City
Council Meeting Minutes
April 15, 2013
1.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council at approximately 6:00 pm, with Councilmembers Laliberte,
Willmus, McGehee, Etten, and Mayor Roe present. City Attorney Mark Gaughan and
City Manager Bill Malinen were also present.
Closed Executive Session
Consider Property
Acquisition of 2659 Victoria Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive
Mayor Roe noted that State Statutes,
Section 13d.05 permits City Council meetings to be closed in order to discuss
certain matters relating to prospective land purchases or sales, and that the
City was considering a potential acquisition of land located at 2659 Victoria
Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive in Roseville, MN.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
adjourning to Closed Executive Session to consider property acquisition at 2659
Victoria Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive at approximately 6:02 p.m.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe convened the City Council
in Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:03 pm. In addition to the City
Councilmembers, City Manager Bill Malinen, Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were in attendance.
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded,
adjourning the Closed Executive Session and returning to open session at
approximately 6:33 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe convened the City Council
in open session at approximately 6:35 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Laliberte requested
removal of Consent Item 7.c entitled, “Approve General Purchases and Sale of
Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000.”
Councilmember Willmus requested
removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Approve Contract for Printing Services.”
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
2.
Public Comment
Mayor Roe asked that all observe a
Moment of Silence in honor of the victims at the Boston Marathon and in support
of the first responders at the scene.
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. Gary Grefenberg, 91
Mid Oaks Lane
In his role as Chair of the City
of Roseville’s Human Rights Commission, Mr. Grefenberg announced several
upcoming dinners and dialogues related to the prevention of violence of any
kind, and how it impacts everyone, sponsored by the Commission. Mr. Grefenberg
advised that this would the purpose was to provide an opportunity for Roseville
residents to participate in a facilitated dialogue funded by the Busch
Foundation, with three (3) facilitators leading this combined town hall and
focus group. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the goal was to find areas of concern
and relevant issues of Roseville residents, and would hopefully serve as the
next step in civic engagement for the community, in identifying individual
and/or collective responses and ultimate resolutions. The event is scheduled
for Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at the Roseville Skating Center, Olympic Room; with
a light supper served at 5:15 p.m., followed by focused discussion and sharing
of perspectives from 6:00 – 8:30 p.m. Approximately two (2) weeks later, Mr.
Grefenberg announced that a follow-up session would be planned. While there is
no cost for the meal or discussion, Mr. Grefenberg noted that R.S.V.P.’s were
welcome to accommodate food availability; and those reservations and additional
information was available from Carolyn Curti at City Hall (651/792-7026) or
through the City’s website, Human Rights Commission tab.
4. Council
Communications, Reports and Announcements
Councilmember McGehee announced the
annual Roseville Clean-up Day scheduled for Saturday, April 27, 2013, at the
Dale Street entrance to Central Park. Additional information is available from
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt at City Hall (651/792-7027) or through the
“clean-up” tab on the City’s website.
Councilmember Etten announced the
continuing meetings as part of the Roseville Parks and Renewal Program, with
each meeting addressing specific parks/facilities in the system:
April 16, 6:30 p.m. at the
maintenance building on the City Hall Campus (Topic: Oasis Park)
April 23, 6:30 p.m. at the same
location (Topic: Rosebrook Park)
April 29, 6:00 p.m. at the same
location (Topic: Bruce Russell Park)
April 30, 6:30 p.m. at the
Roseville Skating Center (Howard Johnson Park)
Councilmember Laliberte announced
the 60th anniversary of the area League of Women Voters, with a
special recognition scheduled on April 25, 2013, with additional information on
the event, its location and cost available from Carolyn Cushing at 651/633-0602
or at Carolyn_cushing@comcast.net.
On behalf of the Roseville City Council, Councilmember Laliberte offered
congratulations to this organization.
Councilmember Willmus announced
upcoming informal tours by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture at Langton
Lake Park on April 22 – 25 to review damage from Emerald Ash Borer
infestations. Registration and additional information is available by contacting
Erica Commerce at 651/210-6244 or by contacting the City of Roseville’s Park
and Recreation Department at 651/792-7006.
Councilmember McGehee reported on
her attendance at the first Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority
sponsored community meeting held last week regarding the Dale Street Fire
Station Redevelopment Project, along with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the meeting was very exciting and embarked
upon a new process for Roseville, with the City of Roseville having assembled a
substantial piece of land for redevelopment, and initiating meetings with the
community, and particularly the adjacent neighborhood, for their input and
involvement in the process of designing what the community wants incorporated
into that redevelopment. Councilmember McGehee announced future opportunities
for presentation and small group discussions scheduled on April 25, 2013 from
6:30 – 8:30 p.m., with emphasis on a block exercise for participants with a map
of the area and blocks of different types/styles of housing arranged within
those blocks under different scenarios.
Councilmember McGehee announced
subsequent workshops scheduled on May 15 and May 28, 2013 respectively, that
would include developers making presentations on potential development
proposals to provide market insight, and subsequent recommendation from the
focus group to the HRA, who would be ultimately responsible for marketing the
property and defining its redevelopment in accordance with those expressed
community wishes. Additional information is available from HRA Housing Manager
Jeanne Kelsey at 651/792-7086.
Councilmember Etten noted that the meetings were being held at the King of
Kings Church/School directly across from the Dale Street fire station.
Mayor Roe updated the public and
City Council on recent happenings of the North Suburban Cable Commission at
their March and April meetings, in adopting a rate order in response to Comcast
rates implemented in 2012, with the NSCC concerned that they were not properly
presented in accordance with franchise agreements with the ten (10) member
cities. Mayor Roe noted significant concerns regarding the DTA or digital
adapter fee and related public queries. Mayor Roe noted that the NSCC’s April
action initiated a more formal negotiation for franchise renewal to address the
significant gap in positions of the parties, and to preserve timing concerns,
with the current franchise agreement set to expire in October of 2013, with no
guarantee that terms would be continued under that agreement in the interim.
Mayor Roe advised that this was basically an administrative litigation process
with the member cities and cable provider; and cautioned individual
Councilmembers of the need for discretion in their responses if contacted by
Comcast during that litigation process.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Recognize Outgoing Commissioners
Mayor Roe recognized six (6)
advisory commissioners who were retiring due to term expirations, or resigning
due to moving out of the community.
Those commissioners present for
recognition included Jason Etten, former Parks and Recreation Commission,
resigning when elected to the City Council; Harold Ristow, retiring from the
Parks and Recreation Commission having served his full terms; Daniel Boerigter,
retiring from the Planning Commission having served his full terms, a portion
of them as Chair of the Commission; and Jeff Lester, resigning from the
Planning Commission due to moving from the community.
Others recognized but unable to
attend tonight’s meeting, included Luann Peterson, retiring from the Ethics
Commission at the end of her term, and having served part-time as Chair of the
Commission; and Peter Strohmeier, resigning from the Planning Commission due to
moving from the community. Certificates of Recognition were available for each
Commissioner.
Commissioners Ristow and Boerigter
provided brief comments on their experiences.
From their years of service with
Commissioner Ristow, Councilmembers Willmus and Etten thanked him for his years
of service and his perspective on the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.
Mayor Roe thanked these
commissioners for their years of service to the community; and thanked all
advisory commissioners for their service, noting that the City Council would be
unable to do their jobs effectively without their support and input.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of April 8, 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.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the minutes of the April 8, 2013, meeting as presented.
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, Etten seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$276,786.40
|
|
69593-69644
|
122,221.92
|
|
Total
|
$399,008.32
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the
following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Lindsey Pille at Massage Envy Roseville
2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Request
by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. to Approve Preliminary Plat at 2305 Walnut Street
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval
of the proposed Highcrest Park 5th Addition PRELIMINARY PLAT; based
on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of Section
7 of the Request for Proposals (RCA) dated April 15, 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Annual Variance Board Appointments
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, ratifying the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners Michael
Boguszewski, Shannon Cunningham, Bob Murphy, and Jim Daire (alternate) as
Planning Commission members appointed to serve as the Variance Board from May
1, 20-13 to April 2, 2014.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Adopt a Resolution
Supporting Sales Tax Exemption on City Purchases
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11066 entitled, “A Resolution Supporting
Sales Tax Exemption on City Purchases.”
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
c. Approve General
Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of $5,000
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated April 15, 2013.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
there were no vehicles/equipment listed for resale for those replacement purchases;
and requested additional background be provided in the future on the status of
the equipment scheduled for replacement, and whether they were being replaced
based on their condition or just due to the proposed CIP schedule replacement.
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke advised that the Zamboni and maintenance vehicles had been
previously deferred; and the purchase amount shown reflected trade-in values
for those other vehicles in the near future; with the specific Zamboni cost
reflecting a net cost after trade-in value calculations.
Mayor Roe suggested adding
authorization to staff for those sales as part of tonights requested action.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff level discussions included those items under $5,000 that were not
typically brought before the City Council, when traded in or auctioned off,
with those items over that amount coming before the City Council in the future.
Councilmember McGehee noted an
apparent overlap of function between the Parks & Recreation and Public
Works Departments (e.g. ice control equipment), and questioned if this
equipment was specific to the Parks Department.
Mr. Brokke advised that the
equipment was jointly used by both departments, and there were no overlapping
pieces of equipment, with both departments working together to avoid any duplication.
Councilmember Laliberte asked
that, in the future when purchases are listed, they be identified with trade-in
prices reflected to allow more transparency.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services
presented as follows; and amended to authorize the sale of surplus vehicles
and/or equipment over $5,000 in value as applicable for these replacement items.
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
Budget / CIP
|
|
Parks & Rec
|
Americana Fireworks
|
4th of July fireworks display
|
$12,000.00
|
Budget
|
|
Parks & Rec
|
Midway Ford
|
Maintenance vehicle replacement (3) – State bid
contract purchase
|
72,715.14
|
CIP
|
|
Parks & Rec
|
Frank Zamboni Company
|
Zamboni replacement
|
113,386.76
|
CIP
|
|
Parks & Rec
|
Crysteel
|
Snow removal/ice control equipment – State bid contract
purchase
|
23,823.68
|
CIP
|
|
Parks & Rec
|
Titan Machinery
|
Towmaster Trailer – State bid contract purchase
|
9,086.50
|
CIP
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Approve Contract for Printing Services
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated April 15, 2013 and the bid form attached to the RCA.
Mayor Roe noted
additional information provided by staff at the request of Councilmembers, as a
follow-up to the agenda packet on Friday, with a list of bids received; and as
displayed by Communications Specialist Tim Pratt at the meeting.
Councilmember Willmus
advised that he didn’t think sufficient information had initially been provided
by staff to validate a decision by the Council until receipt of the bid
tabulations following his request for additional information. Councilmember
Willmus requested the process followed as standard operating procedure and
retention of data for individual committee member rankings, and asked that a
future City Council policy discussion provide a city-wide administrative retention
of that data.
Mayor Roe
suggested the discussion should be two-fold: whether individual rankings are
typically retained; and how that data would or should be used as part of the
agenda information and staff report.
Councilmember
Willmus advised that, at this point, the City Council now had all the
information needed to act on the requested action. However, going forward,
Councilmember Willmus asked that when a subcommittee or internal group was
performing the scoring process, their individual scores be retained for
consideration when those actions come before the body.
Councilmember
McGehee concurred that the individual scores should be retained; however, she
didn’t consider that the material should come before the full body in agenda
packets, but retained in the event of any unusual legal cases where it might be
needed for reference. Councilmember McGehee noted that the information
currently displayed was typically included in the standard information provided
to the City Council for their decision-making, and was appropriate.
Councilmember McGehee opined that collection and retention of scoring, and potential
use should be addressed by the City Attorney.
Councilmember
Willmus, based on his past experience particularly with the Parks &
Recreation Commission and subcommittee review, participants or bidders were
identified as by letter but not individually identified.
Councilmember
Etten concurred that more information needed to be available to the City
Council as standard operating procedure to allow for educated decision-making;
with decision-making processes of subcommittees retained, since they affected
the recommendation for and provided that background information to the City
Council.
Councilmember Laliberte
concurred with the comments made and that the displayed information provided
adequate information for the City Council’s decision-making. Councilmember
Laliberte opined that, anytime citizens were engaged to rank recommendations as
part of a committee or task force, the City Council needed to look to their
information as representatives of the community. Councilmember Laliberte
advised that she wanted to see more, not less, data when asked to make decisions;
and expressed her frustration with the last few meetings with summary
information provided in staff reports rather than being provided supporting
data. Councilmember Laliberte further opined that this should be a required
part of the process versus a “trust us” approach from staff.
Mayor Roe noted
that, in the past aggregate scoring had been provided, and he concurred that it
needed to be there, not because the City Council didn’t trust the information
being presented, but for full transparency for the City Council and the public
when seeing the report for the first time and resulting conclusions. From his
personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t need individual scores,
but that he did want the aggregate rankings; however, he agreed to defer to the
Council majority for their wishes as to how price information was reflected in
staff recommendations moving forward.
While recognizing
that this particular item was a small bid relative to some items, Councilmember
Etten opined that aggregate ranking versus individual scores should be included
in the agenda packet; but that those individual scores should be retained if
further detail was needed.
City Attorney
Gaughan agreed that the data created over the course of the evaluation should
be retained by the City; cautioning that the data remained non-public until
contracts were finalized.
City Manager Malinen duly noted this discussion for future reference.
Laliberte moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of an Agreement between the City of Roseville and
Greenhaven Printing for printing and mailing services (Attachment A); and approval
of an Agreement between the City of Roseville and Real World Enterprizes, d/b/a
Impressive Print for printing forms and envelopes (Attachment B).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
10.
Presentations
a.
Emerald Ash Borer
Parks and
Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided a quick update on Emerald Ash Borer
(EAB) findings in the City of Roseville, and based on the current status map (Attachment
A); and as detailed in his memorandum dated April 8, 2013.
Mr.
Brokke reviewed upcoming community meetings scheduled for residents with the
Department of Agriculture; and communication of the City Plan adopted in the
fall of 2010 to address this potential infestation, and funds established in
2011 for public tree removal.
Discussion
among Councilmembers and Mr. Brokke included disposal of Ash trees on private
property found to have infestations; disposal available at Ramsey County
tree/brush sites for use by homeowners and/or tree contractors; and timing for
harvesting trees.
Mr. Brokke
announced community education meetings scheduled with the Department of
Agriculture at Langton Lake Park with tours from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 –
2:30 p.m. at the west parking lot at Langton Lake Park to show affected trees,
and signs and symptoms of EAB infestation. Mr. Brokke advised that additional
information was also available on the City’s website.
b.
Parks and Recreation Renewal Program Review
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke and Park Superintendent Jeff Evenson reviewed the current and
upcoming process for the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program.
Mr. Brokke provided a quick
introduction and review of the process to-date as detailed in the RCA dated
April 15, 2013.
Mr. Evenson reviewed the process
used and examples of how each Park Renewal process proceeded by neighborhoods,
the overall community, and then the Parks & Recreation Commission;
highlighting the public engagement strategy for Lexington Park. Mr. Evenson
noted that a common theme for each park was trail connections and inclusion of
natural areas. Mr. Evenson noted that detailed information for each park was
provided on the City’s website; and encouraged continued feedback from the
public.
Councilmember
Willmus thanked staff for the continued outreach, opining that he was impressed
with the turnout at those neighborhood meetings, which spoke well of the
overall process. Specific to ice rinks in neighborhood parks and residents
seeking hard surfaces (e.g. pavement), Councilmember Willmus encouraged staff
to look into the possibility of pervious pavement as applicable, and to serve
as a good model for other areas of the City.
Councilmember
McGehee concurred with the remarks of Councilmember Willmus; speaking in
support of the process, as well as pervious surfaces, although questioning why
grass was not a sufficient surface for the rinks during summer months. In
noting the amount of vegetation evidenced in supporting maps for each park,
Councilmember McGehee suggested serious consideration be given for maintenance
and irrigation for draught years in particular; with irrigation and
draught-resistant plant materials considered during the design process moving
forward, given rising water costs.
Specific to this
example, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there was feedback about the
organized hockey rink surface being located so far from the warming house.
Mr. Evenson
advised that a typical connection could be clumsy in any parks, with the
proposed plan including a sheet of ice for open skating with a flooded connection
to the hockey area for easier access by skaters. Mr. Evenson noted that the
discussion had come up at every park meeting to-date where a hockey rink was
included, with concerns about who gets closer access to the warming house. Mr.
Evenson advised that options were currently under review in an attempt to work
out any potential conflicts.
Councilmember
Etten spoke in concurrence with previous Councilmember comments. Councilmember
Etten referenced this entire process as a good opportunity for residents to
engage in their community and provide input into their park and the overall
park system, and to-date had provided great responses from the community at
those meetings. Councilmember Etten opined that this process should also
provide an opportunity for the City to be seen in a different light, allowing
for the community to be pro-active rather than reactive to proposed
improvements and redevelopment in Roseville.
In conclusion,
Mr. Brokke addressed the extensive playground equipment replacement program as
part of the Park Renewal Program, anticipating fourteen (14) replacements at a
cost estimate of $1.6 million. Mr. Brokke advised that the process of selecting
playground vendors, using the Best Value Process, as detailed in the RCA, was a
major portion of this Renewal Program. Mr. Brokke reiterated the additional
information available on the City website; and encouraged public participation.
Mayor Roe and
Councilmembers thanked the Parks & Recreation staff for their extra time
and efforts during this process.
Public
Comment
Gary
Grefenberg, SW Roseville
Mr. Grefenberg
noted that the southwestern portion of Roseville recently held their first
meeting and expressed his enthusiasm for this great example of civic engagement
providing an opportunity for staff and consultants to listen to the
neighborhoods. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his appreciation of staff’s leadership
throughout this process. While recognizing continued significant differences
among neighbors, Mr. Grefenberg noted that concerns were that Evergreen Park
was basically an athletic field, tot lot and hockey rinks; with many neighbors
preferring that a natural space or connection be available, and remained unresolved.
Mr. Grefenberg again thanked staff for their attempts in engaging local neighborhood
groups and associations and thanked Mr. Brokke and Mr. Evenson for their
collaboration with the neighborhood in getting neighbors engaged.
11.
Public Hearings
a.
Extend Working Hours for the 2012-13 Storm Sewer Lining Project
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided
a brief review of this request as detailed in the RCA dated April 15, 2013; and
the process of this application. Ms. Bloom noted the night work is proposed in
the areas of the intersection of County Road B and Dale Street and the
intersection of County Road B-2 and Hamline Avenue; and the need to have
generators running after normal restricted hours; and therefore requesting this
noise variance to complete this work.
Ms. Bloom advised that notice of
the proposed variance and tonight’s public hearing had been mailed to all
property owners within a 350’ radius of both intersections; and anticipated a
one to two night work time maximum to accomplish the lining. Ms. Bloom advised
that the overall goal was to get the work done; and noted that this lining was
a much less expensive and less invasive process than excavations. Ms. Bloom
advised that residents in those same notice radii would be mailed notices of
the exact work dates once known, and anticipated for May or June of 2013,
depending on weather and contractor mobilization and availability.
Mayor Roe opened and closed the
Public Hearing at approximately 8:03 pm for the purpose of hearing public
comment on extended hours for this project; with no one appearing for or against.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a variance to City Code Section
405.03 Hourly Restrictions of Certain Operations to extend the working hours
for the 2012-2013 Storm Sewer Lining Project to permit construction activities
to occur outside of the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on any weekday, or
between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm on any weekend or legal holiday.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:17 pm.
12.
Budget Items
a.
Discuss Council Program Priorities
Mayor Roe referenced the bench
handout, consisting of the City Council’s individual and composite rankings by
department and function for tax-supported and non-tax-supported programs.
Mayor Roe suggested tonight’s discussion focus on areas of discrepancy, and the
rationale for those discrepancies, whether further clarification was needed or
consideration of policy/priorities. Mayor Roe noted that the budget calendar
indicated the next stop was adoption at the April 22, 2013 meeting of the City
Council priorities to allow staff to move forward with their budget
recommendations.
Finance Director Miller concurred
with that interpretation of the budget calendar; unless the City Council
preferred another reiteration of the rankings based on tonight’s discussion;
with formal adoption proposed for April 22, 2013.
City Manager Malinen suggested
discussion focus on those items having rankings between staff and
Councilmembers of two points or more.
At the request of Mayor Roe, the
ranking rubric brought forward by the Finance Subcommittee and subsequently
adopted by the full City Council was restated by City Manager Malinen as follows:
|
Priority
Ranking
|
Description
|
|
7
|
Critical to achieve City aspirations
|
|
5
|
Significant to achieve City aspirations
|
|
3
|
Important to achieve City aspirations
|
|
1
|
Desirable to achieve City aspirations
|
Councilmember Laliberte reviewed
her interpretation of rankings completely removing community aspirations from
her review, and considering “7” as critical based on mandatory statutory requirements
to address public safety or assets; “5” as good or important, but maybe not
required; “3” as nice to have; and “1” indicating services could be provided
without it.
Mayor Roe opined that he didn’t
see that interpretation or review to be problematic from his perspective.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she looked at the exercise differently, seeing few things absolutely critical
beyond providing emergency, water, sewer, and public safety services, based on
that identification from the Cobalt Survey in her rankings. Since everyone
know how the City is run, Councilmember McGehee opined that Councilmembers were
aware of how residents liked thinks done and their desire to keep things the
way they are, at no cost. While that is not a function the City Council is
able to achieve, or reduce using this method, Councilmember McGehee expressed
her ongoing frustration and her perceived lack of value in the entire exercise,
opining that it didn’t have any value nor did it get the City where it needed
to go. Councilmember McGehee stated that every Department Director knew what
their department did without any huge input from the public of those
activities, other than they wanted more but didn’t want to pay for more.
Mayor Roe opined that the next
critical step is for staff, based on this composite ranking information, was
for the City Council to provide direction on a Preliminary Levy level as a
target to see if it was possible. At that point, Mayor Roe noted that
Department Heads and their respective staff would take that figure and see what
they could achieve. Mayor Roe advised that this exercise provided staff with
their input into that staff process, and from that perspective had value.
Specific to his rankings, Mayor
Roe advised that he took them quite literally, with “1” not critical or
important, but desirable; and noted that he tried as much as possible to review
line items in light of achieving community aspirations.
Councilmember Willmus, in
reviewing his approach, advised that it was similar to that of Councilmember
Laliberte, or a hybrid based on his own perspectives beyond community
aspirations. In his review of City Council results provided by Finance
Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus admitted that he may not have ranked the
Enterprise Funds quite as high, since they tended to be self-sustaining and
generated their own revenue. While recognizing the exercise as an interesting
process, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was not ultimately his focal point
in making determinations, but used as a generalized guide for him, with other
factors taken into consideration that came up over the course of the year.
Mayor Roe noted that the exercise
was not intended as an end-all.
As a member of the Finance
Committee, and one of the authors of the revised rubric, Councilmember Etten
noted that he still struggled with it not reflecting how individual departments
operated and his inability to look at how the budget affected the reality of
staff as part of their daily operations. Councilmember Etten opined that one
of those missing components was his inability to discern whether new money was
required of was fully funded for something he ranked as significant.
Councilmember Etten opined that the rank didn’t help rank Enterprise Funds or
the License Center, since he ranked the License Center as high, but did not
cost the city money.
City Manager Malinen clarified
that the License Center was a net revenue source for the City.
Councilmember Etten concurred;
however, he opined that it was not necessary to the City’s day-to-day
operations. Councilmember Etten expressed his frustration with this process
that didn’t get to the heart of how the City operated.
Mayor Roe asked City Manager
Malinen and/or Finance Director Miller to respond as to whether they found this
step in the process helpful on funding; questioning if staff found something
would cost more based on the priority ranking, if Department Heads didn’t then
review how to weigh it into their respective department budgets or request an
increase in the levy to facilitate that higher ranking.
Councilmember Etten reiterated his
concern, in lacking a budget document showing how departments actually
operated, and if he chose to initiate a new program or seek investment of new
money for a specific department or purpose, with each ranking different, he
would have a hard time determining how that new priority affected the entire
process; or if it required a new staff person, or whether those
responsibilities were broken out over different areas.
Mayor Roe noted that this would
become evident through recommended staff reallocations.
City Manager Malinen responded that
this approach brought staff a knowledge of Council priorities for where to
allocate resources, and those things the City Council deemed they wanted the
City to excel at, and were most important, as well as those ranks that may not
be as important or considered expendable. Mr. Malinen referenced the “yellow
line” concept for that ranking, and while perhaps seen as harsh, in reality the
exercise had not panned out that way, but did allow both staff and the City
Council to look at line items to determine desirable versus essential or
critical. Mr. Malinen advised that the overall concept allows Department Heads
to adjust and reallocate resources when they understand priorities across the
board.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen confirmed that this had been staff’s experience over the last
few years; and as staff had delved in deeper into operational aspects of the organization,
their recommendations back to the City Council relative to City Council
rankings have dictated those recommendations within the overall budget process.
As an example, Councilmember Etten
addressed the Council Composite Priority ranking 2.2 for the Recycling Program
Administration Service Charge (Item 20 – Administration Department Programs)
and questioned how that impacted operations from management on down; and
whether that hypothetically indicated a cut in the City Manager’s salary by
ranking that line lower.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen reviewed that line item as an example of the process as an
internal charge having other aspects of the overall Enterprise Fund having Ramsey
County and other financial support. Mr. Malinen noted that it would be
difficult to eliminate or reduce that program based on its overall function for
the community.
Mayor Roe noted that, based on
that rationale, staff did not put that item below the “yellow line” but
something close to that low ranking may be reduced.
Specific to Line 20, Councilmember
Willmus suggested that it could be eliminated as had been done successfully by
other communities.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Willmus clarified that he didn’t mean elimination of the
Recycling Program, but operating it without a Recycling Coordinator, and
questioned whether it was necessary to have a coordinator to remain an efficient
recycling community.
Mayor Roe opined that charges may
be incurred elsewhere for a net balance.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
some things became problematic for her ranking since she didn’t know if her
endorsement was also endorsing a dollar amount, since ranking didn’t connect to
dollar amounts. Councilmember Laliberte admitted her confusion with that
aspect of the exercise; and suggested that it would be helpful to her if there
was another iteration of the number of FTE’s required for each category to
determine FTE’s versus “stuff.” For efficiency purposes, Councilmember
Laliberte recognized that significant job sharing occurred, but a differentiation
between personnel and stuff was necessary for her ranking.
While Mayor Roe noted that
information was available by program in background materials provided
elsewhere, in terms of this document, Councilmember Willmus noted an overall
lack of correlation between individual components and how they interacted with
other components city-wide.
Mayor Roe clarified that this was
not intended as an exercise in budgeting, simply ranking, and while not blind,
it was for the purpose of deciding what was most important by priority ranking,
thereby feeding staff decisions on staffing levels, position grades and various
duties of those positions.
Citing another personal
frustration with the exercise as she reviewed the calendar steps, Councilmember
Laliberte noted there was nothing in the steps, but should be, an opportunity
to roll up sleeves to determine efficiencies and/or areas to cut; and she
questioned where in the process the City Council learned what they could do
without, change or adjust accordingly.
City Manager Malinen noted that
some of those things had already been addressed over the last few years; and
while not necessarily big changes, they were dictated to some extent on where
City Council priorities indicated. Mr. Malinen noted another part of the
discussion was Strategic Plan initiatives needing better definition or
potential changes or efficiencies. Recognizing Councilmember Laliberte’s
frustrations, Mr. Malinen advised that this exercise would now provide a status
quo base line from which to work based on those assumptions, with individual departments
of the city attempting further efficiencies that would impact the overall
budget based on composite rankings.
Mayor Roe referenced one-time
costs from 2013 that would not be carried forward to 2014, as part of the
process requested in past years by Councilmember Pust. Mayor Roe opined that
this particular portion of the process may have been shortchanged in past
years; but requested more detail be provided for the City Council and public by
each Department and the City Manager, before the City Manager-recommended budget
came forward, specific to new State mandates, levy amounts, and significant
changes in each department. Mayor Roe suggested that information be made
available, at least no later than between the City Manager-recommended budget
was presented but prior to budget hearings for the September Preliminary
not-to-exceed Levy being established. Mayor Roe noted the need for a better
understanding and evaluation of those specifics and a more detailed discussion
as part of the ultimate decision-making process.
While past decisions incorporated
a biennium budget going forward, Councilmember Laliberte requested staff’s
delineation of those items budgeted for but not spent to-date; and asked that
those items be specifically highlighted and pointed out by staff.
To the extent possible, City
Manager Malinen, Malinen noted 2012 carryover operations had been funded
significantly by position vacancies, and once provided for in 2013, the
question remained as to whether they were part of the 2014 baseline. Mr.
Malinen opined that staff had done a good job to-date in separating out
operational versus capital for budget purposes.
Mayor Roe noted that this was what
former Councilmember Pust had requested; and asked that staff not lose sight of
that in other parts of the budget process; and as a hopefully innovative
organization, it was continuing to learn efficiencies and not carry things over
automatically, but provide a new number to carry forward. Mayor Roe noted that
the quarterly reports provided by staff were helpful, but unfortunately the
later 2013 reports would not provide information soon enough for the 2014
budget, but should be helpful with a biennial budget.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Mayor Roe, while Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee remained unconvinced
with the process.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
what she and Councilmember Laliberte were seeking was more transparency beyond
this format rather than “silent management” through a duplication of
administrative services within departments. Councilmember McGehee expressed
her frustration in not being able to determine that or review that level; and
opined that she had ideas outside of this setting, but this format didn’t allow
that level of review that she and Councilmember Laliberte were seeking. In all
of the rating exercises, Councilmember McGehee noted that it didn’t consider
the dollars. Councilmember McGehee also referenced different opinions of
residents on what was or was not an amenity in the community; and those things
that may not rank highly, but brought in revenue to the City, but also were
services that were highly valued or important to the Roseville community itself
(e.g. License Center).
Councilmember Willmus noted
Finance Director’s Miller’s provision of the projected surplus or money carried
over from 2012 and available for use in 2013; and asked if Mr. Miller could
provide an update on that information at this point based on his projections.
Finance Director Miller advised
that the information was typically available in late spring, and would be
available in May of 2013 as the City Council received the formal audit; but
offered to highlight the information at this time as well.
Relative to the duplication
comments, Mayor Roe asked staff to address this; however, he cautioned the City
Council on its role and staff’s responsibility to manage the City and develop a
budget. If staff observed any duplication, if directed by City Council policy
or if not sufficiently articulated by the City Council for staff, Mayor Roe
suggested that further clarification should be provided that the City Council
did not support any duplication of staff, administrative charges or services.
Mayor Roe opined that, from his personal perspective, it was not his role to
look for those to “win one” for the taxpayer, but to provide a clear policy
directing staff that their recommendations are based on that policy and always
included as part of the discussion process for any funding level. Using the
License Center as an example, Mayor Roe opined that he may need to re-evaluate
his ranking based on tonight’s informative discussion.
Mayor Roe suggested that the key
message to City Manager Malinen and staff was that the City Council was
dependent on more information coming to them from staff for a better understanding
and future discussion and providing a refined recommendation.
City Manager Malinen asked for
City Council clarification on deviations between staff and City Council
composite rankings; advising that he highlighted those discrepancies of two (2)
points or more, opining that those were significant to him.
Mayor Roe led discussion into
those areas highlighted by City Manager Malinen to address rationale in those
discrepancies.
Administration Department
Programs
Council Support
Program/Function (Code 1)
City Manager Malinen noted that,
since the work of the City Council is of the utmost to the overall
organization, this function took a fair amount of staff time, and form his
perspective, it was a basic function of government.
Council Business Meetings (Code
9)
City Manager Malinen noted that
this also was important for the work of the City, since the City Council was at
the top of the organizational ladder.
Councilmember Etten noted that
City Council salaries were not ranked high by Councilmembers, and that line
item as well as others, created frustration for him when there may not be a
sufficient narrative description or the same description may be used for
several items within the department making it hard to distinguish.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
what was critical to her was not whether a meeting was held, but whether the
health and welfare of the community was addressed.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated
her frustration in not knowing the difference in personnel and material costs
for each line item, using “audits” listed under business meetings as an
example.
Mayor Roe suggested that item
could be shifted.
Intergovernmental Affairs /
Memberships (Code 11)
City Manager Malinen noted the
need in this category to recognize the value of the City with the League of
Minnesota Cities for insurance, which he considered mandatory based on quotes
for liability from other agencies, and the LMC still remaining the best out
there.
Mayor Roe noted that interesting
comment, as he might rate membership lower, but insurance higher, and
recognized that was part of the concern expressed by Councilmember Laliberte,
and suggested this discussion may have been more opportune as a work session
discussion a month earlier. However, in all fairness, Mayor Roe noted that his
absence at the last meeting didn’t serve to provide more discussion and make
things more clear. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested a second iteration of this
ranking would be prudent before the April 22, 2013 meeting.
Recording Secretary (Code 12)
City Manager Malinen noted that
there were differing opinions in meeting minute content, with the only legal requirement
to record the motion and second; but more detail preferred by some whether
critical or important.
Councilmember Willmus opined that,
from the opposite perspective, he preferred the level of detail currently used.
Mayor Roe noted that those
perspectives were clearly indicated in the various rankings.
Elections (Code 13)
City Manager Malinen noted that
this was a mandatory service of the City; with Councilmember Willmus concurring
and questioning his own rationale in ranking it as a “1,” and obviously skewing
the composite ranking.
Recycling Administrative
Service Charge (Code 20)
City Manager Malinen reviewed the
intent of this category as defined.
Recycling Communications /
Outreach Efforts (Code 21)
City Manager Malinen opined that
this was an important function if the recycling program was to remain
successful.
Mayor Roe suggested, based on
tonight’s discussion and various perspectives, that the exercise be repeated in
a second iteration to let the results speak for themselves.
Community Development
Department Programs
Organizational Management (Code
4)
Community
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon explained his rationale in ranking,
noting that code enforcement was complicated, with numerous processes to follow
and court proceedings, thus his higher ranking of this mandatory function for
the City.
Economic Development and
Redevelopment (Code 5)
Mr. Trudgeon advised that he
ranked this function lower, as something that the City could do without or
provide for less emphasis, unless the City Council chose to take advantage of
the City’s inner-ring suburb location and at what level they chose to drive
development or redevelopment.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Mr. Trudgeon’s rationale completely.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that she ranked it higher, as she considered that
function including grant applications and bringing in revenue that would
alleviate the burden on residents.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she also disagreed, opining that this was the more important job of this
department, with several recent actual developments that did not provide a
useful or positive impact on the community or its residents; necessitating
long-range planning as a critical element.
In adding to those comments, Mayor
Roe noted his ranking as a “7,” especially as a first-ring suburb and the
community aspiration for an economically stable tax base. Reverting back to organizational
management (Code 4), Mayor Roe reviewed his across-the-board philosophy for
program offerings and associated staff for those programs, it ranked as a “5”
or “7” for him. However, based on tonight’s discussion, Mayor Roe advised that
he may need to revise his rankings where behind-the-scenes organization made
various programs succeed as deliverables (e.g. recruiting volunteers for park
and recreation programs). Mayor Roe noted his ranking of “3” as important
priorities.
In her review, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that she ranked all organizational management functions as a
“5,” and if it involved delivery of a service, she ranked it higher.
Mr. Trudgeon noted, from his
perspective, how he ranked the program and based its organizational management
function accordingly. Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember comments on
economic development. However, he noted that his initial understanding was
that everything could not be ranked as a “7,” and therefore his review was that
in not ranking mandatory functions the highest, it would be a dereliction of
his duty, requiring that he based all functions compared relative to those
mandatory items. Mr. Trudgeon noted that economic development was more
discretionary and his ranking was based on that; and while he agreed that it
was very important, it also depended on how many dollars were available
overall.
Councilmember Etten thanked Mr.
Trudgeon for making that distinction.
Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr.
Trudgeon for not ranking all functions as “7,” and recognized that there was a
fixed pot of money requiring choices, and the inability to have resources or
personnel available to do the job at the level ranking by the City Council.
Based on that assumption, Councilmember McGehee requested that staff then come
forward to the City Council with a request or explanation of their interest in
doing a function and as a result, the amount of funding required to accomplish
it. Councilmember McGehee noted past discussions clarifying that the
department was not funded with tax dollars; and the need for regrouping when
experiencing an economic slump. If sufficient staff and resources were not
available, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff then explain that to the City
Council and ask for use of dead time to do these important jobs.
Mayor Roe suggested this may be a
good example of the need to look at a funding mechanism, such as property tax
support or through development fees.
Relative to all departments, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that the level of funding is not factored into this ranking by
staff at this time, and it would be challenging to rank importance and
efficiencies.
From his perspective, and
indicative of his lower rankings, Mayor Roe noted those items he identified as
important but not mandatory and requiring adjustment of staffing levels or
output to reporting agencies.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff would deal with that it those functions came near the “yellow line.”
Zoning Code Enforcement (Code
12)
Mr. Trudgeon again supported his
ranking rationale by noting that this was also a mandatory function of his
department for the City.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that she was confused with the same description for Codes 1, 3 and 4 regarding
enforcement and organizational management, inadvertently thinking that
indicated a duplication of functions. Councilmember Laliberte advised that it
now made sense to her after this discussion.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was
his fault in not looking at this twice, since each area of enforcement was a
different function: code, planning, nuisance and zoning.
As a follow-up, Mayor Roe
suggested refining and clarifying those definitions.
Finance Department Programs
Business Licenses (Code 4)
Finance Director Miller noted that
this was mandated by City Code, and therefore he ranked it accordingly as a
“7.”
At the request of Mayor Roe as to
the level of service for the function, Mr. Miller questioned why the City would
choose not to provide excellent service for that function; with Mayor Roe
noting that this function was self-sustaining based on fees as well.
Contractual Services (Roseville
Visitors Association and Housing & Redevelopment Authority) (Code 7)
Mr. Miller noted the definition
itself was the key word, thus his ranking as a “7.”
(Code 9)
In his ranking for Economic
Development, Mr. Miller concurred with the rationale of Mr. Trudgeon; and if
you were starting a city from scratch, it was a nice function; however, he
questioned how critical it was for the City’s short-term objectives and
aspirations, since to him it appeared a more long-term objective, without
necessary resources currently committed. During his twelve (12) year tenure,
Mr. Miller noted the laissez-faire perspective to development; however,
he admitted he was hearing something different from the City Council at
tonight’s discussion from previous indications.
Lawful Gambling Community
Donations; Gambling Licenses and Reports (Codes 33 and 34)
Mr. Miller noted that these are
also a requirement of current City Code, therefore mandated. However, Mr.
Miller suggested that the City could consider getting out of lawful gambling
regulation or determining which groups received gambling profits. However,
since it was currently dictated or mandated by City Code, Mr. Miller advised he
had therefore ranked it high.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified that the City made no money for this function,
but simply served as a pass-through for funds through oversight. Mr. Miller
advised that the City did not need to be involved in how and where lawful
gambling monies are distributed (e.g. Community Fund), and he was unaware of
any other city that performed that function.
Noting budget revenue in all
columns, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the actuality of excesses or
shortfalls.
Mr. Miller advised that it
depended on the fund, with non-tax-supported funds having its own fund, without
property tax support (e.g., IT, water, sewer, storm sewer, golf course, license
center, etc.) and didn’t require any taxpayer involvement. For those specific
enterprise funds, Mr. Miller advised that any surpluses stay within the fund,
and any shortfalls are made up from previous excesses.
While not having participated in
past City Council decision making, Councilmember Laliberte the City had a high
level of volunteers and fundraising within the City by and for other groups.
In recognizing how Councilmember McGehee ranked the License Center,
Councilmember Laliberte noted that a large portion of the community relied on
that service locally as well.
Councilmember McGehee concurred.
License Center (Codes 38, 39,
41, and 43)
With the City’s decision to serve
as a Deputy Registrar, Mr. Miller noted that this required it to provide
certain services, thus he considered it a mandate and ranked it as a “7”
accordingly.
Mayor Roe admitted that this
rationale may require his re-evaluation for the next iteration.
Fire Department Programs
Organizational Management (Code
3)
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill advised
that this was the day-to-day operations of him and his Administrative Assistant
in oversight of seventy (70) part-time and full-time personnel (e.g. payroll,
supply ordering, maintenance of employees, invoices, etc.)
Fire Administration &
Planning (Code 7)
Chief O’Neill advised that this
was the day-to-day operations of two (2) personnel: the Battalion Chief./Fire
Marshal and Fire Inspector (e.g. computer data, pre-planning of buildings,
etc.).
Fire Prevention (Code 8)
Chief O’Neill advised that this
was two personnel (Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector) in servicing over 200
multi-family apartment dwellings in the community for annual inspections,
commercial/retail inspections, awareness of any new businesses and their
storage capacity and/or building conversions related to access and flammable
and/or hazardous materials); as well as plan review for any new construction or
remodels.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
this service is being provided by the City that any business would normally
provide for themselves and their customers; and questioned if a fee could be
applied for this service from a fire prevention standpoint as part of doing
business in Roseville.
Mayor Roe questioned if a fee
could be charged.
Chief O’Neill advised that he
didn’t know the answer at this time, but would perform research to find out.
Chief O’Neill advised that, to-date, the City had not charged a fee during his
25 year tenure; and he was not sure if that was a common practice in the
market, but advised that he would report back on any such possibility.
Police Department Programs
Overall, Police Chief Rick Mathwig
advised that 87% of the budget per category were personnel costs based on time
spent studies recently completed.
Community Liaison (Code 1)
Chief Mathwig advised that this
was the work and interaction of the Community Resource Coordinator; with 2/3 of
the department’s volunteers coordinated through this position (e.g.
neighborhood watch captains, park patrol, annual Night to Unit, etc.)
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
appreciation for clarifying that personnel cost upfront.
Animal Control (Code 12)
Chief Mathwig advised that this
function was for animal control in the wee hours of the morning when Community
Service Officers were not available.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief
Mathwig advised that some of this function could be deferred until a CSO became
available; however, others needed immediate resolution by the officer.
Police Reports by Officer
(Code 15)
Chief Mathwig noted that this was
mandatory to the rule of law; and in order to hold criminals accountable and
process through court, that prosecution required reports.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
she saw reports under Code 3, so when she saw it again under Code 15, she
thought it was redundant, and therefore ranked it lower.
Chief Mathwig clarified that Code
3 is recording the report, but Code 15 is the officer writing the report and
generating follow-through the State and other agencies or jurisdictions.
Public Safety Promo / Community
Interaction (Code 16)
Chief Mathwig advised that this
included officer-friendly interaction as part of the department’s pro-active
efforts within the community versus reacting to crimes.
Councilmember McGehee questioned,
if an officer was on patrol, why this community interaction was not considered
part of his normal duties.
Based on time spent studies, Chief
Mathwig noted this distinction; with Mayor Roe concurring on how the time study
determined these various functions in how the overall salary is divided.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte in how the department’s interaction is defined with the Karen
community as an example, Chief Mathwig advised that such interaction is spread
throughout all division, with all those divisions involved in some way in that
interaction.
Councilmember Etten advised that
he ranked this as a “7,” based on the critical need for the Police Department
to positively establish relationships and build stronger communities.
Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in patrols by district to enhance
familiarity with districts and whether that was being accomplished.
In response, Chief Mathwig advised
that being in one area of Roseville allowed an officer to interact better with
that neighborhood and carry out duties more effectively.
Parks & Recreation
Department Programs
Personnel Management (Code 5)
Parks & Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke noted that his department was heavily youth and volunteer
oriented, requiring significant training by management, which he considered
critical. However, Mr. Brokke noted that this then required considerable
effort each season; and further noted that an entire reorganization of the
department was required several years ago to function with fewer people.
Golf – Department-wide Support
(Code 23)
Mr. Brokke noted that this
function also included skating center functions and turf maintenance in parks,
depending on the season, but was supported departmentally in an effort to
maximize people.
In her rankings, Councilmember
Laliberte advised that she ranked protection of city assets (e.g. facilities or
grounds) as “7’s” across the board, as a responsible of the City. Based on
that higher ranking, Councilmember Laliberte noted that her other rankings fell
below that, based on her perspective.
Mayor Roe referenced his rankings
of “1’s,” recognizing that they were desirable, and he didn’t consider their
elimination; but based on his rationale in terms of achieving community
aspirations. Using the OVAL as an example, while being a huge community asset,
Mayor Roe questioned if it was critical, suggesting that he ranked it as
desirable; and likewise with the golf course. After considering Mr. Brokke’s
comments on departmental and city-wide support items, Mayor Roe indicated that
he would have to change his rankings accordingly on the second iteration.
Councilmember McGehee concurred,
noting that she hadn’t fully understood the cross-utilization of staff and
would also need to change her rankings in the second iteration.
Discussion ensued regarding the
percentage of programs/service supported through fees and compared with other
communities based on their interpretations, with Mr. Brokke advising that the
City of Roseville was supported overall between 50-60%, with the nationwide
average of approximately 35% fee-supported. With a reference by Councilmember
McGehee in her research with the City of Shoreview and their programs 95%
fee-supported, Mr. Brokke advised that he was unaware of any recreation
department 95% fee-supported; however, he volunteered to perform further
research on that data.
Councilmember McGehee clarified
that the Shoreview Community Center was held at 78% fee-supported, per City
Council policy.
Mr. Brokke clarified that the City
of Roseville’s fee-supported programs are 100% fee-supported; with Mayor Roe
noting that under Program Management (Code 16), a review of revenue indicates
the City of Roseville at 102% fee-supported in that category, as confirmed by
City Manager Malinen.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
it was hard to make sense of spending, when the Check Register didn’t show
revenues.
Given the time remaining for tonight’s meeting, Mayor Roe,
with Council consensus, deferred remaining items to the next business meeting
with the exception of the Website vendor review.
Public Works Department
Programs
Building Maintenance –
Organizational Management (Code 3)
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz reviewed the duties of this function (e.g. supervision, work planning,
purchasing) all dependent on contract status, which can be heavy at times.
Based on tonight’s discussion, Mr.
Schwartz asked that Finance Director Miller review the listed budget figure for
that item, as it appeared to be high to him, which Mr. Miller duly noted.
Central Garage Organizational
Management (Code 4)
Councilmember Etten noted the general
maintenance budget shifted considerably.
Mr. Schwartz advised that his
ranking rationale was similar to that used by Mr. Trudgeon, if critical to
performing a function, the level of service was rated at a “5” or higher, with
level “5” still considered by him to be a high service level.
Mayor Roe thanked all Department
Heads for their attendance and assistance in processing this information.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the April 22, 2013, had this item for adoption in accordance with the budget
calendar; and asked if the City Council wished another iteration as part of the
process and based on tonight’s exercise and subsequent discussion.
By consensus, Councilmembers
expressed their preference for a second iteration, and determined a deadline of
Wednesday night to be included as part of the agenda packet.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, City Manager Malinen advised that addition of the FTE information
would be discussed at the Department Head meeting with Finance Director Miller.
At the recommendation of Mayor Roe, and by consensus, Councilmembers determined
that it was only fair for staff to complete the exercise again as well based on
tonight’s discussion.
City Manager Malinen suggested the
acronym “DISC” as an easy way to remember the ranking rubric, Desirable,
Important, Significant and Critical.
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Approve Vendor for Website Redesign
Communications Specialist Tim
Pratt was available to present to lead this discussion, as detailed in the RCA
dated April 15, 201, as assessed by the committee (Attachment B).
Regarding User Experience
Evaluation (UX) – Line 33, Mr. Pratt advised that no proposals were received
from those involved in civic engagement; and asked for feedback from the City
Council to staff on that specific area.
Motion to Extend Curfew
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
moving to extend the City Council curfew to 10:17 p.m. to complete this
discussion.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Laliberte; Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Discussion included various
components of the recommended service/vendor; stand-alone versus compatibility
of mobile and e-communication enhancements; user-friendliness of the end
products through responsive design; overall coordination by one vendor to
coordinate parts (Vision Internet); and total dollar amount proposed and
detailed in the RCA in the amount of $83,750.00 with all options except the
civic engagement component.
Further discussion included a
background in April of 2012 pointed out by Councilmember Willmus when the City
was approached by Civic Plus and made aware of pricing for extending an update
of the old site; and follow-up in August of 2012 without that information
presented again.
Mr. Pratt clarified that staff had
advised Councilmembers at that time that the Civic Plus proposal did not meet
the City’s needs, and still did not do so.
Mayor Roe recalled that their
proposal was for freshening up the current site, and when vetted by the
committee continued to be found lacking.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the proposed cost for Fredrickson Communications at $36,000.00 to perform beta
testing when there were people in the community who could test those sites;
with Mayor Roe clarifying that someone had to measure and test those results.
Mr. Pratt clarified that the
intent was to determine the use benefit of public users, not internal staff,
including field testing by Roseville residents, and preparation of presentation
of that end report.
Based on her experience with
several website redesigns in her professional career, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned what needed to be fixed: function or content/design. Councilmember
Laliberte cautioned that a complete website redesign cost an incredible amount
of money, and questioned a minimal budget of $20,000.00. Councilmember
Laliberte stated that the User Evaluation was not something she thought she
could fully support. While recognizing that GovDelivery was a good vendor,
Councilmember Laliberte stated that others could be designed with more options
available to select from. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her hesitancy with
this request as proposed without additional information being available.
After further discussion,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that there should be an easy fix working with
the current provider if design was the big issue; and suggested a la carte
options available to get the website designed to the City’s liking, but that it
could become an immense and costly process. Councilmember Laliberte admitted
that the current site had considerable room for improvement; but noted that she
didn’t see recommendations of the Civic Engagement Task Force who had done
considerable work on this issue.
Mr. Pratt clarified that the Civic
Engagement Task Force’s thoughts were incorporated with Attachment A to the
staff report. Mr. Pratt further clarified that the a la carte portion of this
proposal was for the mobile and enhanced e-communication components only, with
the redesign sold as a package and representing the least expensive of those
considered, with only three (3) responses received and reviewed.
Councilmember Laliberte recognized
staff’s comments and the expense of this option; however, she noted that the
existing vendor most always proved less work and money; with the only question
remaining as to whether or not the City could work with the current vendor.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concern that she didn’t feel she had
enough data or that the process itself had been exhaustive.
Since the Civic Engagement Task
Force representatives were initially appointed with this as one of their
charges, Councilmember Willmus questioned why their role appeared to have
diminished.
Motion to Extend Curfew
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded,
moving to extend the City Council curfew to 10:30 pm to complete this
discussion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Public Comment
Gary Grefenberg
In response on behalf of the Civic
Engagement Task Force, Mr. Grefenberg advised that they supported Fredrickson
Communications and Vision Internet as outlined in the staff report as the first
step. Mr. Grefenberg clarified that the Committee also recommended that the
City Council authorize an RFP for the civic engagement component; however, the
committee did not recommend the mobile or enhanced e-communications components
as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation in
working with staff; however, he stated frankly that while there had been some
advocates – himself included – of continuing to use Civic Plus, during the
process it had become evident that they could not provide what the City needed,
especially with the civic engagement component.
Discussion ensued regarding the
civic engagement component as a stand-alone proposal; misunderstandings among
committee members regarding committee priorities and recommendations,
established as 1) web design; 2) usability studies; and 3) civic engagement.
Mayor Roe summarized the committee
recommendation that the user study and one consultant to coordinate all of this
was necessary, with the options for mobile and enhanced e-communications not
yet indicated until the other components were completed; and further noted that
staff was seeking further direction from the City Council on the civic
engagement component, as outlined in the RCA. Mayor Roe expressed his
appreciation for the committee’s observation; and again summarized that a user
experience evaluation appeared to be the number one priority.
Mr. Grefenberg advised that the
committee was thinking basically of functionality, and thought an agreement had
been reached for adoption of three (3) recommendations and one recommendation
to seek authorization to pursue the civic engagement component.
Councilmember McGehee spoke
strongly for a user beta test, opining that the current site’s search function
was practically non-existent and inconvenient. As a user, Councilmember McGehee
suggested that this be the first step, and additional components not be
considered at this time, as long as they could be interfaced at a later date.
At the request of Councilmember
Etten, Mr. Pratt clarified that actual services that Vision Internet would
offer; with Councilmember Etten not comfortable with the cost for the enhanced
e-communication component at this time.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that she could not support a User Experience Evaluation, as she had found that
website companies dealing with redesign included that as part of what they do;
and suggested that the RCA (line 47) combine their professional assessment with
Attachment B needs identified by the committee and task force, to clarify what
the City needed and wanted. However, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she
could not support Fredrickson Communications at $36,000.00. If the City was
assured that Vision Internet could provide what the City needed, or other
components, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she could support that
component; and based on today’s technology, spoke in support of a more cohesive
arrangement overall.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte, and based on the comments offered by
Mr. Grefenberg, direct staff to come back with an RCA reflective of tonight’s discussion
on the civic engagement component. Councilmember Willmus advised that he could
support a committee/staff recommendation, based on a refined RCA that clearly
ruled out Civic Plus as an option.
City Manager Malinen suggested
moving forward with the web redesign; and seek multiple responses for the civic
engagement component, but allowing for a basic website that would be up and
running with enhancements to follow.
Mr. Pratt clarified that the
Vision Internet proposal for mobile service did not include smart phone
application, but could be accessed wirelessly.
Mayor Roe concurred with the
recommendation of City Manager Malinen.
McGehee moved, Roe seconded,
authorizing staff to move forward with finalization of a contract for redesign
of the City website by Vision Internet; in an amount not to exceed
$24,750.00, and a fee (starting in 2014) not to exceed $5,550 annually with a
friendly amendment by Councilmember Etten, accepted by the maker and seconder
of the motion and to seek proposals on the civic engagement tool of the project.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her preference that all of the proposed services, including clarifications from
tonight’s discussion, be documented in a new RCA, with the civic engagement RFP
information included.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Councilmember Laliberte in preferring that a revised staff report includes
the number of additions and annual fees, rather than his current level of
uncertainty as to what staff was being directed to move forward with at this
time.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her preference not to seek a refined RCA; opining that there was clear
definition available now: to provide an RFP for all of the civic engagement
components, with part of the RFP process potentially including a package that
would work with Vision Internet, at a cost not to exceed $24,750.00 for Vision
Internet, and an annual fee of $5,500.00 to get the process started.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that
this was the actual recommendation of the committee and staff.
City Manager Malinen noted that
timing was a critical issue.
At the request of Mr. Grefenberg,
Mayor Roe confirmed that the RFP process would follow the previous process
including participation by the committee.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated
her request that no action be taken on this tonight, based on the amount of
work already completed, but also recognizing her lack of clarity for all needs.
Mayor Roe noted that some of the
proposals may be set to expire; and Mr. Pratt further advised that the Civic
Plus license expired at year-end unless the City chose to pay for extending
that license fee.
McGehee moved, Roe seconded, to
call the question.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: Willmus;
Laliberte.
Motion
carried.
Roll Call
(Original Motion)
Ayes: Etten;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: Willmus;
Laliberte.
Motion
carried.
14.
Adjourn
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:35 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee;
and Roe.
Nays: None.