View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

March 11, 2013


  1. Roll Call

Acting Mayor Etten called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe. 


Councilmember Willmus had previously advised that he would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting.


Mayor Roe was unable to attend due to illness.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Councilmember Etten as the designated acting mayor for this meeting, in the absence of both the Mayor and Acting Mayor.

                        Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.



2.         Approve Agenda

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.



Advisory Commission Interviews

Interviews were held for various advisory commission vacancies from approximately 5:35 pm to 7:15 pm.



Acting Mayor Etten recessed the meeting after the interviews at approximately 7:15 pm. and reconvened at approximately 7:30 pm.


3.         Public Comment

Acting Mayor Etten 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 Laliberte announced the annual display of quilts at City Hall during regular business hours, provided by the Minnesota Contemporary Quilters’ Textile Center in Minneapolis, MN; with quilts on display from mid-April until further notice.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that a number of quilters in this guild were from the Roseville area; and offered additional information is available at   –


          Acting Mayor Etten reminded of the availability of an approximate total of $30,000.00 in scholarship funds available through the North Suburban Communications Commission (NSCC) for journalism/communication students.  Acting Mayor Etten advised hat applications for applicable students from member cities were available at or by calling Roseville City Hall at 651/792-7500; with an application deadline of April 12, 2013.


          Councilmember McGehee announced the annual Human Rights Commission-sponsored essay contest for area school students coming up at the March 18, 2013 City Council meeting.  On a personal note, Councilmember McGehee referenced her former service on the Human Rights Commission, and the terrific essays written each year by these young people; with frequent winners from Roseville at the state level as well.


Councilmember Laliberte advised Councilmembers and staff of the March 21, 2013 meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG), at which a presentation will be heard from Judson Freid with Ramsey County Homeland Security, who will lead a discussion for cities, counties and schools and efforts to keep citizens safe in emergency situations.  Councilmember Laliberte provided a flyer on the meeting for City Manager Malinen to include on the City’s website.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.            Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of February 25, 2013 Meeting

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.


Additional proposed changes were provided from Councilmember McGehee by bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, providing her summarization of the three (3) points intended by Mr. Grefenberg, and as a substitute for the summary provided by Mayor Roe to replace the more detailed record included in the draft meeting minutes provided by the City’s Recording Secretary.  Councilmember McGehee stated that her outlined items be adopted and included in the meeting minutes; as well as more minor grammatical corrections, and clarification on specific comments she had made during that meeting, all detailed on the bench handout entitled, “Proposed Changes to February 25 Minutes.”


Mayor Roe had left a request with Acting Mayor Etten for clarification on a motion from the February 25th meeting (page 1, line 34) as to the makers of that particular motion.


From her records of the meeting, Councilmember Laliberte clarified that Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee were the makers of the motion to move out of Closed Executive Session, with concurrence of the body.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the minutes of the February 25, 2013, meeting as amended.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not comfortable striking the entire section provided in the Recording Secretary’s draft minutes specific to those comments of Mr. Grefenberg, as she deemed them a credible record of his comments.  However, Councilmember Laliberte further stated that she had not had sufficient time to accept Councilmember McGehee’s replacement language as suggested.  Given that, Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the meeting minutes be tabled until she had time to review the proposed substitute language.


Acting Mayor Etten stated that he was also more comfortable leaving the draft language provided by the Recording Secretary rather than striking them; and was uncomfortable adopting the replacement language provided by Councilmember McGehee, as he found that a reorganization of Mr. Grefenberg’s thoughts basically an attempt to redo the argument, rather than provided an accurate record of the meeting minutes.


Councilmember McGhee withdrew her motion.


McGehee moved to approve the February 25, 2013, meeting minutes as amended to include the original draft minutes provided by the Recording Secretary rather than the summary suggested by Mayor Roe; and to include her proposed clarifications of her personal comments of that meeting as included in the bench handout.


Acting Mayor Etten suggested tabling the meeting minutes until the next meeting; and without a second to the motion, declared Councilmember McGehee’s motion failed.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING approval of the February 25, 2013, meeting minutes until the March 18, 2013 regular City Council meeting.


As the Councilmember majority tonight appeared to support the original draft language of the meeting minutes, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff provide those minutes, without any struck-out portions, for the next iteration sent out to Councilmembers in the meeting packet.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


  1. Approve Consent Agenda

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


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


69199 – 69311





                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

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



Type of License

Teresa Williams at Massage Envy Roseville

2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120

Massage Therapist

Smokeless Smoking; 10 Rosedale Center

Cigarette / Tobacco Products


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


c.            Approve Renewal of Bottle Club License – Knights of Columbus

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the Knights of Columbus Bottle Club License application as submitted, for the period of April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014.


                   Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


d.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of $5,000

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Finance Director Miller for reformatting this report to include an additional column indicating budgeted versus capital items.


Acting Mayor Etten concurred; as well as reiterating appreciation for reformatting the check register.


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






Budget / CIP

Storm Sewer

Ess Brothers & Sons, Inc.

Manhole castings & repairs




Brinkman Group

Grounds Maintenance

Contract mowing, weeding & treating – various areas – per low bid




Century Fence

Split rail fence replacement

South McCarron’s Blvd. – per low bid




Midway Ford

Ford F-350 replacement

State Bid Contract




O’Hara Ranger Chevrolet

Chevy Suburban 4 x 4

State Bid Contract





Cisco SmartNet Maintenance

Annual licensing, hardware, software support and upgrades




                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


  1. Consider Items Removed from Consent


  1. General Ordinances for Adoption


a.    Adopt a Zoning Text Amendment that Adds Limited Processing and Production to the Regional Business District’s Permitted Uses

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for the text amendment, based on findings since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code updates, as detailed in the RCA dated March 11, 2013. 


Mr. Paschke noted that several property owners had brought to staff’s attention conflicts with existing land use and zoning issues that were occurring and limiting or discontinuing business reinvestment at their specific properties.  Mr. Paschke advised that these concerns were in their ability to market building leases for non-conforming issues, and hesitancy of property owners in making significant reinvestment for properties deemed non-conforming.  Mr. Paschke displayed a map defining some of those areas of concern.  Mr. Paschke referenced current definition in City Code for Limited Production and Processing (lines 59-64 in the RCA), and staff’s recommendation, with 6/0 support of the Planning Commission, for amending Table 1005-1 of the Commercial/Mixed Use District to allow those defined uses as permitted uses within the Regional Business District.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the benefit to make this change to what the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee apparently recommended as the direction in which the City should move forward, other than an alleged desire or feeling that owners can’t reinvest in their property, when those property owners were not being asked to discontinue their current activities.


Mr. Paschke clarified that the Comprehensive Plan update had not contemplated every use, but had provided a broad document based on general discussions and preferred generic uses guiding particular zoning districts; and addressing select areas if they had come to the group’s awareness.  However, Mr. Paschke noted that this, and several other areas, had not received that type of analysis or specific discussion of uses (e.g. business versus industrial).


Councilmember McGehee stated that she did not feel comfortable with the wording “generally” and questioned what that terminology meant from a legal perspective and whether there would be a problem enforcing such terminology.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that there was no legal definition of the word “generally.”  In his reading of that language, City Attorney Gaughan opined that the last line relates to the previous sentence, and appeared to provide enough specificity; that generally processing raw materials would be incompatible with an office park use.  In response to Councilmember McGehee’s question, Mr. Gaughan suggested that if she was uncomfortable with “generally disruptive” terminology, this represented not a legal question but more of a policy decision on the part of the City Council majority.


Councilmember McGehee questioned what, if any, legal problem there would be in leaving the definition as currently written, with businesses continuing to operate as legal, non-conforming uses, for those uses grandfathered in.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any legal problem.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if those businesses didn’t have the ability to come before the City Council for specific approvals if they wished to expand.


Mr. Paschke advised that the definition under discussion is already included in City Code, and the only amendment being sought was to include “Limited Production and Processing” as a permitted use in Regional Business Districts by adding it to Table 1005-1.  Mr. Paschke advised that he was unaware of any legal process by which the City Council could permit a pre-existing, non-conformity to expand without changing the Zoning Code accordingly.  Based on past discussions with property owners in the community, a non-conforming use immediately brought up red flags for them in their ability to reinvest significantly in their buildings.  Mr. Paschke noted that these buildings were very sturdy, but designed differently than many others in the Regional Business District; and with many of those businesses at a crossroads in developing or redeveloping their business models, this would provide them with a bridge to allow expansion, without giving anyone cart blanche to expand.


Councilmember McGehee opined that by making this a permitted use, it would give them permission to expand, with the entire area potentially moving toward Light Industrial versus Regional Business. 


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted the current difficulty an existing business to expand as a non-conforming use and for the City to encourage and promote future changed guided by the Comprehensive Plan and support local businesses wanting to grow.  Mr. Trudgeon spoke in support of the proposed text amendment to accommodate some of those proposed uses rather than to change the entire zoning district that could indeed create that area changing into Light Industrial versus the preferred Regional Business District.  Mr. Trudgeon addressed the reality that only some of the buildings in that District were set up to take that type of use; and one of staff’s concerns was the ability of some of those non-conforming uses being able to continue building their businesses in the community, based on their inability to reinvest in that property.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the property owner was faced with little incentive if unable to expand the building, which would ultimately create further decline and deterioration of the area as had been seen in other areas of Roseville. 


If Councilmembers were uncomfortable with this text amendment, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that another option would be for staff to explore more standards or making it a Conditional Use, so when existing businesses want to expand, there could be a process in place vetted by staff, the Planning Commission, the public, and City Council on a case by case basis.  If that was the preference, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff could bring that option back for future discussion.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke clarified that Har Mar was zoned Community Business, not Regional Business; with Target zoned Regional, as well as some other retail areas.  Councilmember Laliberte noted her concern with reviewing those Regional Business areas near residential zoned areas.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she’d be very happy with something allowing a fairly reasonable and smooth process for an existing business having demonstrated that it operates well within this area to come forward and ask to expand or enlarge their business.  However, Councilmember McGehee advised that her concern was if this was a Conditional Use, it would run with the land and could prove more problematic down the road.  If the City of Roseville should decide at some point to move that area as another outrigger of Rosedale, then all those properties with Light Industrial Conditional Uses would be able to retain that classification.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that staff could come up with another option, without limiting people’s options, but avoiding a Conditional Use that may not preclude another business that could prove less desirable for the City.


Mr. Paschke cautioned that the City’s Zoning Codes must be transparent across the board, and not specific to a particular business owner.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that an Interim Permit was too short in term with business owners hesitant to make significant improvements based on that short term, and a Conditional Use too long term and opening the door for less desirable businesses allowed.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would give the issue more thought for other options. 


Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation to staff and the Planning Commission for the amount of work they’d already invested in this issue.  Being new to the City Council, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had reviewed previous conversations, and was comforted to know that no Regional Business Districts were adjacent to residential neighborhoods.  However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern that, with light production, more truck traffic would be evident, and questioned how that would be addressed.


Mr. Paschke advised that, typically with light industrial uses, there was not a significant amount of truck traffic, and that was usually less than retail uses.  However, Mr. Paschke advised that staff would review that concern as well.


Acting Mayor Etten noted that a business would currently be operating already, and there would typically not be an increase in truck traffic now or in the foreseeable future.


Councilmember Laliberte offered her recognition in the need for consistency and getting language to be in concert with the rest of the plans.

Councilmember McGehee suggested expanding the definition to include something about truck traffic.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that this definition already existed; and saw no rationale in changing the definition for that specific area only.


Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the only intended amendment was in changing the table for limited production and processing to be a permitted use.


While noting that there were existing businesses awaiting action on this text amendment to make business improvements, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that staff return with this item at a later date with possible options that would allow a greater comfort level by the body.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was comfortable moving with this today as recommended by staff and supported unanimously by the Planning Commission.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that, since the full body was not available tonight, this could create a problem for enactment of the Zoning Amendment, as it needed a super majority vote of the entire City Council; and with only three (3) members available for the vote, it would therefore require a 3/0 vote.


Under those circumstances, Councilmember Laliberte suggested tabling action and returning the item to staff for revisiting by the full body.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING the proposed text amendment to Title 10 of the City Zoning Ordinance, to a date uncertain.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


b.    Adopt a Zoning Text Amendment Creating a Definition for Limited Warehousing and Distribution and Permitting as Permitted and Conditional Uses within the Regional Business and Office/Business Park Districts

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for this text amendment, based on findings since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code updates, as detailed in the RCA dated March 11, 2013.  Specific to this text amendment, Mr. Paschke noted that the request was for creation of a definition for “Limited Warehousing and Distribution” (lines 104-108 of the RCA) as a Permitted and/or Conditional Use in Regional Business and Office/Business Park Zoning Districts (Tables 1005-1 and 1006-1, lines 109-113 of the RCA). 


However, Mr. Paschke suggested that it may be a moot point, since the previous text amendment had been tabled. 


Discussion included clarification for allowance of vehicles versus trips; potential areas of impact as displayed on the map; and clarification by City Attorney Gaughan that the same super-majority vote would be required for this issue as well.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this proposed text amendment to Title 10 of the City Zoning Ordinance, to a date uncertain, in conjunction with the previous agenda item.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


Acting Mayor Etten recognized a number of students from Metropolitan University attending tonight’s meeting, and welcomed them.


  1. Presentations


a.    Receive Annual Reports for Community Development’s Land Use Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Enhancement Program Activities in 2012

Codes Coordinator Don Munson provided this update, and introduced Brian Kaufland, the City’s new Code Officer, former Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) Inspector, but now moving to the Land Use/Complaints program. 


Mr. Munson provided highlights and trends for the 2012 the Land Use Code Enforcement Program (blue pages) and then the same for the 2012 NEP (yellow pages).  Mr. Munson provided common types of nuisance violations; city-wide locations of those violations, with no pocket areas in evidence; a total of twenty-four (24) accelerated abatements in 2012 (e.g. mowing/shoveling) mostly found on foreclosed properties; and sixteen (16) abatement cases initiated, with six (6) of those cases resolved before coming forward for a public hearing; and ten (10) presented to the City Council; and zero court citations issued.  Overall, Mr. Munson opined that both code enforcement areas showed encouraging trends and diminishing issues.


Mr. Munson reviewed the program’s goals: to provide a proactive response to citizen concerns; maintain the livability of residential neighborhoods; and maintain property values.  Mr. Munson provided a comparison of properties inspected from 2008 to-date; common violations and 2012 typical cases (e.g. commercial uses in residential zones, grass untended, junk and debris in yards, outside storage, general property maintenance, and unlicensed/inoperable vehicles). 

Number of Properties Inspected

2008 = 1900

2009 = 3159

2010 = 4232

2011 = 4388

2012 = 5028


Mr. Munson reported that the NEP found great and responsive resolution, with 91% of public nuisances were closed within twenty (20) days, and the other 11% percent closed within forty (40) days.  Mr. Munson noted that there was only one unresolved case for 2012, and that was a timing issue for painting that would be addressed by the property owner in the spring of 2013.


Mr. Munson reported on the rate of violations continuing a steady decline, indicating that the NEP was having the desired, community-wide effect.


Rate of Violations Observed

2008 = 8%

2009 = 6%

2010 = 4%

2011 = 4%

2012 = 3.5%


Mr. Munson advised that the 2013 NEP would be expanded to focus on multi-family residential properties and commercial/industrial properties, anticipating approximately 600 properties to be inspected.  Mr. Munson advised that similar issues (e.g. exterior building maintenance, site maintenance such as light poles rusted, grass untended, dead vegetation, outside storage, fence disrepairs) would be addressed as those previously identified with single-family residential properties.  Since this area is new, Mr. Munson noted that staff anticipated a larger scope of education for property owners.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson clarified that the commercial/industrial property NEP would be somewhat different than residential areas, as staff would also be allowed access into parking lots for inspections, and anticipated knocking on doors and talking with people, creating a more intensive program to provide education, as previously noted.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson assured Councilmembers that staff anticipated completing all six-hundred (600) properties in 2013, since they typically did approximately 5,000 residential properties annually, but reiterating that this commercial/industrial inspection would be more intensive from an educational and outreach standpoint.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her pleasure in seeing the declining code enforcement violations, indicating people were taking care of their properties, even with economic and workforce issues and limited resources.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the value for everyone in all participating in preserving everyone’s property values.


Mr. Munson concurred, noting that this was in no small part due to ongoing education.


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten, Mr. Munson confirmed that the same part-time inspection staff resources formally used for the residential NEP would now be applied to multi-family and business property inspections.  Mr. Munson advised that after this year’s commercial inspections, they would return to residential inspections, and attempt to alternate those inspection cycles to keep compliance in check.

From his experience campaigning last fall before election, Acting Mayor Etten noted the complaints he’d received regarding their receipt of violation notices when they were in the process of performing their fall yard work from one weekend to the next.  Acting Mayor Etten asked that staff be cognizant of those situations and allow leeway for trailer storage and emptying.


Mr. Kaufland assured Councilmembers and the public that staff was cognizant of those situations, and observed properties, generally giving people ten (10) days for remedy, since each inspection allowed staff to be in those neighborhoods for a three (3) week period.


On a related noted, Councilmember McGehee opined that there were a number of inequities in current City Code that kept coming up for discussion, but without subsequent action (e.g. trailers stored on lots in front rather than back or side yards; boat and small trailers stored on residential lots; and large recreational vehicles as well).


Mr. Munson advised that staff was aware of those inequities and would attempt to address them in the future.


b.    Joint Meeting with Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)

HRA Board Members present: Chair Dean Maschka; Members Bill Masche; Sue Elkins; and Kelly Quam; and RHRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon.


Chair Maschka reviewed the two (2) most significant and exciting undertakings of the HRA at this time: redevelopment of the Dale Street Fire Station, and research and review of a multi-family rental housing licensing policy for the City of Roseville.


Specific to the Dale Street Fire Station redevelopment, Chair Maschka announced the upcoming public workshops or neighborhood gatherings, with a final report anticipated for delivery to the City Council in early to mid-summer of 2013.  As part of this steering committee, the Corridor Development Initiative (CDI), Chair Maschka expressed the HRA’s enthusiasm for this public-driven process, as detailed in the RCA dated March 11, 2013.


Specific to the proposed multi-family rental housing licensing program (Attachment B) and property classifications, as detailed in the RCA, Chair Maschka asked that the City Council also consider receivership as another potential option for those properties unable to be addressed otherwise.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Maschka noted one area of significant concern that may require such an option was in the southeast area of Roseville.  Chair Maschka noted, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, that this option would require further review for enactment of an ordinance to provide such an enforcement option if no other resolution appeared to suffice, and had proven successful by some communities as the “ultimate hammer” in achieving compliance.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chair Maschka confirmed that this allowed compliance without displacing tenants, allowing them to remain while the property was in receivership.  Chair Maschka provided several examples, including the City of New Brighton and their work with social service agencies to deal with some of their problem properties.


Acting Mayor Etten spoke in support of those efforts by the City of New Brighton, noting that those social services were not just offered, but specific need meetings were actually held in the problem buildings, and involved schools as well.


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten that an additional column be included to deal with such an option; Chair Maschka advised that the HRA had held preliminary public discussions to-date, and noted that such an option would be through a staged process, and only for worst-case scenarios ultimate to prevent displacements.


Acting Mayor Etten suggested further direction from the City Council to the HRA to provide that assurance that the health, welfare and quality of housing for all Roseville citizens were being met.  Acting Mayor Etten expressed appreciation for the thoughtful ways the HRA had addressed the various issues.


Chair Maschka advised that the HRA discussion to-date had focused on how to address the real problem properties, while rewarding good property owners.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of further research and having the receivership option in the toolbox.


Councilmember Laliberte requested additional information on how social services could be introduced to applicable properties, based on the demographics and populations of those buildings and how and when they may be helpful.


Chair Maschka advised that he had spoken to Bob Johnson of the New Brighton Public Safety Department, who had offered to talk to the HRA and City of Roseville about the program.  Chair Maschka noted that Northwest Youth and Family Services (NYFS) and School were also involved, and that the New Brighton program had been nationally recognized.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of anything that would make things better and find a resolution for the properties in the southeast section of Roseville, especially given the number of children in those units.


Chair Maschka reiterated the HRA’s intent to reward good properties and strongly address those not in compliance.


In response to a comment by Councilmember McGehee related to rental licensing, HRA Member Masche noted the very nature of normal deterioration of many of the multi-family buildings built in the 1950’s and 1960’s; and of concern to a number of those HRA members having served for a considerable amount of time.  During that time, Member Masche noted that the HRA had seen this licensing issue come and go; and while registration was now in place, licensing still had not been adopted.  Now, with this next step as proposed, Member Masche expressed the excitement of the HRA in being able to address the part of their role in protecting and enhancing Roseville properties in conjunction with the City Council.  Based on the age of many of those multi-family properties, Member Masche opined that this was a reasonable reaction for all residents in Roseville to address those few properties not being maintained.  Member Masche reiterated his excitement for the proposed licensing program, and expressed his hope that it could now move forward.


Councilmember McGehee thanked the HRA for their work; opining that these were both exciting programs and tremendous assets for the community to make it better.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her excitement about the process being used in developing the Dale Street site, and the invitations sent out throughout the community to provide that information; and her anticipation for its success and civic engagement.


In addressing outreach to the southeast section of Roseville, Acting Mayor Etten asked that consideration be given for whatever avenues were available to provide information to that population in their native language to make it possible for those residents to connect to the City and to include people in a way they can understand and communicate back to the City as well.


Chair Maschka expressed the HRA’s excitement in getting both projects started; specifically the Dale Street project.  However, he cautioned that it would prove an interesting project, but unfortunately come down to dollars in the end.


  1. Public Hearings


  1. Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Award a Contract to PerfectSoftware for Human Resources Information System (HRIA) Services for 2013 – 2015

Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon presented a summary of a web-based human resources system that would allow for paperless transactions and recordkeeping, electronic tracking and analysis, as well as remote access, as budgeted for in the 2013 budget in an amount estimated at $40,000.00.  Ms. Bacon reviewed initial costs as well as ancillary costs thereafter estimated at approximately $20,000.00 - $25,000.00 annually.


Discussion included clarification for the minimum 225 employee costs without increased costs for fewer employees; anticipated receipt of the Springsted employee compensation study results in the near future; clarification that this HRIS would house employee data, with the compensation matrix a separate study beyond this system; manual input versus electronic input and limited potential efficiencies other than providing more analytical decision-making with someone still having to enter the employee data and not freed up to do other duties; and anticipated additional cost of $1,250.00 for the ongoing employee benefit component if it was programmed to interact electronically with each insurance provider; and $.60 per employee per month (based on 175 employees) for recurring processing.


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten, Ms. Bacon clarified that it was her understanding that, if the City changed carriers, it would incur that cost each time.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon advised that she continued to research whether that cost would be from PerfectSoftware, as well as the current employee healthcare provider, HealthPartners.


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten, Ms. Bacon advised that the information available would not allow access by all employees, but would be controlled by the administrator(s) of the software depending on each party’s authorization to access information.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bacon clarified that only the employee benefits initiated through the City would be accessible, no claims history or medical records.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there seemed to be a number of opportunities for significant and ongoing costs above and beyond the annual $25,000.000 figure.


Ms. Bacon advised that staff and the City Attorney were anticipating negotiation of a three (3) year contract that would minimize those additional costs.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bacon advised that, at the direction of the body, staff could return after those negotiations with that three (3) year, fixed cost for the contract period.


Having worked on the managerial side with a similar system, Councilmember Laliberte noted the potential time savings.  However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her concern with the ongoing cost for the program after initial setup, and expressed her hesitancy in authorizing staff to move forward without having the actual cost available from HealthPartners, as well as the unknown quantity if and when changing carriers. 


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon advised that the City had been with the current provider, HealthPartners for five (5) years.  Ms. Bacon noted that the carrier costs could be addressed as an option, and without those carrier links, the cost for warehousing data would be $7.25 per employee.  If that were the case, Ms. Bacon advised that she would continue to do benefits online, but she would download that data and manipulate files and print them out to ship to the carriers.  With that as one feasible option, Ms. Bacon suggested that this shouldn’t be a primary concern in considering the overall system and its potential efficiencies.


Councilmember McGehee noted her initial interest based on the ability to quickly pull data together and generate reports to the City Council in a more timely manner (e.g. during contract negotiations).  For every piece eliminated from the package, Councilmember McGehee opined that this would just further delay availability of receiving that information for decision-making and cause staff to have to generate reports manually.  From her perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was an important piece of the system.


Acting Mayor Etten stated that he didn’t see it that way, since once the data was processed and an employee record updated into the main database, staff should still be able to produce the information, whether manually or sent off automatically for Ms. Bacon’s review and processing.


Ms. Bacon concurred to a certain extent; however, she reviewed the current redundancies in entering employee benefit data into an Excel spreadsheet, then submitting that to the Payroll Department, with dual time spent getting the information submitted and then charged back to the employee.


City Manager Malinen reviewed the initial budgeting of $40,000.00 in 2013 for an HRIS, with an additional $20,000.00 anticipated from reserves annually for ongoing maintenance; and that $20,000.00 thereafter as a subsequent and ongoing annual levy cost.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon clarified that this software program had a payroll function; however, it would mean that the current Springbrook software system used by the system could no longer be used.  In her consultations with the Finance Department, Ms. Bacon advised that it would be difficult and a financial loss since the Springbrook software had just been updated by the City/


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon concurred that there may still be some compatibility functions for exporting data with staff hoping to integrate them as much as possible; with not all records necessary for exporting, but basic employee data and compensation information necessary.


As Councilmember Laliberte continued to find staff resource savings through the employee actually entering their data, Ms. Bacon clarified that the only real time savings would be found during open enrollment time.


Further discussion included administrative users and training; and how the additional annual cost of $600.00 per additional user was defined, with Ms. Bacon clarifying that initially two (2) administrative users were anticipated (Ms. Bacon and City Manager Malinen) and any additional training applicable to anyone else having administrative rights, such as if specific manipulation was required for one department at a separate cost (e.g. Fire or Police Department-specific items).  Ms. Bacon advised that training was done by an eight (8) hour session via web; and she would then have the responsibility for training each staff member in use of the system.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte as to whether Springbrook would charge for interfacing between them and PerfectSoftware, Finance Director Miller advised that they would do so.  Mr. Miller anticipated an initial cost for writing an interface program at approximately $3,000.00; and typical annual maintenance costs at 20-25%, or $500.00-700.00 annually.


Acting Mayor Etten opined that this seemed to be the best use of the system, if those two software programs could be interfaced.


Mr. Miller advised that PerfectSoftware to Springbrook would only be a one-way communication; and that Springbrook would not talk back, so most of the staff time required would be from the Human Resources side.


Ms. Bacon advised that PerfectSoftware was aware that negotiations were forthcoming if the City Council approved tonight’s requested action.


Laliberte moved to TABLE action on this request.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that there were not enough firm numbers to take action tonight.  While not disagreeing that a system such as this was needed, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with the pending negotiation of fixed amounts, and clarification of additional interface and ongoing maintenance numbers from other entities; causing her hesitancy in moving forward with a moving target.


City Manager Malinen suggested that, if the majority felt it would be beneficial to move forward, it could direct staff to complete negotiations with the preferred vendor, and return to the City Council with an estimated contract for their consideration.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she would want it to come back before the body with that information.


Due to the lack of a second, Acting Mayor Etten declared the motion failed.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a minimum three (3) year contract with PerfectSoftware for HRIS services; identifying all options and components; and bringing that information back to the City Council for their review and consideration at a future meeting.


Acting Mayor Etten clarified that the intended direction to staff was for negotiation and confirmation of all components, including the cost to interface with HealthPartners and Springbrook.


At the request of Ms. Bacon, Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was also looking for one time and annual carrier interface costs.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


b.            Award the Sale of 2013 Refunding Bonds

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the sale of the City’s 2013 refunding bonds, as detailed in the RCA dated March 11, 2013; and introduced Ms. Terry Eaton of Springsted, Incorporated, the City’s bond counsel.


A bench handout was provided, consisting of the Bid Sale Summary Results, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Terry Eaton, Springsted Incorporated

Ms. Eaton provided the very favorable results of the bond sale; opining that it had proven to be great timing in the market.  Ms. Eaton reviewed the total of nine (9) bids received, with one syndicate bid received, making an actual total of twenty-five (25) financial institutions bidding.  Ms. Eaton advised that the issue had been very well-received in the marketplace; and the results were that the refunding term would be shorter than the initial bond that had six (6) years remaining.  Ms. Eaton reviewed an interest rate to 2019 at 0.799% and savings largely resulting from the remaining coupons and interest rate on bonds that had been considered low when initially issued at 3.69%.  Since the bonds are not callable until 2014, Ms. Eaton advised that the savings would begin in 2015 and subsequent years.  Ms. Eaton advised that this would result in an approximate savings of $317,000 for the City, higher than originally estimated, with the sale outperforming the marketplace, and a twenty (20) year low continuing.  Ms. Eaton noted that the City of Roseville took advantage of an opportunity to cash in on some low interest rates; and recognized Finance Director Miller for his command of the fact as he spoke with various ratings agencies, and from her perspective in listening in to those conversations, opined that he had done a great job.  In addition to this savings, Ms. Eaton advised that the original bond issue of $4,145,000 would be reduced to $3,980,000.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. ___ (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Accepting Proposal on the Sale of $4,145,000 General Obligation Municipal Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A, and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof.”


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


  1. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.    Review 2012 City Council Strategic Directives

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a summary of 2012 City Council Strategic Directives and their connections to Strategic Plan directives, as outlined in the RCA dated March 11, 2013, and Attachments A and B.  Mr. Miller advised that these were all critical pieces for the upcoming budget process, with the directives driving the Strategic Plan, which drove the Budget; and all included as part of the overall Performance Management Program.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in receiving input from newly-elected Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten.


Acting Mayor Etten opined that the information appeared to be fairly limited; and expressed his confusion with those items whose status was listed as “ongoing,” and those with a status of “completed.”  Acting Mayor Etten opined that this allowed for some further discussion, since many of those things had not yet been acted upon by the City Council, while some had been.  As an example, Acting Mayor Etten addressed Community Aspiration #4 (page 3) in conjunction with the previous HRA discussion tonight.   Acting Mayor Etten referenced other items identified as new costs to the budget that had yet to be discussed by the City Council in full detail, nor had a briefing by staff (e.g. patrol officers in commercial areas), but had only been discussed in a broad sense, but not fleshed out and discussed as part of a realistic budget item.


Councilmember Laliberte added to Acting Mayor Etten’s comments, stating that while she understood the strategic directives on paper, all of which sounded great and what was supported, she also had similar concerns to those expressed by Acting Mayor Etten, in how to determine which programs fall under those directives, or which tactics may not be an actual program, but receiving support for completion of them.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte wished to proceed, since these documents would be driving decision-making this year; and one of her goals was that they both have input into the Strategic Planning process and directives.  If the information remained incomplete, Councilmember McGehee suggested that Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte work offline or provide direction to staff on information they still needed, or if there was something the prior Councilmembers had missed or if there was something they didn’t agree with. 


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten, Finance Director Miller advised that staff’s intent for tonight was to provide this summary of City Council directives to-date for Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte to gauge whether they had any new directives to add, based on that talking point by the City Council several weeks ago.   If these were the directives that the City Council majority wished to guide the budget process, or if there were any directives that had been overlooked or needed reconsideration, Mr. Miller advised that this was an opportunity to provide that input.  Recognizing that Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte were seeking additional detail, Mr. Miller advised that those initiatives and the Strategic Plan details would be coming before them at the next meeting; and this summary should be reviewed by them in concert with the Strategic Plan document narrative including specific action plans to accomplish strategic directives.


At the request of Acting Mayor Etten admitted that, while appreciating the further information, he still didn’t understand where the process was at in the full spectrum, with some directives approved and some not, while others were at some level of motion.  Acting Mayor Etten concurred that a potential $2.3 million increase in tax-supported initiatives proposed for 2014 was beyond significant.


City Manager Malinen reviewed the budget process to-date, noting that the Strategic Plan put forward by Finance Director Miller would identify where funding has been applied to further those initiatives, while many of the remaining $2.3 million are not expected to be feasible.  As part of the budget process and reassessing priorities, Mr. Malinen noted that the start was to have these discussions, with the City Council making the ultimate decisions about those initiatives, including inflationary impacts.  Mr. Malinen noted that, when the initial budget process was started, it was set up for two (2) biennial cycles based on the existing work plan information; with short-term goals addressed in the first biennial cycle, and long-term goals addressed in the second biennial cycle.  Right now, Mr. Malinen advised that with the information presented, it was now time to affirm or reaffirm those initial goals and develop a mechanism for newer Councilmembers to have individual input in them.  Mr. Malinen advised that the work done to-date hopefully met those strategies and actual implementation.  However, he noted the need for further discussion and refinement over the next few months; with part of that exercise being to take new initiatives and align them in order of importance for a priority-based budget; with how to sort them being a major part of this budget process.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation for that further explanation from City Manager Malinen.   Councilmember Laliberte referenced the revised budget calendar from Finance Director Miller, and advised that she needed more time to review this most recent information with the Strategic Plan, available in various formats (e.g. website, cd and paper).  Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would address her questions to staff and in consultation with Councilmember Etten outside the meeting.


Acting Mayor Etten recognized the need to review the directives with the Strategic Plan as a whole to inform decision-making and the budget process; and advised that he would spend the next week doing so in consultation with staff as needed.


Finance Director Miller confirmed that the March 18, 2013 City Council meeting would provide for a review of the Strategic Plan itself.  Mr. Miller encouraged individual Councilmembers to contact staff for any strategic plan details they needed, advising that each Department Head was available to provide additional information.  Mr. Miller noted that staff was open and encouraged more individual City Council contact with staff when it came to prioritizing budgeting and the process itself; and was ready, willing and able to serve as a resource for them.


b.    Discuss League of MN Cities/Metro Cities Legislative Policy

City Manager Malinen provided a brief summary of options for City Council consideration and potential support of specific legislative goals of the League of Minnesota Cities and/or the Metro Cities lobbying group.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she had no interest in reading the extensive platforms or either group; and therefore would not support something she was unfamiliar with, but remained willing to talk about individual legislative efforts, but not from a blanket perspective.  However, Councilmember McGehee questioned if this discussion was prudent with only a portion of the body available.


Councilmember Laliberte also stated that she did not support blanket approval of both parties, and displayed copies of the extensive agendas of both legislative bodies.  Councilmember Laliberte referenced Councilmember Willmus’ strong feelings about some of that legislative agenda; and suggested a quick discussion at a future meeting of the body.


Acting Mayor Etten noted that there had been a number of items already tabled from tonight’s meeting for future agendas.


City Manager Malinen noted that one of the areas of concern for Councilmember Willmus was extension of Housing Improvement Areas (HIA) and identified in Fiscal Futures #26.  However, City Manager Malinen defended their use as simply one tool, if and when applicable, for a city to help multi-family developments.


Councilmember Laliberte recalled at least two other concerns of Councilmember Willmus, including requests by citizens for data information and the local option sales tax.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not sure of her support for maintaining government databases.


Councilmember Laliberte and Acting Mayor Etten concluded that this item should be deferred for the full body to review.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING this item until the March 18, 2013 regular City Council meeting.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.


  1. City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


Acting Mayor noted one interview had been rescheduled for March 18, 2013, from tonight’s interview schedule; and noted the significant number of items tabled from tonight’s meeting that may need deferred to later dates based on time available on March 18th.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff would review schedules for upcoming meetings at their weekly department head meeting tomorrow morning, and address potential alternative dates.


Councilmember McGehee asked that, after that meeting, staff provide an e-mail update on where those items would fall on future meeting agendas.


  1. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


  1. Adjourn

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:55 pm.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; and Etten.

            Nays: None.