increase spikes.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the increase in water and sewer fees had been a policy decision of the City Council majority; and whether or not that rate structure changed would be up to future City Councils.  Therefore, Mayor Roe advised that he would not be willing to memorialize such a stipulation in this proposed action.

 

In response to Councilmember McGehee’s concern with water, sewer and storm water needs as part of the CIP process, Councilmember Johnson and Mayor Roe advised that those needs were taken into account working within the structures given.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, in using bonds, they had to be paid back with fees or taxes; and opined that by paying fees upfront for infrastructure needs, bond interest was avoided.  Mayor Roe further opined that, while the CIP Subcommittee looked into bonding as part of their discussions, it didn’t make sense for fixed, ongoing expenditures.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11027 entitled, “Resolution Accepting the Recommendations Set Forth by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Subcommittee Concerning the City’s Capital Replacement Programs.”

 

          Mayor Roe noted that, with actions taken by the current City Council over the last two (2) years, and through adoption of the remaining recommendations of the CIP Subcommittee over the next five (5) years if implemented, it should put the City of Roseville in a position for a sustainable and predictable future, with consistent levies from year to year beyond inflationary and/or emergency costs, or new initiatives undertaken.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

 

h.            Authorize Issuance of Website Request for Proposals (RFP’s)

At the request of Mayor Roe, Communications Specialist Tim Pratt briefly reviewed efforts directed to staff by the City Council to improve communications with residents.  Mr. Pratt noted that, as detailed in Attachment A (Requests for Proposals) to the RCA dated November 19, 2012, this included improvements to its electronic communications.  Mr. Pratt noted that this was further referenced in the subsequent Final Report and Recommendations of the Roseville Neighborhood & Community Engagement Task Force.

 

Mr. Pratt reviewed industry standards, current provider versus costlier providers, enhanced technologies since the current City website was developed, and current interest in services for mobile platforms.  Mr. Pratt reviewed some of the ways this new technology could work, including alerting the City to safety or problem issues with GPS coordination, and incorporation into the City’s asset management program, as well as allowing residents to track resolution of those issues, thereby serving to improve communication for residents and customers.

 

Discussion included who would evaluate proposals when received, with Mr. Pratt advising that a staff committee had been formed from departments city-wide, at least those departments considered heavy users of the system.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested including Jeanne Kelsey on that Committee based on her work with the Living Smarter website and its success. 

 

Mr. Pratt advised that at the discretion of Community Development Director Trudgeon, she was certainly welcome to serve; and opined that it made sense.  Mr. Pratt clarified that the RFP had been developed through a needs assessment from all departments, including the HRA, to incorporate their needs, one of which was to incorporate the Living Smarter website into the City website.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Pratt advised that each department head had expressed the desire to be able to manage their own area through additions or alterations, as is currently available to them rather than a central management individual.

 

Further discussion included limitations of the current website unable to offer responsible design for mobile applications; proprietary set-ups of vendors; and Mr. Pratt’s current and ongoing responsibility for the City’s branding (rose emblem) for continuity.

 

Councilmember Willmus also suggested including someone from the Civic Engagement Task Force on the RFP review group if appropriate.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it made sense to have the basic needs of the City satisfied and to address accessibility issues from the City as a user; and suggested having representatives from various advisory commissioners, also users, provide their feedback on the finalists through practical application.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, once a vendor was selected, it would include some beta testing or solicitation of frequent users of e-communications to receive their feedback. 

 

Mr. Pratt concurred, noting that this provision was included in the RFP criteria.

 

Further discussion included better directions on the website for staff contacts as applicable while maintaining the appropriate chain of command.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP’s) for redesign of the City’s website, as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.

 

          Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:47 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:51 pm.

i.             Consider Ethics Complaint Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed the background of the Ethics Complaint received (Attachment A) and written City Attorney response (Attachment B), as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012.

 

City Manager Malinen noted the process outlined by the City’s Ethics Code, with this complaint being the first practical application of the process itself.  Upon presentation of the City Attorney’s written report to the Ethics Commission, the Ethics Commission recommended that the City Council accept the report, dismissing the complaint due to the determination that there had been no violation of the City’s Ethics Code by the Human Rights Commission, the City Council or the City Manager.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the complainant had appeared before the Ethics Commission asking for an opportunity to testify; however, pursuant to City Code guiding the Commission, it was their determination that they were not an investigative body, and their rationale for not opening public testimony would only serve to add more to the record subsequent to research and receipt of the written report on information received up to that point.  City Manager Malinen advised that a concern was that this could conceivably become a back and forth dialogue, requiring an additional response.  City Manager Malinen noted that the complainant had asked to withdraw the complaint; however, the Ethics Commission had voted not to do so; and stood by their recommendation to the City Council and the requested City Council action tonight.

 

Being recognized by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he had no additional verbal comments, believing that the written report spoke for itself.  City Attorney Gaughan reminded City Councilmembers that they were not a court of law, and the City’s Ethics Code did not provide for a public hearing similar to that used when an appeal was received of an administrative decision.  City Attorney Gaughan opined that the process had been followed appropriately.

 

For the record, Mayor Roe referenced an e-mail sent to the City Council’s general e-mail account dated November 17, 2012, by the complainant, seeking to withdraw the complaint.

 

City Attorney Gaughan recommended that the City Council take action to bring closure to the ethics complaint filed and subsequently investigated by his office through action tonight, whether or not the complainant now wished to withdraw the complaint for whatever purpose.  City Attorney Gaughan opined that there was no harm for the City Council to address any potential issue of violation; and it would conclude an efficient process and dispose of any complaint activity to-date related to this matter.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there would be any problem if the City Council simply accepted the complainant’s withdrawal.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that this was the City’s Ethics Code, and not governed by state law.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that the current Code framework did not provide those answers; but suggested that the City Council address the complaint as recommended in the RCA, rather than simply leaving the issue open, whether or not the complainant chose to withdraw the complaint or not.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that, once the City received a complaint, it behooved them to address it expeditiously rather than subjecting the City to the preferred time frame of the complainant.  City Attorney Gaughan questioned whether or not this would hypothetically dissuade a complainant from filing a complaint seeking to realize their preferred outcome or response through withdrawal and repeated re-filing. City Attorney Gaughan reiterated his recommendation to the City Council that they address the complaint as received and as recommended by the Ethics Commission based on the City Attorney’s written review and finding.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that there was nothing in the City’s Ethics Code preventing re-filing of a complaint even if and when it was addressed by the City Council.

 

City Attorney Gaughan concurred, noting that at the last Ethics Commission meeting, given the newness of this code for the  City, they had determined that it was within their purview to adopt amendments or alterations to the existing code.  If a scenario developed that a complainant filed over and over again, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would then encourage the City to amend their code to put a mechanism in place to end that practice.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the Ethics Commission had already created a Subcommittee to work with staff to review some of those areas.  City Manager Malinen advised that the good news was that this was the first time during his tenure and re-creation of the Ethics Commission that they had received a formal complaint; with subsequent areas found through the process that needed to be strengthened.  As part of the process, City Manager Malinen noted that the complainant had advised the Ethics Commission of their intent to withdraw the complaint in order to re-file it.

 

          McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, received the City Attorney’s report and adopt the Ethics Commission recommendation to accept the report and dismissal of a recent Ethics Complaint; and to further direct Ethics Commission to undertake a review of current Ethics Codes now in place and provide their recommendation for any alterations based on practical application of this first process.

 

            Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, rationalizing that the process set up does not prevent a complainant from re-filing regardless of what action was taken by the City Council.  Councilmember Willmus opined that by voting to accept the recommendation as presented, there was no assurance that the complainant would not re-file. Councilmember Willmus advised that it would be his personal preference to make a motion accepting withdrawal of the complaint.

 

          Councilmember Johnson opined that this appeared to be an issue of control; and since the City had proceeded through the process with an individual taking action against an advisory commission to the City Council, the City Council itself, and its City Manager, the decision needed to be addressed through that process and subsequent recommendations.  Councilmember Johnson opined that control needed to remain within this body in accordance with that process, and further opined that he was not willing to give up that control.

 

          Councilmember Willmus opined that the control spoken of by Councilmember Johnson was perceived, and there was nothing to prevent the complainant from re-filing.

 

          Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Willmus; however, he stood by his support of the motion.

 

          Councilmember McGehee opined that it didn’t make any difference what action the City Council took; however, the action could close this chapter, and direct the Ethics Commission to review the process. Should the complainant choose to re-file, Councilmember McGehee noted that they could do so, but the City would have lost nothing.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.         

            Nays: Willmus.

            Motion carried.

 

13.      Business Items – Presentations / Discussions

 

a.            City Manager Report of Annual International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) Conference

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a brief report on his recent attendance at the annual International City Manager Association (ICMA) annual meeting held in Arizona.  City Manager Malinen expressed his appreciation to the City Council for the opportunity to network with his peers; and provided several highlights that he had brought back from the meeting and shared with the City’s Department Heads.

 

Discussion included current Joint Powers Agreements (JPA’s) for Information Technology services and potential liability and cost to the City from potential hackers; and how those liabilities could or would be shared among partners; and technology in place to prevent such invasions.

 

Mayor Roe thanked City Manager Malinen for his feedback; and advised this could serve as a preview of others attending similar events or educational opportunities and bringing that information back to share with the organization.

 

Further discussion included interesting webinar opportunities with Councilmember McGehee offering to share possibilities with City Manager Malinen on a case by case basis to expand the audience to benefit more.

 

b.            Receive City Manager Evaluation Report

As a result of tonight’s Closed Executive Session for City Manager Malinen’s annual evaluation, Mayor Roe provided a brief summary.  Mayor Roe noted that the City Manager was the only employee reporting directly to the City Council; and advised that the outcome of the performance review was that it continued to be satisfactory to the City.  Mayor Roe advised that areas of improvement were indicated from recommendations of the last annual review; and as part of the 360 degree review process completed through Survey Monkey, improvement had been noted in several areas. 

 

On a personal note, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council’s performance standards continued to evolve and raise the bar higher; however, he advised that through working together and mutual accomplishments, it benefited the City as an organization, as well as the community at large.  Mayor Roe advised that overall, the goals set together were being achieved, and the review process would move toward a semi-annual performance review, with a subcommittee developed to determine that format. 

 

Mayor Roe advised that City Manager Malinen had reached the maximum level in the step increase process; and therefore would only be eligible for the 2% COLA increase similar to all City staff for 2013.

 

c.            Discuss the Use of Prevailing Wages on City Projects

Mayor Roe advised that this item may not have been the intent of Councilmember McGehee when it was requested, and offered her the floor.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she had originally brought up this topic when the City was being picketed related to construction of its fire station; and the comments of a resident and former firefighter regarding the City’s use of union employees.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she was aware that some municipalities and other levels of government had requirements in place regarding the percentage of union employees on specific jobs.  Since one of the City’s goals was to provide living wage jobs, Councilmember McGhee noted that it was less than impressive for the City to be picketed for its use of labor on a large, municipal building.  At that time, Councilmember McGehee advised that she didn’t know if other Councilmembers shared an interest in reviewing the situation to see if they wanted to do something about it.

 

City Manager Malinen clarified that he had titled this item in accordance with advice of the City’s legal counsel in using “prevailing wages” versus union-specific requirements.

Public Comment

Sax Roberts, 2570 Pascal

Mr. Roberts advised that his immediate reaction to this agenda item was that it seemed that the concept of prevailing wages was another name for union wages.  As he started further reviewing the topic, Mr. Roberts noted that a lot of states in the country, including MN, use that concept; and referenced a publication by the State of MN with various categories of actual union rates.  In his review of some of those rates, Mr. Roberts noted his astonishment in several of those commercial areas for 2012, and laborers at $90,000 in wages and fringe benefits.  Mr. Roberts questioned what value prevailing wages would be to Roseville citizens; while recognizing the value to union members.  However, Mr. Roberts questioned how it would benefit him as a Roseville resident; and sought clarification of the perspective provided in requesting this discussion, and of what value it provided to citizens.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that the issue came forward when construction began on the fire station and picketing began; as well as through comments she had heard from a former firefighter and Roseville resident, who felt strongly that non-union employees should not be used for the construction of a municipal building.  At that time, Councilmember McGehee advised that she would recommend a discussion at the City Council level addressing those concerns, and what she considered to be a legitimate request from a Roseville citizen. 

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she personally supported providing living wages; and as a society, she didn’t believe there was any benefit by having a family structure without adequate living wages and health benefits for citizens.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she found it unfortunate that people in the community working at places like Target, the incoming Wal-Mart facility, and other retail establishments were benefits, and without regular hours so their income remained low and in flux.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, when Roseville residents were asked to provide $8 million for a municipal building within the community, shouldn’t the City Council and community pay those people hired a reasonable living wage.  Councilmember McGehee advised that it was her personal belief that employees should be paid a reasonable living wage.  She noted that staff wages in assisted living facilities, nursing homes and the retail industry were at or just above minimum wage.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal shame in those wages and the choices faced by those individuals and families trying to have adequate food, shelter, and medical care on limited wages.  With 43% of families in School District No. 623 receiving free or reduced price lunches, Councilmember McGehee noted this was another indication of wage issues in our own community. 

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that her intent was to put the issue before people to think about in determining the City’s ethical values; and while recognizing that in many cases it would raise the cost for Roseville citizens; she opined that sometimes more skilled employees and more efficiency balanced out those costs.  Councilmember McGehee recognized that Mr. Roberts’ questions were legitimate to ask as a resident of Roseville, “what is in it for Roseville residents.”  Councilmember McGehee stated that, for her personally, it provided a community where she felt that policies of the city government had not driven someone into the ground.

 

Councilmember Johnson asked if Councilmember McGehee’s intent was that 100% union forces be used on a project; to which she responded in the negative.  Based on that response, Councilmember Johnson concluded that a mix was amenable to Councilmember McGehee to which she concurred.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that of the twenty (20) contracts for the fire station construction, seventeen (17) of them were found to be provided by union workers.

 

Councilmember McGehee admitted that once she had become aware of that, she had no further problems with the issue.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that, as a business person, he often found that more craftsmen took on bigger problems, and opined that he welcomed a mix of workers.  Councilmember Johnson further opined that the caliber of contractors outside union forces didn’t typically do large-scale work.  While not having had this discussion going into the fire station project and process, Councilmember Johnson noted that there were no current policies in place requiring such a balance or union versus non-union or prevailing wages.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the issue didn’t enter into the equation until a resident became disturbed with strikers; and after the facts were uncovered, he didn’t have any lingering concerns.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she was basically satisfied with the 80% level for contracts.

 

Mayor Roe noted that seventeen (17) of the twenty (20) contracts were with union employees, who were the winning bidders.

 

14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

 

Mayor Roe noted that he forgot to mention during discussion of awarding the Prosecuting Attorney contract whether any Councilmembers were interested in serving on the evaluation/interview group for selection of Civil Attorneys.  Mayor Roe advised that, if there was no interest from his peers, he would serve during the interviewed scheduled for November 29 and November 30, 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee offered her services as a listener during the process without concerns that a quorum was present.

 

City Manager Malinen cautioned that this would be fine up to a point, without this becoming a public meeting.

 

Mayor Roe suggested as part of the education/orientation of newly-elected Councilmembers, they should be updated on the performance management process.

 

A brief discussion was held regarding procedure for bench handouts; those items available to the public in the City Council Chambers in accordance with Open Meeting Law provisions; and previous requests to obtain the tentative agenda items electronically, duly noted by City Manager Malinen for future reference.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked that, at the January 7, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council meeting schedule be brought forward for the benefit of newly-elected Councilmembers and their comment.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the schedule could be changed at the discretion of the body at any time.

 

i.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

ii.        Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:43 pm.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.      

            Nays: None.