City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

February 11, 2013

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.

 

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Items 7.g and 7.i respectively entitled, “Approve Teamsters 2013-2015 Contract Terms;” and “Establish Sale Date for 2013 Refunding Bonds.”

 

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

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; 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 and Announcements

Councilmember Willmus announced an opportunity to support local military troops and their families, as part of the North Suburban Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program, scheduled for the second Monday of each month (upcoming events scheduled on March 11 and April 8, 2013, at the White Bear Lake V.F.W. on Highways 96 and 61 in White Bear Lake, with burgers and chips available for $5.00 each.

 

Councilmember Laliberte announced the upcoming meeting of the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 7:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, with plans presented for Lexington Park.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this park renewal had been approved with various discussions during 2012; and that the purpose of this meeting was for review, funding sources, and to seek guidance from residents and park stakeholders.

 

Councilmember Etten announced the next seven week session of Roseville University every other Thursday from 6:30 – 9:00 pm, starting on February 28, 2013.  Councilmember Etten noted that this interactive process provides a fun and informative behind-the-scenes look at local government.  Roseville U is free, but space limited, residents were asked to sign up to keep class sizes reasonable; with sign up available at City Hall or via the City’s website.

 

Councilmember McGehee announced vacancies on various City Council Advisory Commissions (Ethics Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission), and encouraged citizens interested in applying to seek applications on the City’s website or through calling City Hall at 651/792-7001; with the application deadline at 4:30 pm on February 28, 2013.

 

Mayor Roe announced scholarships available for communications/journalism students in member cities of the North Suburban Cable commission, including Roseville, with application and additional information available at CTVNorthSuburbs.org with an application deadline of April 12, 2013.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked staff to provide information to the NextDoor website regarding commission vacancies.

 

Mayor Roe, in his role as City Council liaison and Board Member to the North Suburban Cable Commission, provided the “100 hours” report to Councilmembers regarding various services provided to member cities by CTV staff, at no cost.  Mayor Roe noted that the City of Roseville had the highest participation of any member city in 2012, and expressed his appreciation that the City was taking advantage of this valuable service.  Mayor Roe advised that he had requested CTV to provide a comparable valuation of those services, if obtained at market rates, with that information still pending. 

 

Mayor Roe also noted that Comcast had recently announced their transfer from analog to digital service, requiring an adapter, free of charge to cable users for up to two for customers with certain levels of service.  Mayor Roe noted that this had caused some confusion, and some difficulty in contacting Comcast for further information and clarification.  Mayor Roe advised that the Cable Commission was another source of information and a resource for customer service assistance with the transition and adapters.  Mayor Roe advised that Comcast was implementing a different model for customer service entitled “Centers of Excellence” with each location focusing on a specific area of customer service.  Mayor Roe noted that, unfortunately, this had created some challenges and/or long delays; and wanted to make the public aware that Comcast was attempting to resolve those issues.  Mayor Roe clarified that universal service for city channels was available at no charge, and misinformation had been given by some Comcast customer service representatives who were unfamiliar with the provision.  Mayor Roe encouraged the public to be persistent, and suggested that they contact the North Suburban Cable Commission to resolve any outstanding issues.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised that a resident needed cable to receive universal services, such as City Council meeting broadcast; however, he noted that residents can also stream City videos via the web as well.

         

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

 

6.         Approve Minutes

 

a.            Approve Minutes of January 28, 2013 Meeting

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 28, 2013, meeting as amended.

 

Corrections:

Page 2, line 27 (Laliberte)

·         Correct meeting date to May 30, 2013.

Page 21, line 39 (Laliberte)

·         Typographical correction for Finance Director Miller’s name

 

                                                            Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

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 Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$736,055.97
68888 – 69065	1,567,069.48
Total	$2,303,125.45

                                                           

                                                            Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

A revised Request for Council Action dated February 11, 2013 was provided as a bench handout.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller advised that there was a misprint in the original list of exempt gambling licenses, with one carryover that had already been approved at a previous City Council meeting.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location	Type of License
New Dragon Acupressure Massage, LLC 320 Rosedale Center	Massage Therapy Establishment
Aurielle Moyer at Roseville Lifetime Fitness 2480 Fairview Avenue N	Massage Therapist
Hayley Espelien at Massage Envy Roseville 2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120	Massage Therapist
Sixiu Liu, Cun Liu, Simon Chan, Yan Xu, Dong Sui at New Dragon Acupressure 320 Rosedale Center	Massage Therapist
Samantha Miller at Massage Xcape 1767 N Lexington Avenue	Massage Therapist
H.E.A.R.T. (Help Enable Alcoholic Addicts Receive Treatment), Inc.; 1315 Red Fox Road #400; Arden Hills, MN Raffle scheduled at Midland Hills Country Club 2001 Fulham Street, Roseville, MN (August 12, 2013)	Exempt Gambling

                                                           

                                                            Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

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

A revised Request for Council Action dated February 11, 2013 was provided as a bench handout.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:

 

Department	Vendor	Description	Amount
Information Technology	Access Communications	Fiber locates and maintenance services (cost-share with Roseville Schools, Ramsey County Library, and TIES, with net cost to Roseville of $7,800)	$23,064.08
Communications	Alpha Video	BSS Audio DSP Platform	18,688.00
Communications	Alpha Video	Broadcast Pix Switcher	31,202.00
Streets	Bituminous Roadways	Asphalt patching material for parking lots (State Bid Contract)	15,000.00
Streets	Commercial Asphalt	Asphalt patching material for streets (State Bid Contract)	15,000.00
Fire	OHara Ranger GM	Chevy Suburban – replacement vehicle (State Bid Contract)	38,588.91

 

d.            Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2013 Apportionment of Assessments

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11049 (Attachment A) entitled, Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2013.”

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Accept City Attorney Evaluation Report

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, acceptance of the City Manager’s Evaluation Report of the City Attorney.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

f.             Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller responded that Ramsey County only assessed these charges at the end of each year; however, the purpose for the City to record them quarterly was to make sure the information was available to title companies and others for property sale information.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that staff was not tracking properties with repeat unpaid utility or other charges, as the City continued to collect the money through property tax assessments.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11050 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2014 or Beyond;” as detailed in Attachment B.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

h.    Set a Public Hearing on February 25, 2013 regarding the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association’s Request for Placement of Water Ski Course and Jump on Lake Owasso

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, establishing a Public Hearing for the City Council meeting of February 25, 2013, to provide an opportunity for public comment regarding placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso for the 2013 season.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

j.     Approve Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Roseville and the City of St. Paul for use of the St. Paul Fire Department’s Training Facility

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorization of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the Cities of Roseville and St. Paul for use of the St. Paul Fire Department Training Facility.

                       

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

k.    Authorize Acceptance of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Inflow and Infiltration Grant Funds

Councilmember McGehee pointed out the significant amount of grants processed through the Public Works Department for several upcoming projects, and thanked them for their efforts on behalf of the community.

 

Mayor Roe noted receipt of this specific grant as a result of the City’s annual membership in the Metro Cities organization.

 

          Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11051(Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Accepting Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration/Inflow Grant and Designating an Authorized Representative for the Project;” in accordance with Contract No. SG2013-024 (Attachment A); with funding awarded in the amount of $433,136 to the City of Roseville for improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure to reduce inflow/infiltration; and designating the Public Works Director as authorized representative for the project.

                                   

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

                        Nays: None.

 

l.     Authorize Acceptance of Board of Water and Soil Resources FY 2013 Competitive Grant Program Grant Funds

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, acceptance of Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) FY2013 Competitive Grants Program Grant Funds in the amount of $359,100, for improvements to Evergreen Park as detailed in Grant Agreement CWF13-163 (Attachment A); and designating the Public Works Director as authorized representative for the project.

                       

                                                            Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

8. Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

g.    Approve Teamsters 2013 – 15 Contract Terms

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a brief review of the contract provisions, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 11, 2013. 

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if a three (3) year, 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) would provide parity for all employees not in a bargaining unit.  Councilmember McGehee noted that that results remained pending from the compensation study, and questioned why those results, originally anticipated in December of 2012, had not yet been seen.  In terms of a general parity policy, Councilmember McGehee questioned if a three (3) year contract was appropriate.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that this bargaining unit, this one the Police Sergeant’s unit with five (5) employees as at 100% of the market now.  For 2013, Mr. Malinen noted that the budget allowed for all employees to receive a 2% increase, providing parity with the first year of the contract; and COLA was trending at 2% for 2014 in the marketplace as well.  Mr. Malinen noted that only difference was with the third year.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred that locking into a contract for three (3) years at 2%, while not yet having determined what all employees will be receiving during those three years, didn’t seem prudent. 

 

City Manager Malinen cautioned that this unit has arbitration rights and associated costs for such mediation, and if that should occur, those negotiations will be focused externally versus internally in regard to equity.  Mr. Malinen advised that arbitrators typically lean toward bargaining units versus municipalities; and noted that an advantage of the third year to the City also provided a known budget amount moving forward.

 

Regarding the compensation study, Mr. Malinen advised that Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon was in communication with Springsted, and the study was expected within the next month; and advised that unfortunately the study had been delayed some, as well as deferred for a new City Council coming on board.

 

Mayor Roe noted that staff’s recommendation appeared to get the three years locked in to avoid risks associated through arbitration.

 

After those further details were provided by City Manager Malinen, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to avoid risking arbitration; however, she didn’t want the City Council to be forced by five employees in a bargaining unit to be bound at 2% for three years for all employees.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions for the 2013 – 2015 collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 11, 2013; and directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents for executive, subject to City Attorney approval as to legal form.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

i.          Establish Sale Date for 2013 Refunding Bonds

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a brief summary of the request, as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2012.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller advised that the City of Roseville structures all of its bond issues with an early call feature; and anticipated a cost for refinancing these bonds at approximately $6,500.00.  Mr. Miller noted that the savings projections by staff were based on the City’s Triple-A bond rating and bond issues among other cities at this time.  However, Mr. Miller advised that until March 11, 2013, staff wouldn’t know how accurate those projections had been, depending on today’s market across the nation and the market over that next 30-day period.  Mr. Miller clarified that the impact on the City’s tax levy would not take effect until 2015, at which time the City Council could decide how to apply that savings, whether to reduce the levy or apply it elsewhere.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that the City was not obligated to accept any of the offers made, and could choose to reject all bids and reassess whether or not it made sense to rebid or wait.  Mr. Miller noted that the City’s portfolio was not earning significant interest at this time, and right now it was to the City’s advantage not to pay off this bond issue at this time other than for philosophical reasons in paying off debt early.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11052 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $4,145,000 General Obligation Municipal Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A;” scheduling the sale date for issuance for March 11, 2013.

 

                                       Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

12. General Ordinances for Adoption

 

13. Presentations

 

a.    Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair

Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey announced Roseville’s upcoming 17^th Annual Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair on Saturday, February 16, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Fairview Community Center at 1910 West County Road B.  Ms. Kelsey recognized event sponsors, and revised expanded workshop offerings planned this year.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Kelsey provided a brief description of universal design, providing home adaptations for aging-in-place (e.g. grab bars, ramps) and noted that a grant program would be offered to assist with those universal design projects as well.  Ms. Kelsey noted the differences in universal design for newly constructed versus existing homes, and the needs to accommodate people at all states of their life as applicable.

 

Discussion included how the twenty-five (25) homeowners were selected for universal design grants; with Ms. Kelsey advising that it would be on a first come, first served opportunity through contact with the firm; and while one (1) homeowner had expressed interest through preliminary advertising, the intent was to kick-off the program at the Home & Garden Fair.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that next year’s fair provide an opportunity for radon test kits.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Kelsey advised that sponsors provided $750 each, and in addition to the marketing opportunities at the Fair, also received direct links to the Living Smarter website, and first opportunity to do workshops.  Ms. Kelsey noted that over half of the sponsors didn’t even do workshops, but continued their sponsorship based on their commitment to the community and ability to provide marketing materials at the Fair.

 

Mayor Roe noted that Councilmembers would be available at the Welcoming Table; and Ms. Kelsey noted that HRA Board Members would also be available to serve and engage with the community, with computer hook-ups for the Green Remodeling website and a multitude of other web pages.

 

b.    Parks and Recreation Renewal Program

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke presented ongoing evolution of the Renewal program, focusing on the public engagement strategy, implementation schedule, and park improvement meeting schedule, all detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013.

 

Public Engagement Strategy

Mr. Brokke noted the intent for this to remain an interactive process, with many larger projects requiring additional design, and community input sought to inform, consult and collaborate.  Mr. Brokke noted that the southwest area of the community had been identified as an area needing more efforts to garner further information.  Mr. Brokke noted that the meetings would be formatted to provide consistent information throughout the various projects and would be done based on a prototype of the Lexington Park meeting scheduled for tomorrow night.  Mr. Brokke noted that the Renewal Program budgets had been defined, along with specific projects for each neighborhood, with neighborhood engagement sought throughout the implementation process.

 

Implementation Schedule

Mr. Brokke reviewed the process, with initial meetings followed by findings from those meetings, and then development of plans and specifications as applicable.  Mr. Brokke noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission would also be reviewing all projects over the next several months, and this would provide another opportunity for the public to attend those meetings.

 

Park Improvement Meeting Schedule

Mr. Brokke noted that the Best Value Procurement process was being used, and continued to work well for future requests for proposals (RFP’s).  Mr. Brokke reviewed the RFP process in seeking proposals for playground vendors, as an example, as well as a Natural Resource Lead Consultant, and coordination with the City Attorney and Arizona State University to develop those RFP’s.  Mr. Brokke noted that regular updates to the City Council were planned to seek input and approvals as appropriate.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Brokke clarified that the receipt of only two responses to the Natural Resources Consultant RFP was due to it being a relatively small contract compared to some; but noted the other ways that natural resources people would be involved along the way.  Mr. Brokke advised that the proposals were still in process and being sorted, and he had not seen either yet, so he was unable to comment further; and would not know if either or both were acceptable.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Brokke provided the various ways outreach was being done through list serves to neighborhoods, and other strategies as outlined to alert neighborhoods to the process.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke reviewed the general 500 foot minimum notice area for neighborhoods, with some flexibility based on specific surrounding areas; with the intent to attract and involve as many park users as possible.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke reviewed approvals by the City Council for any expenditures over $5,000.00; in addition to other projects where City Council input was appropriate (e.g. buildings, shelters), including the ongoing updates planned.  Mr. Brokke noted that the typical process would involve the neighborhoods, then the Parks and Recreation Commission, and then the City Council for final approval.  Mr. Brokke noted that the Best Value Procurement process was new to all; and used the playground vendor RFP process as an example of how the neighborhood, system, constellation, and sector information as all provided to vendors beforehand.

 

Mr. Brokke encouraged Councilmembers to attend any of the scheduled meetings to observe; and discussion ensued as to how to keep the City Council informed, with a minimum overview or summary of the process so they remained aware of the feedback coming forward.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a one page, executive summary of the meetings, at which time the City Council could follow-up with any further questions or information needed.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested that it would be important for the City Council to be aware of positive or negative comments from specific neighborhoods, as well as any new ideas coming forward.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a summary similar to that provided to the Parks Master Plan Steering Committee to continue the communication and connection with the community; and further suggested a dedicated area on the City website where the public could gather additional information.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that there was already such a link; with Mr. Brokke adding that as projects are initiated, additional information, including that presented tonight, would be added to the website, along with photos, progress reports, and meeting scheduled for individual parks, as currently set up by the City’s Communications Department.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Brokke, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and all those involved in this process; and expressed his anticipation of more updates as the process became more involved.

 

14. Public Hearings

 

15. Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.    Consider Adopting the 2014-2015 Budget Calendar

Finance Director Chris Miller noted that the City Council and public had been introduced to the calendar process during the first biennial budget process in 2012/2013; and provided a tentative schedule as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013, with a description of each of those discussion topics.

 

On Page 4, Mr. Miller advised that the City Council was asked to adopt the 2014/2015 Budget Calendar by resolution to demonstrate to citizens and other interested parties that the City Council and staff were committed to a transparent process; and communicate with residents when there would be opportunities for them to participate in the process.  As additional information related to the budget, Mr. Miller referenced Attachment D, outlining the City’s Performance Management Program, for the first year of the budget process and some of the steps in the budget cycle.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that, while not having any issues with the calendar or process, he was wondering how new Councilmembers felt about this direction or another process.  In seeking their perspective, Councilmember Willmus advised that he struggled with last year’s process, and questioned if the City had received a benefit from the biennial approach or if it just needed further refinement.

 

While not having a problem in having a calendar, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was already far off the mark, with survey results scheduled for January, and not yet in process; as well as goal setting or review not completed.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had seen limited value in a biennial process, especially in items 1-4.  While supporting the intent for transparency, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in a different process, including even more opportunities for public contribution, completing a survey, and performing strategic planning, as well as refining the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) work, and other policies. 

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen clarified page 7 of Attachment B specific to goal setting, with the process for goal setting in Year One followed by development of strategic plans by department heads and adoption by the City Council as an organization-wide strategic plan.  Mr. Malinen advised that this would continue, with the stage set in 2013 for the upcoming 2014/2015 biennial budget cycle, which were not immediately part of the budget, but if and how to fund those new initiatives, with the next phase more about that process and setting priorities.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the program priority exercise was for the purpose of adjusting priorities as needed to guide funding choices for the next biennium budget. 

 

City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that discussion would also include how those priorities tied into the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process, and new initiatives, and how to fund higher ranked initiatives.  Mr. Malinen advised that in the strategic plan, new initiatives were linked with a program; and at the next City Council meeting, several hours had been devoted to answer questions on the Performance Measurement Program process in work session format, with minor business items scheduled at this time.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Manager Malinen reviewed the rationale in moving to a biennial versus annual budget process to allow for more emphasis on long-range vision policies translated into actionable strategies, with each thought out and researched well in advance by department heads, and freeing up some staff time from a traditional and historical annual budget cycle. 

Councilmember Etten stated that he struggled with the biennial budget concept, with a previous City Council setting goals and strategic plans for a new City Council.  Councilmember Etten opined that it made more sense to him that a strategic plan be set now for the upcoming two years.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he struggled with the language being used, since statutorily the City Council was obligated to set an annual budget; even though the first year’s budget was set with strong guidance for year two in the biennial process.  However, Councilmember Willmus suggested that the City Council needed to be cognizant that things change and some flexibility was needed, and expressed concern that those ideas could get lost in a two year process.

 

Mayor Roe stated, from his perspective, there was considerable flexibility available for year Two and revisions were made accordingly.  Mayor Roe advised that he was in agreement with the timing of strategic planning; however, he noted that the argument worked both ways, with existing City Councils setting budgets for odd years with new City Councilmembers coming in, and that this would always be an issue.  Mayor Roe suggested that it may make more sense to look at strategic planning for the first year of a newly-elected City Council; however, a counter-argument could be that the new City Council may not be as up to speed, and want a year to discuss strategic planning as they developed their budget expertise.  Mayor Roe concurred with the need for flexibility in the second year; however, he opined that it made the City Council remain committed to better long-range planning, as evidenced in development of a CIP that looked beyond five years.  Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to look at budgeting for a longer term, and a two year perspective served that purpose, as well as freeing up time for strategic planning.

 

As a big supporter of strategic planning, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of that planning in the first year for a new City Council, as they brought a fresh perspective with additional insight from the community based on their campaigning.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t like the formulaic strategic planning she observed last year, and preferred a broad discussion allowing for participation and more City Council and staff input.  With survey results and a new City Council, Councilmember McGehee opined that all 160 programs did not need review with many services or programs obvious and not needing to come into question.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to continue ranking all services and programs without taking considerable staff time, but needing to remain in context with overall strategic planning to determine if and when the course needed adjusting without starting over again.  Mayor Roe opined that the goal was to see where you wanted to be and continually adjust to get to that course, providing an approach for future decision-making, and taking into account previous strategic plans even if previous City Councils came up with that plan.

Councilmember McGehee opined that the plan had not been presented in such a way that it provided much flexibility, and reiterated her support of fresh ideas and a positive look at things, recognizing that adjustments can be made.

 

Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of an established calendar to provide information for the public’s reaction and participation.  However, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she struggled with a biennial budget, while recognizing the practicalities and staff time savings; and suggested perhaps considering the second year as more of a forecast versus a budget, and establishing a timeframe for that forecasting.  Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember McGehee for the need to base budgets and forecasts on resident priorities, not internal staff recommendations, while allowing that brainstorming informally and checking that against an established budget.

 

If the biennial approach is used, Mayor Roe opined that the City appeared to be a year off in its timing; with strategic planning done this year, but still allowing budget adoption in 2013 for 2014, and applying the calendar accordingly.  Mayor Roe opined that this was a good starting point, with a consistent process throughout the process allowing for reaction by the public, staff and City Council.  Mayor Roe suggested that the process should evolve, not start over, and grow from this with more strategic planning plugged in this year for the 2015/2016 budget cycle.

 

City Manager Malinen opined that a changing City Council may not make much difference, with the process developed to align with the state biennial cycle.  As everyone prepared for the February 25, 2013 discussion, City Manager Malinen suggested that as strategic plans were reviewed, the body had not yet gotten to the stage of understanding what may or may not work and what refinements would be of value.  Mr. Malinen suggested that those strategic plans be looked at initially as if the process and calendar were proceeding as recommended, and then see if it couldn’t be continued rather than changing back and forth.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoken in support of Councilmember Laliberte’s suggested for an annual budget the first year and a forecast or guesstimate for the second year.  To call it a biennial budget, Councilmember McGehee opined that predictions for year two were way off; but a forecast would be more accurate.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Malinen advised that staff intended to submit similar strategic planning materials to those presented last year.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council didn’t need to receive mission statements of each department in that strategic planning form; one of her objections with its formality.  Councilmember McGehee opined that only each department’s financial plan was needed, where they’re going and those things being continued.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there was a lot of rigidity in the second version, while she had found the first year materials great.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this was due to it being year one for strategic planning, providing one year of refinement with flexibility.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was no need to shift the strategic plan and calendar, of which she had copies, and she was happy to take the work of previous City Councils and move forward without transitioning into a new process.  However, Councilmember Laliberte recommended that if an entire year was needed to do year one of the budget, and then create a forecast for year two, that the first quarter of that second year be used to tweak it and then be done with it.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that Councilmember Laliberte’s comments were accurate in what the process was intended to accomplish and its timeframe to do so.

 

Mayor Roe reviewed the first biennial budget process, regardless of the terminology used, and the timeframe for accomplishing it and refinements allowed due to that flexibility.  In his review of other municipality budgets, Mayor Roe noted that they appeared to be moving in this direction as well to provide for long-range planning a more simplified process.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe as to which process to follow, a biennial or annual budget cycle, Councilmembers expressed their preferences.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred that, since a calendar was necessary and in the absence of any other, the proposed budget calendar could be used.  However, Councilmember McGehee reserved her right to complain about parts of it along the way, specifically that the survey had not been completed even though it was supposed to be a part of the process; along with some other things she may choose to remove, alter, or change along the way.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the calendar be acted on at the February 25, 2013 meeting.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred, given her newness to the entire process; while speaking in support of the idea of the calendar.

 

b.    Appoint Council Representative to the Advisory Group for the Corridor Development Initiative for 2325 Dale Street/Fire Station Site

Community Development Director/HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the RCA dated February 11, 2013, specific to the purchase of properties at 2325 Dale Street and the current fire station site.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the current participates assembled as an advisory group to the Corridor Development Initiative (CDI) process, including Mr. Trudgeon, Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey; Fred O’Neill, a son of the former property owner, principle of King of Kings school; neighbor adjacent to the fire station Ken Hartman, the HRA Board, and this request for a City Council representative to serve as well.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the first meeting was scheduled for February 20, 2013.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LSIC) was a non-profit grass roots organization providing planning efforts for neighborhoods and communities, and had oversight of the CDI program.

 

As a resident in the neighborhood and having received considerable feedback from area residents already, Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in being involved in this HRA advisory body.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest as well.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of Councilmembers Etten and McGehee to serve as City Council representatives for the advisory group of the CDI process.

 

Councilmember Willmus recognized the need to provide public notice for the meetings for informational purposes in the neighborhood as well as to meet statutory requirements.

                                                            Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:58 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:04 pm.

 

16. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

a.    Discuss Twin Lakes Development

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and City Planner Thomas Paschke sought initial individual Councilmember input on how to proceed with and regulate development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013.

 

Some of the questions asked by Mr. Trudgeon included recognizing the expiration of the AUAR per City Council policy previously adopted; how to focus development within the context of existing regulatory framework and interpretation of those documents; what role the City should have in fostering development, either letting the market decide or providing for a specific area use plan for each parcel, or a balance of the two; and how to develop a straightforward plan of what is desired for development in the Twin Lakes area to provide clear direction for developers and staff.

Mayor Roe referenced previous discussions held at the September 18, 2012, noting that those meeting minutes and RCA had been added to the electronic packet materials on Friday, but may not have reached everyone.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that over the last thirty (30) years, this area had been studied, focus-grouped, and guided by numerous documents specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, some no longer guiding development.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his reluctance to continue down that road unless a discussion ensued at the City Council level regarding acquisition of those properties, allowing for a broader discussion of how it was going to be used.  Councilmember Willmus advised that one part of the discussion favored by him would be how Community Mixed Use and Community Business Zoning Districts had been defined and potential implications for other areas of the community with similar zoning designations.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus’ initial remarks in the terms of range; however, she further supported the community’s interest in a broader tax base.  Councilmember McGehee opined that most of the community did not consider Wal-Mart a Community Mixed Use unless it was an urban model with housing above it; however, now that it was here, it set a tenor and brought issues for the rest of the area.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was appropriate for the City Council to formulate a broad plan for the rest of the properties, and while not seeking to generate a small-scale, low-end Rosedale, she saw it developing as such with the zoning done to-date.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she never saw that as a goal for Twin lakes, nor would it serve to enhance the City’s tax base in any way.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had never been a fan of the regulating map; and still didn’t think it fit with a Wal-Mart development.  If the City pursued a hands-off model, Councilmember McGehee suggested it go to the marketplace and state what the City needed, what it would like in the community, and then put the Planned Unit Development (PUD) tool back into the Zoning Code and let the marketplace come forward with its interesting ideas instead of rigid, top down management, and let the development community be proactive versus reactive to that broad outline. Councilmember McGehee further opined that consideration needed to be given to development of the City’s tax base, and environmental standards that could be enhanced through use of a PUD process, especially around Langton Lake, shared parking ramps by buildings to allow more green space.  If the City did not acquire the parcels, Councilmember McGehee noted the need for compliance with Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements regarding permeable surfaces, trails, pathways, and park buffers, in addition to regular business hours, minimal traffic generation, housing, and community mixed use in consideration of the surrounding area as well.  Councilmember McGehee stated that this was what she was hearing in the community; and opined that she had been the most intimately involved in the process over the last thirty years.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the Twin Lakes area had been planned to death from the top down during that time, and she would like to try the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process model or that of an Arizona State University model with a broad request for proposals to help the City’s tax base and broader community.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a broad marketing approach through an RFP for what the City is looking for (e.g. green space, innovative and interesting buildings and ideas), rather than something it didn’t want and within those parameters.

 

Councilmember Etten sought clarification as to whether this would require one overall contractor, opining that the concept was great, but without the City owning the parcels, it couldn’t determine parcel by parcel demand and compliance.

 

City Planner Thomas Paschke responded that he doubted there would be any response to an RFP by the City if it didn’t own the land.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that her intended RFP would be broad, and if parcels wanted to join together they could do so, but it would be extremely valuable to have such a tool, including for the Dale Street project as well.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested that the crux of Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion was to reinstitute the PUD process, to which Councilmember McGehee concurred as her intent.

 

As a counter argument to the PUD process, Mayor Roe suggested that it would allow for a “Wild West” approach, with no rules; and suggested it would be more appropriate to see if there was support for the PUD, with the notion of updating the Zoning Code, which had then been developed and adopted two years ago for the purpose of creating general guiding parameters alluded to by Councilmember McGehee.  Mayor Roe noted that the previous result before redoing the Zoning Code was that there were so many PUDs that it made the Zoning Code obsolete.

 

Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the Zoning Code was also revised to be consistent with the newly updated Comprehensive Plan; and opined that if the City were to reinstitute PUD’s it would scare developers.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned staff as to whether the goals of Councilmember McGehee were not accomplished through design standards and use compatibilities.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was clear what the City did not want, which should provide for a fairly straight forward and quick discussion.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need for further definition of what was mean by “retail,” what was acceptable and what wasn’t, and then let the market dictate the results. 

Mayor Roe suggested, and Mr. Trudgeon confirmed, that this could be accomplished through the permitted uses table.

 

Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember Willmus’ observation that this could be accomplished through creation of a new zoning designation.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that a unique designation could be used for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, without implications for similar zoning designations in the broader community (e.g. Har Mar Mall).

 

Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be good to have a unique designation for Twin Lakes, with consistency in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to clarify that distinction, steering clear of the Community Mixed Use (CMU) and Community Business (CB) zoning designations, and being specific to Twin Lakes.

 

Mayor Roe opined that the CMU was a good starting point, with more refinement for approved uses beyond “big box” retail, defining the things being sought by the City without telling people what use to put on which parcel.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred, noting that to do so would end the City back up back in a courtroom.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that the City had learned through the court process the importance of being highly specific and not leave things vague to accommodate whatever develops and no recourse.  Councilmember McGehee encouraged individual Councilmembers to review zoning codes in other cities, most of which include PUD’s; opining that the City of Roseville was unique in not having the PUD tool.  Councilmember McGehee referenced her conversations with land use attorneys, and their opinions that it was an important tool to have available.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of shared parking opportunities in Twin Lakes and the Dale Street project, as well as those community desires for environmental concerns, natural spaces, paths, and not supporting an urban environment.

 

Mr. Trudgeon concurred that the PUD discussion was an important one and that PUD’s should be on the table.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City’s previous zoning code was so antiquated, the reset button had been hit, with citizens complaining that they couldn’t live up to the code.  Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the code had been fixed to allow more flexibility, and suggested that there may be a place for the PUD tool in a situation not currently existing.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while he could recommend a PUD tool specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area with specific parameters and how to deviate, he could not recommend a broad PUD for the entire community.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that his rationale was based on the points addressed for providing some control through use of PUD’s with the City Council versus staff spending time on those points.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that one option to accomplish that goal would be through site plan reviews at the City Council level.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the significant importance of the Twin Lakes Area to the community, and the need for a special process and permitted uses through a hands-on approach, but not necessary for the broader community.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that this was her intent to provide a better vision for that area.

 

Mayor Roe suggested it may be best to focus on how to get what the community wanted versus what it didn’t want.

 

In discussing the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, Councilmember Laliberte suggested the discussion be specific to that area as a separate zoning entity, perhaps through providing stop gaps such as site plan review to avoid the “Wild West” concept.  However, in her community door knocking campaign, Councilmember Laliberte observed that she heard that Roseville had become a community where it was difficult to get things done; and her perception was that this was at the City Council level in not working well with staff.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that, while it’s good to identify things not wanted and proactively solicit ideas and suggestions for land use in Twin Lakes, it was important to recognize that the City did not own the land.  While proactive in attracting business to that area, Councilmember Laliberte opined that they couldn’t invite interest in a property and then slap it down in the end.  Now that Wal-Mart is here, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there would be interest in the area, and like it or not, what gets to the forefront in developers needed to avoid a patchwork quilt of development and for the City Council to take a more proactive stance and make sure staff had the freedom to proceed as directed by this body as a whole.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with the points made by Councilmember Laliberte, noting that this was what the HRA was currently pursuing through its economic development efforts in the community.  By having a framework in place through site plan review and PUD tools, Mayor Roe opined that it could make for a better process overall.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if this was the direction of the body, staff could work on ideas for a specific site plan review process and permitted uses for further discussion in the immediate future.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that there are development interests out there right now, and timing was everything; with staff anxious to get working on it and recommending code revisions to allow continued discussion.

 

Mayor Roe noted that it was important to involve the Planning Commission in the process, as the City’s stewards of City Code.

 

Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that they didn’t want to get too far into the process until they were sure of the City Council’s direction.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for this discussion for the bigger picture to avoid overwhelming people with specific, while addressing things that correlated with tree preservation or new vegetation versus parking lots and terminals, shared parking, and other ways to soften and preserve positive characteristics for that area.  Councilmember Etten sought additional clarification on how to address park dedication fees or land or sharing green space when there may be different property owners involved or sharing a particular development project.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted the difficulty in coordinating some of those issues; however, he noted that staff always encouraged sharing amenities.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the uniqueness of the Twin Lakes Area, and the Langton Lake asset; and anticipated the need for ongoing tweaking as development formulated.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested one way to address the preferred green space while recognizing that it is an urban area would be by paying close attention to the edges with higher density in the middle. 

 

As the Parks and Recreation Commission got into the Wal-Mart development review, Councilmember Etten noted the problems found since the City didn’t own the rest of the land around it.

 

Mr. Paschke noted the tie in and purpose of the regulating map and previous AUAR correlation to the Twin Lakes Area and staff’s advocacy for preserving areas with existing trees and to address various environmental issues.

 

In considering tools available to the City, Mayor Roe referenced a recent discussion at the Regional Council of Mayors related to the City using funding sources, such as tax increment financing, to build a shared parking ramp in order to achieve its objectives; with that being the City’s role as facilitator.

 

Further discussion included ongoing discussions with land owners in the Twin Lakes Area and the City’s goals and objectives; broader Twin Lakes Area parameters to the east and west of the area; whether to pursue regulating plans for other areas as contemplated in the revised zoning ordinance; and property owners versus developers.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the Wal-Mart negotiations were not handled properly by the City; and in her familiarity with the neighborhoods and Twin Lakes Parkway, she continued to be an opponent of bringing the Parkway all the way through to allow park access, with no need to drag traffic through residential areas from the highway, opining that Lincoln Drive could not handle it and the plan needed to be rethought.

 

While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s interesting perspective, Mayor Roe noted that traffic studies indicated just the opposite, with no plan to route traffic into residential neighborhoods.

 

Councilmember McGehee stood firm in her opinion that it would do so, and her disagreement with those traffic studies.

 

b.    Discuss City Zoning Code Updates

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the various updates observed by staff that may need revision, based on their day-to-day use of the revised Zoning Code, and as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013.  Mr. Paschke advised that some were fundamental and others simply typographical corrections needed overall; and sought any additional areas of which the City Council may be aware for revision or discussion.

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted that a lot of details may come up as the process moved forward; however, he asked that the City Council advise staff now if there were things that were not worth staff time and that should not be pursued, as well as other areas of which staff was not aware but needed to know about.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that not all things would be able to be accomplished this year, and some may not require a detailed discussion, but sought broad questions or comments at this time before the processes were initiated.

 

Design/Performance Standards (page 1, line 24)

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of allowing metal corrugated material, opining that it could be quite attractive.

 

Page 2, line 33-36

Discussion included architectural requirements for a finish over concrete block.

 

Page 2, lines 46-49

Discussion included the need to limit the height of an industrial silo.

 

Use (page 3)

Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference to prohibit check cashing operations.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this may be a licensing versus land use issue.

 

Mr. Paschke offered to research this further, however, he clarified that “check cashing” was a special term use defined by the State of MN, and the City only served as a pass-through conduit for those businesses to obtain their licenses.

 

Page 3, line 93

Discussion included current code lack of recognition of some repair service businesses and the need to address them.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation to staff for this helpful information; with staff advising that the City Council could remain updated through following the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing processes.

 

Page 2, line 58

Councilmember Etten noted his discussions with businesses (e.g. Rice Street corridor) who feel they are unable to advertise without being penalized, when businesses across the street may do so.  Councilmember Etten noted that their perception is that this is unreasonable, and suggested revising sign regulations for temporary signs, such as buying an annual license packet that would allow a certain number of days allowed, and their notification by e-mail to the City Inspector of those dates for check-off to ensure their compliance, while not being onerous for small businesses.

 

As the “Sign Czar,” Mr. Paschke advised that each municipality had different zoning and sign requirements; and historically, Roseville has stated their preference to be a leader rather than a follower of its neighboring communities, and therefore, has had a tendency to have minimal signs allowed and a more restrictive code.  However, in the updated zoning code, Mr. Paschke noted that the process now allows for more flexibility for businesses and various options available to them.  Mr. Paschke advised that he continually fielded concerns about limited times for signs, type or style of signs, some conducive to reuse while others are not.  Also in his role as “Sign Inspector,” Mr. Paschke advised that he also was charged with monitoring and enforcement of signs, with little time to do so.  Mr. Paschke opined that the sign codes now in place are moving in the right direction to provide people with an understanding of what is or is not allowed, and had been based on listening to those concerns previously expressed; and now opening up more opportunities to them.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten regarding how to communicate those revisions to businesses, Mr. Paschke advised that those vendors creating signs for businesses are fully aware of current code, and needed to relay that information to their clients.  In his continuous discussions with businesses about signage, Mr. Paschke noted he pursues that educational outreach; and suggested another option may be to provide a letter to each business.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that more proactive communication, since they probably didn’t search city codes consistently; and with the extra flexibility provided with revised codes, this needed to be communicated to business owners.  Councilmember Etten advised that he had also addressed the HRA about how to communicate with businesses long-term and allow them to be part of the process and allow them to pursue their opportunities.

 

Mr. Trudgeon opined that it should be a very interesting discussion, and may open a Pandora’s Box; however, he noted the more outreach the City could provide to inform people who to contact and where to obtain information, the better for everyone in the long-run.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of any tools to help businesses function better in the community.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of an annual sign permit option for businesses.  Councilmember McGehee further supported the need to reasonably accommodate and differentiate Christmas tree sales as a seasonal option for permanent businesses versus transient seasonal sales in a parking lot.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of metal roofs, but not siding.

 

Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus asked staff to address the requirement that garage doors have a five foot (5’) set back from the front door of the house.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that such a variance was scheduled at the March Variance Board meeting; and provided the rationale for that setback requirement and design standard that garages not dominate a house, but that the front door or porch dominate it.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff had had limited success in the education process regarding this requirement to-date.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that a house is a house, and further opined that 80% of them in the community have the garage forward of the house, and she didn’t see anything offensive about it, but that it was simply a matter of taste. 

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the height restrictions for “silos.”

 

Mr. Paschke clarified that there were existing industrial silos in the community, so they couldn’t be excluded, but the heights could be capped.

 

Page 2, lines 62-24

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke reviewed the rationale in Community Business and Regional Business zoning districts for placement of certain amenities, including drive-throughs not allowed adjacent to public streets, with trash enclosures and dumpsters allowable.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff was working with design issues and how they were located on properties when not just on one public street.  While offering challenges, Mr. Paschke advised that an attempt was being made to re-craft language to allow for greater flexibility in meeting code requirements.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that “junk” or undesirable trees had been recommended and brought to staff’s attention by the City Forester.

 

Page 2, lines 73-74

Discussion included clarification of impervious surface options, current zoning code not specifying residential stormwater permits; existing lots and homes versus new lots and construction and how to accommodate each, as well as addressing pre-existing conditions.

 

Page 3, line 90

Councilmember McGehee sought definition of “benign” outdoor storage, with Mr. Trudgeon suggesting this was based on passive versus actively used storage; and Mr. Paschke noting that this code restriction was intended to be far-reaching to differentiate between which have more impact or needed screening versus those that didn’t, and in consideration of adjacent property uses as well.

 

Building Height

Mayor Roe suggested discussion on setback versus height, based on past discussions related to impacts to adjacent properties, such as staggering the height of taller buildings for less impact to adjacent single-family residential buildings. 

 

Further discussion included height limitations in various zoning designations; and whether there was or should be any height restriction in the Twin Lakes Area; the need to provide no height restriction for high-end uses such as office uses; height restrictions in business use areas close to residential properties or not needed in areas surrounded by other commercial/industrial uses or near highways/roads; and possible area west of Rosedale that may be suitable for staggering heights or removing height restrictions in Regional Business districts, unless accommodated through a Conditional Use.

 

Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee regarding garage setbacks; and suggested it was only appropriate for a new development, suggesting a ratio would be more appropriate to serve the aesthetic value if spoken to at all.

 

Mr. Paschke noted the infill development most prevalent in Roseville made a distinction from communities or areas having larger parcels of land available for development and new construction.  Mr. Paschke advised that the rationale for that code requirement and design standard was as a result of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning discussion and that of the updated Comprehensive Plan moving forward.  Mr. Paschke noted there may be flexibility without a step-back garage.

 

Mayor Roe noted a significant number of Roseville properties with detached garages behind homes, and provided an example of a newly-constructed home on County Road B east of Lexington/Oxford that doesn’t fit, and supported the need for some flexibility without the garage representing a significant percent of the front of the home.

 

Willmus concurred, allowing for some flexibility, such as for a porch.

 

Mr. Paschke assured Councilmembers that staff would look at other exterior enhancements as well, and other tools to broaden that design standard.

 

Mayor Roe opined that he personally didn’t think homes with a dominant garage were attractive; and that the rationale for the garage setback was to make the community more consistent with neighborhood context.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that Roseville was already 99% built up.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there were restrictions available to limit the number of massage therapy establishment licenses through zoning code uses, similar to the limit on liquor licenses.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that they only required a business license, so from a zoning perspective, there was no limit.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that, as discussions ensue regarding the zoning code, another look at the limit on liquor licenses may also be in order.

 

c.    Continue Discussion on Water and Sewer Rates

Water Consumption Data from 2000 – 2012 was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller advised that no news had been received from the City of St. Paul as of today regarding their 2014 rates.

 

Mayor Roe noted the additional information provided by staff for background to further discussion of the public policy issues raised at the last meeting.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus regarding previous questions raised by Councilmember McGehee (Attachment A) related to the senior discount, reference was made to page 4, line 86 of the RCA dated February 11, 2013.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced page 4, lines 124-125 of the RCA regarding senior discounts being currently available for 22% of all single-family homeowners.

 

Finance Director Miller confirmed for Mayor Roe that no one at this time is receiving the poverty-based version of that discount, and only one property had received it over the last few years; indicating that since added, it was not popularly used.

 

With this information now available, Councilmember McGehee opined that more people over age 65 would be applying, since they may not have been aware of its existence in the past.  Councilmember McGehee also noted an example where a home now owned by a younger family but previously owned by seniors still continued to receive the senior discount when now qualified to do so, but nor realizing the rate differential.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she and Finance Director Miller had also found a few mistakes with small businesses and small meter sizes.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it did not appear that the conservation rate had served any purpose; and noted that her research found that the City of Shoreview’s tiered rate had not accomplished much either.  Councilmember McGehee suggested other methods under the parameters of the DNR document to encourage water conservation until something was found that worked.

 

In the nature of capital funding and enterprise funds, Councilmember McGehee noted a disconnect in the City’s infrastructure seen as a capital investment that was depreciated over time, yet paid for by fees rather than part of the tax levy or deductible as part of property taxes.  Councilmember McGehee suggested bonding for those base water fees similar to that of the park renewal system across the city rather than putting the expense on park system users.  Given the age of the infrastructure, Councilmember McGehee opined that it wasn’t particularly fair or reasonable to pay for this capital improvement with fees; and referenced various options she had outlined that could also reduce fees by voluntary consumption reduction.

 

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of eliminating the senior discount program.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this could create an increase for senior water use from $32 to $45/quarter.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested further defining how individuals qualify for the discount; and while it may be appropriate to have some type of discount, how it was offered needed to be tightened up.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of looking at eliminating the senior discount, while cautioning that he anticipated considerable feedback from seniors in the community about the issue.

 

Councilmember Etten questioned the feasibility of a means test that would be practical for staff to perform; with Finance Director Miller suggesting the easiest application would be through federal means testing by applicants providing a copy of their income tax returns.  However, Mr. Miller did not see many qualifying under that type of means test.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the poverty rate is not staff verified, only an honor system.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with eliminating the senior discount as it is now known; and if those seniors qualified on a means-tested basis, they could continue to receive the discount.  However, with the current system, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there didn’t appear to be a sufficient balance right now for other residents having to carry that burden.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that other users may not be getting a fair rate when they may actually qualify.

 

Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of removing the consumption rate and questioned where that mandate had originated; opining that if you have more people in your house, a flat rate meant you paid more, and if fewer people, you paid less.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of means-testing versus a senior discount to better serve the community without overly taxing staff, and opined that it seemed to be a reasonable approach.

 

Mayor Roe noted that people receiving deferment of their property taxes, as tested by Ramsey County, may be another testing option; however he noted that not everyone who pays property taxes also pays water bills.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that he would further research the threshold for Ramsey County versus the federal poverty threshold.

 

Regarding why the CIP Task Force went in the direction they did, Mayor Roe advised was due to their thorough review of base rates, levies, bonding.  Through bonding done consistently over twenty (20) years, Mayor Roe advised that the interest would be incurred annually; while pay-as-you-go could be matched to rates on an annual basis, and would be easier for rate payers.  Regarding putting the infrastructure costs on the tax levy versus fees paid, Mayor Roe advised that not everyone using water (e.g. non-profits such as schools and churches) paid property taxes and that didn’t seem to be fair to the overall city taxpayer.  As it is now set up, Mayor Roe noted that everyone receiving water service paid a base rate, and the usage rate based on the City’s rate received from the City of St. Paul; with higher users not subsidizing infrastructure costs.  Mayor Roe noted that it didn’t wear out pipes faster to use more water, and that there was no more wear and tear from one to the other such as streets and roads; and therefore it didn’t make sense to him to shift those infrastructure costs from base rates to usage fees, or to make them part of the tax levy.  Mayor Roe suggested that the City of Roseville’s model may become the model for other cities in the future.

 

City Manager Malinen, from a CIP perspective, noted that were zero dollars in the Water Fund due to the result of past reliance on variable usage to generate monies; and when consumption went down and the City didn’t get the money it expected, but still had repairs and maintenance of the system, the Fund couldn’t accommodate it.  City Manager Malinen noted that, with the base rate as it now is, those fixed costs area addressed annually and was making the Fund stable.  City Manager Malinen suggested that the current plan not be undone until there was some history to determine if it was working as indicated by the CIP Task Force.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed that the system had been mismanaged for thirty (30) years.  Regarding the automatic read meters (ARM) and ability to view water usage at any time, Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no need to defer installation of those new meters; and suggested borrowing internally from the Storm Water Fund Reserve to have those automatic meters installed throughout the city immediately rather than systematically installing them in phases over the next four (4) years.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that if that schedule was accelerated, it may need to be contracted out; and asked that the City Council consult with Public Works Director Duane Schwartz about related issues in expediting that installation.

 

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that of the $1.6 million projected for this installation, approximately $300,000 would be for contractual help to finish the program over that period.

 

Finance Director Miller added that if the expedited installation was done, it did not mean that the ARM system would be completed in-house at City Hall, since modification to billing customer accounts was required and the Finance Department was not equipped to process that now versus phased over four (4) years, requiring additional money for overtime to facilitate that additional workload.

 

With Mr. Schwartz advising that the current phased-in project was for 2,000 installations annually, Mr. Miller advised hat to accelerate that to 8,000 installations in one year, would require significant overtime to accomplish, and require his reworking of the Finance Department Work Plan.

 

Mayor Roe noted that there would also be the additional interest for any internal loan.

Regarding a single tier usage rate, Mayor Roe requested more information from staff on options/requirements to accomplish this year or next year.

 

Mr. Miller advised that, with a single-tiered usage rate, if that was the consensus, there would be a few things required (e.g. monthly billing).

 

Since rates were now set, Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that information to the City Council later this year.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought assurance, received from Mayor Roe and staff, that the City Council would revisit this issue after hearing from the City of St. Paul on rates.

 

d.    Discuss Uniform Commission Code

City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the RCA; seeking guidance from the City Council as outlined in lines 61 – 66; at which time staff could bring back a singular ordinance applicable to all commissions; and then subsequent specific-centric codes with their charges.

 

Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the uniform ordinance; and asked that additional thoughts and comments be addressed to the Advisory Commission Subcommittee for their review and ultimate recommendation to the full body.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of the uniform code; and suggested a more in-depth discussion about the removal provision than possible tonight.  Mayor Roe suggested additional feedback and discussion from individual advisory commissions regarding their charge.  Regarding lines 36-38 (Attachment A, Section 201.01) regarding establishing additional commissions by resolution; Mayor Roe spoke in support of revising the ordinance itself if the intent was for addition of a standing advisory committee; with other subcommittees or groups done beyond that ordinance structure.  Mayor Roe noted that he had a number of suggestions for ordinance structure and organization and would follow-through with staff off-line.  Mayor Roe noted that subsequent discussions would be taken up by the subcommittee and their recommendations brought back to the full body.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that this overall ordinance was intended to create a foundation, with specific charges and other aspects more committee-oriented.

 

Mayor Roe noted that some language revisions were necessitated by updated State Statutes (e.g. Planning Commission), while other parts could be a two-phase process as outlined by City Manager Malinen.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference in City Manager Malinen working with the subcommittee; and advised that he would pass his thoughts on to the subcommittee as applicable.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of retaining the removal with/without cause based on past issues, and expressed his strong interest in keeping that provision in place to expedite the process when a legitimate situation comes forward.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised that he anticipated the subcommittee and City Manager to collect their information and if necessary, present them in two different presentations one on the uniform structure portion of the proposed ordinance and a second on the detailed ordinances for each commission.

 

e.    Consider Conducting a Resident Survey

A Survey Question Comparison between Shoreview questions and the Cobalt document was provided as a bench handout.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager briefly summarized materials provided and proposals received from the RFP process, as detailed and provided as attachments to the RCA dated February 11, 2013.

 

Discussion included the last Decision Resources survey done in Roseville in 1998; lack of response by Decision Resources to the City’s RFP and the cost 2.5 times higher than Cobalt or the National Citizens Survey; ease of use and information among various surveys; whether or not the City had used the information provided in the last Cobalt survey to its best advantage to make effective use of that available data; ability to add questions to any of the survey options; preference for a smaller survey and larger cross-section of citizens; effective of and between phone versus mailed surveys; and local survey firms versus nation-wide firms that were not necessarily amenable to Midwestern communities.

 

Councilmembers Laliberte, Willmus and McGehee expressed their preference for the less complicated survey of Decision Resources.

 

Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee spoke in support of phone surveys versus mail surveys.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to contact Decision Resources to determine their rationale in not responding to the City’s RFP.

 

Mayor Roe noted comments he’d heard over the last six (6) years that Roseville didn’t want to compare itself to peers; while at the same time hearing the opposite, providing little consistency.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in comparisons with communities immediately adjacent to Roseville (e.g. New Brighton, Shoreview).

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that the City was comparing itself with itself to how it was doing with its own residents, not comparing strategic plans of other communities.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, moving to extend the City Council curfew to 10:05 pm to complete this discussion.

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

                        Nays: None.

                  

City Manager Malinen advised that his continued advocacy for Cobalt was based on the fact that the City had not done a survey for a number of years, and since having done the most recent survey with Cobalt, it would be an advantage to gauge the effectiveness of that survey with an updated one and determine if the City was being responsive to the public by providing that comparison from two years ago versus comparing to neighbors and their level of satisfaction.  City Manager Malinen admitted that he didn’t see the information available in the second part of the Cobalt survey and the City had not fully utilized the depth of that information, specifically that related to satisfaction and budgetary information. Mr. Malinen noted that previous replies provided citizen priorities and that were applied to the budget process, including those priorities of the City Council and staff.  From a staff perspective, Mr. Malinen opined that this provided more significant data.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with City Manager Malinen’s comments regarding consistency in making the documents useful measurement tools.  However, while not supporting switching firms, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her interest in a simpler survey provided to a broader scope of citizen beyond the 5% of residents randomly selected for and then even fewer responding to the previous survey.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this was a challenge in surveying; making them statistically valid without everyone surveyed.  Mayor Roe opined that the response rate, from his perspective, had been great; and offered his trust in the expertise of Cobalt in performing surveys.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that he did not have information available on the response rate for Decision Resources surveys.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that he was also seeking consistency; however, from his perspective the Decision Resources survey was easier to use.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred that consistency was needed; but not with a survey she thought was bad in the first place, with results that were note useful.

 

Mayor Roe noted that criticism of the last Decision Resources survey was that the information was not useful; and opined that he had found the Cobalt information very informative, especially the budget portion.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked that Decision Resources be contacted by staff and see why they did not respond to our RFP.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that feedback at the next meeting.

 

17. Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:07 pm.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.