City
Council Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2013
1.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:00 pm, and welcomed
everyone. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and
Roe. Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were
also present.
Closed Executive Session
5:00 pm Discuss potential offers to purchase the
following properties:
1. Owasso
School Site, 934-950 Woodhill Drive/2659 Victoria Street
2. Mounds
View School Site, 2959 Hamline Avenue
3. 1984
County Road C-2
4. Press Gym
Site, 2650 Fry Street
Mayor Roe indicated that, in
accordance with Minnesota statutes 13d.05, cities may hold discussions about
the potential purchase or sale of real property in closed session rather than
in open session.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
closing the meeting to discuss the potential purchase of the listed properties.
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe
Nays: None
Mayor Roe convened the city council
in closed session at approximately 5:05 pm to discuss the potential purchase of
the listed properties. In addition to the council, Interim City Manager
Trudgeon, City Attorney Mark Gaughan, and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie
Brokke were present.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
adjourning the closed session and returning to open session at approximately
5:55 pm.
Roll Call:
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe
Nays: None
Mayor Roe reconvened the city council in open session at approximately
6:05 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
requested an addition to the agenda for consideration of a Special City Council
Meeting on Monday, July 1, 2013; with Mayor Roe suggesting the addition to
Agenda Item 15 entitled “City Manager Future Agenda Review.”
Councilmember McGehee requested a
brief discussion of Agenda Item 7.e entitled, “Direct Staff to Advertise
Vacancy on Human Rights and Police Civil Service Commissions.”
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak
at this time.
4. Council
Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced an upcoming
concert, sponsored by Trite to the Troops and Beyond the Blue Ribbon, as a
benefit for The Fallen Heroes Education Fund to assist with college expenses
for the families of fallen heroes. The benefit concert is scheduled on Sunday,
July 23, 2013 from 5:00 – 6:30 pm at the Arden Hills location of North Heights
Lutheran Church.
Mayor Roe announced several
upcoming Parks & Recreation Renewal Program community meetings for various
parks; with additional information available on the City’s website or by
calling City Hall.
Mayor Roe also reminded residents
of the upcoming Rosefest festivities from June 22 – 29; as well as the Fourth
of July celebration at Central Park on July 4, 2013.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a. Recognize Girl Scout Gold Award
Winners
Mayor Roe recognized several Girl
Scouts in their achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award as follows, none of whom
were available for tonight’s meeting:
Hannah Kiresuk, who
developed a unique and fun education program for elementary students in which
she shared her own knowledge and expertise about honeybees, and developed recourses
in a variety of media to further enhance learning and allow others to continue
the activities;
Alyssa Mumm, who worked
with her church to develop ideas to get fifth and sixth graders involved in
their community as well as have fun, by developing age- appropriate service
opportunities, from support of food shelves to creating midwife kits and sensory
blankets; and
Amanda Walker, who along
with her doctor, family and specialists at Gillette Children’s Specialty
Healthcare, planned and led an educational and networking event to scoliosis
patients newly diagnosed and long-time patients, making “Living With a
Curve” an annual event.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded,
a proclamation recognizing Hannah Kiresuk, Alyssa Mumm, and Amanda Walker, for
their achievement in each receiving the Girl Scout Gold Award.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of June 3, 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, Etten seconded,
approval of the minutes of the June 3, 2013, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 34, Line 10 (Laliberte)
Correct from a
1.5 to a 1.0 FTE position
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; 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,
Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$643,694.18
|
|
70008 – 70166
|
1,216,189.12
|
|
Total
|
$1,859,883.30
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Approve
Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Etten
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of various business license applications for
the period of one (1) year, as listed in detail in the Request for Council
Action dated June 10, 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve
a Zoning Text Change to Chapter 1006 of the City Code to Eliminate the Size
Limitation Unintentionally Applied to Motor Vehicles that may be repaired in
the Industrial Zoning District
Etten
moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1438 (Attachment B)
entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Chapters 1001 (Introduction)
and 1006 (Employment Districts) of Title 10 “Zoning Code” of the Roseville City
Code.”
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Amend Section 1009.06 of Zoning Ordinance to Clarify the Initiation
Process for Zoning Map and/or Zoning Text Amendments
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment
of Ordinance No. 1439 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected
Text of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Direct Staff to Advertise Vacancy on Human Rights Commission (HRC)
and Police Civil Service Commission
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she received a request from HRC Chairperson Gary Grefenberg, that when
advertising the HRC vacancy, candidates be alerted of the expectation that they
allow time to serve at the regular two (2) hour meeting of the Commission
monthly, as well as the ability to devote 5-6 hours in addition each month for
HRC related activities.
Councilmember Willmus requested
that staff go outside typical sources of advertising (e.g. using NextDoor.com)
and other avenues to seek applicants.
Mayor Roe noted that NextDoor.com was becoming part of the City’s regular
sources for advertising.
Mayor Roe advised that he had
received notice of a vacancy on the Planning Commission; however, confirmation
of that vacancy had not been received by staff or the Commission..
Roe moved, Willmus seconded,
amendment of the proposed motion to conditionally include advertising a vacancy
on the Planning Commission as well, pending verification of the vacancy.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
directing staff to advertise for applicants to serve on the Human Rights,
Police Civil Service, and Planning Commissions, as amended; with applications
due to the City by July 10, 2013; and interviews tentatively scheduled at the
July 15, and appointment at the July 22, 2013 respective City Council meetings.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Firefighter Relief Association Amended Bylaws
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the revised Roseville Firefighters’ Relief Association Bylaws (Attachment
A).
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
10.
Presentations
a.
Update from Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire
Mayor Roe welcomed newly-elected
Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire.
Commissioner McGuire reviewed her
career in higher education and background in various elected official
capacities; and reviewed some of the committees she had been assigned in her
role of County Commissioner, including Chairing the Board’s Legislative Committee;
Chairing the Active Living Ramsey Communities Committee; and service on the I-35W
Corridor Coalition; NE Diagonal Transportation group; County Transportation
Board and a number of other committees. Commissioner McGuire reviewed and promoted
some of those efforts, including “Economic Gardening” providing peer coaching
and forums and information networks and resources for local entrepreneurs and
businesses.
Commissioner McGuire reviewed
recent events and activities including the TCAAP groundbreaking last week to
enhance the county’s tax-base to benefit all Ramsey County residents: GoRamsey.org
as part of Acting Living Ramsey Communities; Small Business Roundtable, also
attended by Mayor Roe with Congresswoman Betty McCollum; and her enthusiasm for
the upcoming Rosefest Parade and Taste of Rosefest.
Commissioner McGuire provided
Interim City Manager Trudgeon and the City Council with a number of resources
for distribution and encouraged residents to contact her office at any time by
calling her office at 651/266-8359.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Commissioner McGuire reviewed the intent and focus of the “Economic Gardening”
offered by Ramsey County to cultivate home-grown businesses throughout the
county; however, clarified that the group was not intended to provide funding,
but provide training, transportation, and networking opportunities for small
business owners.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
noted that the state had numerous programs available, even though they were
very competitive, that provided funding (e.g. Angel Funding; Economic Guardian
Program; Women Venture; etc.) with information on those resources available
through the City’s Housing & Redevelopment Authority office.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he would verify that the resources were available
on the City’s website.
Councilmember Laliberte alerted
Commissioner McGuire to a dangerous road situation in Roseville on Hamline
Avenue at the northern most entrance into the Ramsey County Library/Roseville
Branch, where there was no turn lane for those southbound even though many were
turning into the library. Commissioner McGuire advised that she would look
into the situation.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Commissioner McGuire noted that there was not much activity at this time with
the NE Diagonal efforts. Mayor Roe noted that at a recent meeting of the East Metro
Transit Alliance, he had received confirmation that the commercial railroad
does not want to give up any right-of-way at this time; and encouraged the
group, with the assistance of Commissioner McGuire, to pursue a broader area
for this transportation corridor beyond that of the railroad’s rights-of-way.
Commissioner McGuire concurred, and advised that she would further research it
and attempt to get the group reinvigorated accordingly.
Commissioner McGuire noted her
attendance, along with Mayor Roe, at the recent federally-funded FEMA training
for Ramsey County and all communities within the county; opining that it had
been a great investment of time. Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it put county-wide
and community preliminary emergency plans to the test, through a mock disaster
enactment with a tornado at the Minnesota State Fair and in Maplewood and White
Bear Lake, finding areas that worked well and others needing improvement.
Mayor Roe thanked Commissioner
McGuire for her attendance and information; and Commissioner McGuire asked that
everyone keep in touch with any issues or concerns for which she could provide
assistance.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:44 pm and
reconvened at approximately 6:49 pm.
b.
Joint Meeting with Parks & Recreation Commission
Those present from the Parks &
Recreation Commission included: Chair Dave Holt; Mary Holt; Lee Diedrick;
Randall Doneen; Phillip Gelbach; Jerry Stoner; and Erin Azer.
Chair Holt provided an overview of
tonight’s joint meeting agenda, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013, and
related attachments; with each commissioner reporting on those various
components as listed.
Commissioner Gelbach reviewed
those seven (7) goals established for 2013, and activities accomplished to-date
by the group, with five (5) completed to-date, and the remainder available
tonight for discussion and further direction from the City Council. Those two
(2) remaining goals included: pursuit of a local option sales tax and pursuit
of a community center.
Regarding a community center,
Councilmember Willmus advised that Parks & Recreation Director Brokke had a
wealth of information over the last 20-25 years on past discussions. Councilmember
Willmus noted that the discussions always get started, and end up at the same
roadblock related to finances for construction and/or operation. Councilmember
Willmus opined that the Commission could play a vital role in the planning and
implementation process by seeking input on what level of funding and
expectations there were from the community; and then to link those two
components together, in addition to the background information he previously
referenced.
Councilmember McGehee urged the
Commission, if it chose to go forward, to seriously consider the location,
noting the lack of any park amenities in the SW portion of Roseville.
Councilmember McGehee noted her past support in moving forward with a referendum
for a community center that would incorporate the interests of all residents,
rather than starting with individual park buildings in specific parks, all of
which were located other than in the SW portion of the City. While still
supportive of a referendum for a community center, Councilmember McGehee expressed
her disappointment in not having offered something for the entire community
versus specific parks.
Councilmember Etten opined that he
felt it was very important to pursue a local option sales tax, since there were
a number of users of the Roseville park system, as well as the City’s infrastructure
system and businesses, beyond Roseville residents, providing an interconnection
and regionality of the park system. Councilmember Etten opined that this
helped to make the system and the City of Roseville unique from most other
suburbs not serving the regional community, and opined that it was logical for
the City to move forward with a request to the State Legislature; and would
also serve as obvious way to fund a community center. Councilmember Etten
further opined that it would provide a great tool without putting the burden
only on local property owners; and encouraged a proactive approach in accomplishing
this goal.
Councilmember Laliberte stated
that she had yet to make up her mind on either item. On the topic of a
community center, Councilmember Laliberte stated that it was reassuring to know
there was a history available for review; however, she suggested that there
were also lessons to learn from other communities and their community centers,
those that had proven successful and those efforts that had not achieved
success in funding yearly operations. Councilmember Laliberte requested any
future information and discussion include that background information and
research as well. Regarding the local option sales tax, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that, even though this would broaden the tax burden, it would
still put that additional burden on Roseville property owners and residents,
which she found not amenable, when looking at the additional burden already
placed on them with the Park Renewal Bonds.
Councilmember Etten suggested that
the local option sales tax could serve to cover some of the City’s CIP items
and provide a wonderful tool for the overall community.
Regarding the local option sales
tax, Mayor Roe questioned if this was intended to be specific to the Parks
& Recreation Department needs, or for broader City issues (e.g. public
safety services also taxed by regional traffic). Mayor Roe advised that
current State Statute required the tax to be tied to regional, capital needs.
Mayor Roe noted that one option would be to lobby the State Legislature to
change the statute, which he was supportive of doing, providing greater opportunities
for the City of Roseville and other communities. However, Mayor Roe noted that
this was not going to happen overnight, due to state representation and
interests from outstate Minnesota. In order to move ahead under current
Statute, Mayor Roe noted that the voters should understand what is involved and
how it will affect local residents, then possibly tying it into a community
center discussion. If a local option sales tax was used to fund a community
center in part and requiring voter approval, Mayor Roe noted that it was
important that education of Roseville residents was handled well, using an
effort similar to the Parks Master Plan and Parks Renewal Program models.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the Parks Master Plan had included information gathering from the community
pertaining to a community center; and should be included with other data.
Councilmember Willmus concurred that outreach and getting the public involved
at the earliest opportunity was vital.
Mayor Roe expressed concern with
proceeding too soon with the local option sales tax or community center proposed
for those two (2) projects in 2014, noting that impacts to local taxpayers for
CIP increased funding and the bond issue had not been fully realized, but would
be coming on line in 2014. Mayor Roe advised that he was concerned with the
impacts of doing too many things too fast.. Mayor Roe noted that, while a
community center has been under discussion for several decades, the Fairview
Community Center was and had been serving the community in a limited capacity
for years, through the efforts of the School District and City. While not
necessarily the same vision talked about in the Parks Master Plan, Mayor Roe
noted that those discussions initiated with the Master Plan process provided a
good starting point; however, emphasized the need for community buy-in and the
ability to express their points of view as vital.
As a big supporter of
sustainability, Councilmember McGehee focused discussion on maintenance issues,
noting that if the community wanted to be in a position of sustainability by
2020, it would require $1.4 million annually even before any additional park
improvements were put in place. Councilmember McGehee referenced discussions
later this evening on levy limits imposed by the legislature for 2014; and even
with the $315,000 set aside by the City Council last year for CIP needs, the
City would not be able to meet the current annual needs, without any other
facilities or structures coming on line. While having historically talked
about a community center and recognizing the value the community places on its
park system, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had not historically
funded those assets, creating the need for the recent $19 million bond issue to
fund them; but having no program in place going forward with any solid based
funding for those current or the proposed buildings. While continuing to hear
the opinion that a local option sales tax will get the City out of its current
“mess,” Councilmember McGehee opined that there were many legislative issues
needing to be addressed, and many sides not yet fully researched, including
other communities building up their own retail centers, creating additional
competition for Roseville’s retail community.
Mayor Roe noted that the Council
consensus providing direction to the Commission was to continue looking at the
possibility of a community center; however, noting the need for considerable
homework yet to be accomplished; and recognizing that moving forward
immediately may not be feasible.
Specific to the comments of
Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt recognized the ongoing struggle, specific to
the Park Improvement Program (PIP) and lack of funding over the years; and
asked that the City Council take that into consideration as they developed
future budgets, to reinstate and continue funding of the PIP to prevent any
further deferred and more costly maintenance issues.
Commissioner Azer provided a
synopsis for the potential of a Park Board (Attachment B) crediting the report
researched and prepared by Commissioners Nolan Wall and Gregg Simbeck, who were
unfortunately unavailable to attend tonight. Commissioner Azer noted that the
report provide the pros and cons between Parks & Recreation Commission and a
Park Board, advising that the Commission sought direction from the City
Council.
Councilmember Etten expressed
appreciation for this report, as well as all materials being presented tonight
by the Commission, including providing the negatives and positives of issues.
Councilmember Etten advised that he was still undecided about a Commission
versus Park Board, including questioning the willingness of people to put in
the extra time required, if using the Maple Grove model as an example.
Councilmember Etten stated that another concern of his was making sure a Park
Board wouldn’t get in the way of day-to-day functions and operations of the
Parks & Recreation Department and noted the need for clear job definitions
and how department served the community.
Councilmember Willmus echoed
thanks to the Commission for their reports; and regarding a Commission versus
Board, opined that a Board would provide increased fiscal transparency for the
community.
Commissioner Azer opined that her
main concern was that she thought this Commission of incredibly dedicated and hardworking
members, already did the work of a Park Board. If additional authority was
added with a Board, Commissioner Azer opined that things would change; and
suggested that Commissioner Nolan’s rationale for more transparency was based
on the City Council and Park Board making decisions, allowing for more
awareness of activities.
Commissioner Doneen noted that
fiscal transparency would include the City Council providing a lump sum with a
Park Board allocating those funds. When funds were mixed with the overall City
budget, Commissioner Doneen opined that they were more difficult for the public
to track.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Councilmember Etten clarified his concerns along legal lines and
functions, authority, property acquisition and how much responsibility is held
by a Park Board versus the City Council. However, Councilmember Etten stated
that he found the information contained in the report had alleviated some of
his concerns versus his original concerns when the issue first came up for
discussion with three (3) available options.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
his interest in continuing to explore the option of Park Board; and suggested
that it would be beneficial for Commissioners Nolan and Simbeck present during
that continued discussion.
Mayor Roe noted that this
discussion was very preliminary and only a portion of items being covered in
this meeting.
Further discussion included the
City of Minneapolis Park Board model; current State Statute language and any
potential legislative revisions beyond City ordinance; how this fit with the Commission
Subcommittee work being done by Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee;
clarification (line 110 of the report) that the City Council had apparently at
one time directed investigation of a Park Board versus Commission. Additional
discussion ensued regarding current shared responsibility, personnel and
equipment, for trails and pathways and natural resource management between the
Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments, and whether separating
those areas could lead to additional expenses.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of a more detailed future discussion; opining that this had become a
large scale community issue based on the City not taking care of its assets;
and opined that if there had been Park Board, he didn’t think the issue would
have been deferred for so long, and would have provided greater oversight and
accountability for those assets, proving more beneficial for the community.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she would have an issue with the Mayor making appointments to a Park Board versus
selection by the full City Council, since the Board would have taxing
authority.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember
Willmus clarified that a Park Board functioned similar to the City’s HRA, with
appointments selected by the Mayor and ratified by the full body; and approval
by the body of an annual budget.
Councilmember Laliberte opined
that she had not initially been inclined to favor a Park Board; however, the
information provided was good and needed her further review.
Mayor Roe opined that he remained skeptical
at this point; however, suggested that he could be swayed. Mayor Roe expressed
concern with park operations being integral in the City organization, would
they become too independent; as well as separating a huge taxing authority
losing integration with overall City operations. Mayor Roe noted that, while,
similar to the HRA levy, a Park Board levy may not be separate on property tax
statements, the current Ramsey County statement lumped all taxing districts
together and did not provide that separation. Mayor Roe suggested there may be
a way to accomplish that; however, he also recognized that the levy would
remain part of the City levy, simply managed outside of the direct control of
the City Manager. Mayor Roe suggested that there may be different models that
would provide additional information; and opined that he needed to have a
better understanding before coming to a clear decision.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mayor Roe confirmed that he was curious enough to bring the issue back
for more informal discussion by staff and the City Council.
At the opportunity for further
discussion, Councilmember Laliberte suggested further consideration of areas
available under the City Council and staff’s responsibility and under the
current Commission model that would provide the same level of transparency
versus creation of a separate organization.
Mayor Roe concurred with that
point.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her willingness to have further discussions.
Commissioner Azer referenced interaction
and interconnection among departments in lines 153-155 of the report based on
the Maple Grove model and clarified that the intent in a Park Board was not in
recreating the Commission, but simply retooling and reorganizing current
efforts.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her appreciation of the Commission, opining that they “set the bar” for other
advisory commissions.
Mayor Roe noted that Council
consensus was to continue this discussion with more details and specifics in
the future.
Regarding a volunteer coordinator
position, the Commission’s research was provided in Attachment C; with the
Commission making a strong recommendation for the City Council’s wholehearted
support, as outlined by Commissioners
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with their recommendation.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
the City Council, during budget discussions, had discussed such a position, and
whether the position fell into more than one area of the City operations.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that the ability to combine and share functions
across all departments provided a more favorable option in her opinion. Councilmember
Laliberte noted that this fell into other reorganization efforts (e.g.
communications) to free employees for other roles and find efficiencies within
the organization rather than funding an additional position in the overall
effort to make things happen.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
that a volunteer coordinator was needed; however, she also questioned if the
position was specific to the needs of the Parks & Recreation Department.
In discussions related to community outreach and civic engagement,
Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in having a volunteer coordinator
manage the volunteer resources for the City, encouraging the community to
volunteer in a variety of ways.
Commission Holt advised that, in
their research, the models used all started with a Parks &
Recreation-focused group, and then expanded further. Commissioner Holt advised
that the Parks & Recreation Commission had projects already defined and outlined,
and would be the obvious place to start.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with the comments and proposals outlined by Councilmember Laliberte for
city-wide volunteer coordination.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Parks & Recreation Director Brokke provided a comparison of FTE’s
in the Parks & Recreation Department now, at approximately 24.5 compared
with several years ago at 27.5 and a total of 29 FTE within the last twenty
(20) years, with that reduction occurring while increasing facilities and
programs.
In researching with the Ramsey
County Library Volunteer Coordinator, Commissioner Diedrick noted their
suggestion that one group be started initially to provide a good, sound
footing, such as with a pilot program first.
Commissioner Gelbach noted that
the Commission did not disagree that everyone needed a volunteer coordinator,
he noted that the Parks & Recreation Department had approximately 2,700
volunteers today, and anticipated growth; and further noted that this area was
already in place with systems and a process to begin the most effectively.
Commissioner Gelbach opined that it provided a starting point, and could be
expanded if and when other departments indicated a need, if could be expanded
without waiting another year to hash out other needs.
Councilmember Willmus noted his
viewing of the presentation at last weeks’ Commission meeting; and opined that
if it was going to be implemented, it would be prudent to start in parks, given
the thousands of people annually utilized by the Department throughout the
community. Councilmember Willmus further opined that by having an extra person
helping in that area it would save money for the City in the long-run; and
would be worth exploring. Councilmember Willmus noted that the Department had
been looking at the possibility for a number of years, and opined that the
timing was right and encouraged the City Council to look in that direction.
Councilmember Laliberte agreed
with a pilot program to prove it worked before other areas were brought in; and
if the Commission already had bodies and projects, it only made sense. However,
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her preference that this conversation
continue and determine if a current staff person could be freed up from work
they’re currently doing, such as through reorganization of various departments.
Chair Holt opined that the City’s
current Parks & Recreation staff was already very short-handed; and they
were seeing the need for an additional body.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated
that her intent was to shift some of the work or responsibilities out of an
existing position.
Mayor Roe opined that there was no
question that volunteer coordination was already taxing existing staff, but if
there was an opportunity to gain efficiency and refocus duties, it may still be
necessary to add another person. Mayor Roe reiterated that this was part of
the ongoing budget discussion and process, to provide volunteer coordination,
sustainable maintenance of facilities and equipment, and other components, all
entering into the big picture.
Chair Holt expressed the
Commission’s desire that the City Council also look at the efficiencies to be
realized by bringing another person in that would recruit additional
volunteers.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Mayor Roe’s comments about sustainability and budget constraints; noting
that the City had just found out about the levy limits imposed at the end of
the legislative session; with mandates and contractual obligations already in
place, and no money available. Councilmember McGehee opined that it only made
sense for the City to look at more efficiency and centralize functions to free up
its currently overworked staff. While recognizing that the City was certainly
not overstaffed, Councilmember McGehee also recognized the need to have the
money to pay staff.
Mayor Roe suggested another
option, while clarifying that he was not advocating for it, would be for the
volunteer coordinator position to be funded by its user groups, and if that
required an increase on user fees (e.g. 1%) to accomplish that, it may be worth
discussion. Mayor Roe advised that it was not his intent to suggest a huge fee
increase on its user groups, but it may be part of the creativity needed.
Councilmember Laliberte again
expressed her appreciation of the Commission’s very helpful report.
Chair Holt recognized the numerous
issues the City Council needed to consider; however, he opined that there came
a point where no more further efficiencies could be found. Chair Holt noted
that a significant way the City saved money was through utilizing its volunteer
pool and their efforts; and a coordinator could provide additional gain for the
city beyond the focus of cost of the position. Chair Holt opined that he was
of the firm belief that the position would actually be cost-neutral or save the
City money in the long-run; and asked that the City Council change their
thinking along those lines, and encouraged their efforts for that consideration
proving very beneficial overall.
Commissioner Doneen, in the
Commission’s role as the City’s Tree Board, provided a report on the Emerald
Ash Borer (EAB) infestation in Roseville, referencing the original Management
Plan providing five (5) options, and the one-time set-aside of $100,000 in
funding for potential infestation, now being realized. Commissioner Doneen
reviewed various options in how aggressive the City chose to be related to
removal and replanting, and asked for their consideration during budget
deliberations, and how it fit with other natural resource management priorities
as well. Commissioner Doneen opined that this infestation would make a huge
impact in many areas of the community and its entire eco-system, with funding and
proactive measures needing to be reviewed and updated.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Commissioner Doneen clarified that the Commission
was currently focused on boulevard and City property, but not targeting forested
areas of parks, but those in the city-wide public property tree inventory for
those that could be mowed around for diversity planting, with no focus to-date
on private property. Commissioner Doneen advised that he was advocating
initiating a diverse replanting now by identifying areas through use of the
tree inventory.
Discussion included an historical
review of other communities having had an infestation and whether there had
been a recurrence; 25% of the City’s current trees of the Ash species; treatment
versus removal; special consideration of the City’s Golf Course with
substantial Ash trees; treatment strategies being a delaying tactic, not a cure;
and the Commission’s search for any available grant funding to help lower costs
in addressing the infestation(s).
Councilmember McGehee requested
more detailed information on treatment types and available historical data for
future discussions.
Mayor Roe questioned if there may
be some assistance from the State, County or Metropolitan Council to more
broadly address the infestation, since it was regional and not city-specific.
Even though the City will probably
not have resources to assist private property owners with infestation,
Councilmember Laliberte noted that the infestation would travel across property
lines, and the City needed to educate private property owners and make them
aware of the issues.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:03 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:10 pm.
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Budget Items
a.
Consider Revising the 2014 Budget Process
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Interim City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief summary of the RCA dated June
10, 2013; and deferred to Finance Director Chris Miller for more detail on a
proposed revised 2014 budget process. Mr. Trudgeon advised that Department
Heads had reviewed the current timeline and potential revisions, and were in
agreement the RCA prepared by Finance Director Miller; clarifying at the
request of Councilmember Laliberte that they agreed with the revisions and were
not being pulled along unwillingly.
Finance Director reviewed the RCA,
noting that it encapsulated comments heard by staff over the last few weeks, as
well as their individual discussions with staff, indicating that there would be
more of a comfort level if everyone paused and stepped back. Mr. Miller
advised that a recurring theme of those concerns was preference for an annual
versus biennial budget process, recently implemented; as well as meeting with
each department for more detailed review and input versus emphasizing the
prioritization process alone. Another concern was with the information packets
provided and whether or not they were helpful or feel short of the information
needed. Mr. Miller noted that staff didn’t want to prepare information that
the City Council did not want; and asked that they reach consensus on the
information they needed and how they wanted it presented. Mr. Miller reiterated
the comments of Interim City Manager Trudgeon with Department Heads being
comfortable with a new approach if and when so directed by the City Council.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller advised that Department Heads universally liked the ability to meet with
the City Council to discuss budget challenges and impacts, similar to the opportunity
provided during the Strategic Plan process. Regarding Mayor Roe’s question
regarding whether there was Department Head support for the City Council’s
program-based budget approach, Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that there
was no universal answer for that. Given the complexities of program-based
budgeting and ranking, when having to eliminate or reduce programs, Mr.
Trudgeon stated that Department Heads often felt it was hard for the City
Council to relate to the negative and positive operational impacts within and
across departments. Using a simplistic approach broken down by departments and
divisions, and the number of employees, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was easier
for him to have a conversation with Department Heads. Also, Mr. Trudgeon
questioned if the program-based budget ever evolved as needed, suggesting that
performance measurements were really never finalized over the last few years.
Mr. Trudgeon opined that, if it was to continue, it would require the
discipline of both the City Council and staff to stick with it; but questioned
whether it was a good fit for the City with the current budgeting challenges
faced.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller opined that the recently completed ranking process should not be tossed
out, as whether done deliberately or transparently, it signaled the City
Council’s priorities to the community. Mr. Miller noted that the
priority-based budget process was designed to be a deliberate process for those
programs/services funded and those not funded; and whether retained or not, the
City Council would still be signaling their priorities when adopting a final
budget in December.
Mayor Roe observed that the
challenge with a program-based approach was that it was based on the terms of
eliminating programs/services versus assigning resources up or down. Mayor Roe
noted that the first time the City Council went through the ranking exercise,
they found so many programs/services and employees being intertwined, the level
of discussion never allowed time to get to the Department Head level for their
input. With agreement by Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Miller, Mayor Roe concluded that
the program-based process had merit, but needed to be used better and not focus
so much on process.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of staff’s recommendations, including the upcoming discussion on
reorganization. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council and staff
had held enough discussion about priorities and customer relations, and further
opined that improved customer relations and efficiencies and centralized
communication and website efforts in one place for design and maintenance were
prudent. Councilmember McGehee further opined that by talking with a Department
Head, they could identify areas for efficiencies rather than the City Council
attempting to manage or direct their internal organization. Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of having those discussions by department and with
Department Heads.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her support of moving in a new direction; and concurred with staff’s
recommendations, offering her enthusiasm in having work session or discussions
with each department, and hearing how the community needs for their departments
have changed, and the bigger challenges they were facing. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested using the priority programming as an ancillary part of the
discussion; however, she reiterated that having those discussions directly
would be very beneficial and get to the heart of the matter
Mr. Trudgeon suggested an option
for the City Council to set aside a special night, and/or hear from two (2)
departments per night so they could make a more detailed presentation and not
have the discussion crammed into a meeting with everyone watching the clock due
to other agenda items; and suggested a two-hour period for that discussion,
suggesting early evening, allowing more focus on that discussion.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred
with that suggestion, opining that there was nothing the City Council did that
was more important to the community; and expressed how anxious she was to have
those serious discussions with Department Heads and give them the time they
deserved.
Councilmember Willmus echoed everything he had heard so far on this item; noting
his ongoing struggle with the program-based budget when not engaging it fully,
opining that he felt he was only getting the Cliff Notes version of department
information. Councilmember Willmus opined that this provided the City Council
a more thorough understanding of department specifics and how departments interacted,
allowing the City Council to be better decision-makers. As far as a biennial
budget process, Councilmember Willmus advised that he had never been a fan; and
while it was good to have some guidance for year two, it was difficult to make
decisions with unknown implications that far in advance with any accuracy.
Councilmember Etten expressed
appreciation for the proposed changes, opining that it provided the City
Council with a better understanding from its own experts and allowed discussion
on efficiencies and impacts of what would happen if service levels dropped
significantly. While recognizing that everyone naturally wanted to advocate
for their own department, Councilmember Etten noted that it would not be an
easy discussion, but with the current situation in searching for a new City
Manager and the recent legislative impacts, a one year budget, rather than a
two-year budget, made much more sense.
Mayor Roe opined that he had
always thought some of the best budget discussions had been with Department
Heads, and concurred with Councilmember Etten’s comments, and advised that he
would not interested in having individual departments explain what they did and
how much it cost; but if they needed more employees, how they proposed to fund
them. While this may appear to put Department Heads on the spot, Mayor Roe
opined that they knew their stuff and had a good understanding from past
discussions how things worked, rather than Department Heads identifying needs
and the City Manager not addressing it, with the City Council ultimately going
along with the City Manager-recommended budget. Mayor Roe noted that this then
opened up the need for Department Heads to lobby the City Council to address
those needs, not providing for a good process for anyone. Mayor Roe suggested
that it was much more beneficial to have a dialogue throughout the budget
process, with trade-offs and impacts identified to avoid confusion. Mayor Roe
advised that he was seeking a back and forth dialogue, with tough questions
addressed and realistic answers provided.
Councilmember Etten opined that it
would be key information for the City Council for each Department Head to look
at the global picture, not just their own department, to determine how shared
positions or responsibilities among departments and personnel could achieve
efficiencies (e.g. communications efforts) and suggested a discussion among
Department Heads before meeting with the City Council to consider some
different ways to accomplish that beyond the current sharing. Councilmember
Etten opined that it should be evident to staff that the City Council had a
strong willingness to look at things in a new way, to develop more
efficiencies, and what impacts that would mean for their Departments based on
previous discussions.
Mayor Roe suggested consideration
be given to which departments presented at a given time to address sharing
among obvious departments; with both Department Heads available at the work
table for the entire discussion, not just for their specific department.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with the cross-department sharing and efficiencies, suggesting that the
Department Heads consider which tasks they could shift to Administration from
their department to free resources; with Interim City Manager Trudgeon picking
up that discussion for an administrative overview.
Regarding a biennial budget
process, Mayor Roe expressed his preference for always looking ahead as far as
possible and for the City Council to be aware of known impacts that will be
fairly major to the organization and community (e.g. TIF Districts due to be de-certified
in certain years; balances coming into an account; known mandates whether
funded or not; etc.) Mayor Roe advised that he was noted interested in minor
supply costs; but wanted to look out a minimum of five (5) years for the major
items to make sure those items and any CIP items are brought into the
discussion, for the current and future City Councils as well.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
one of her points was the benefit of a second or third year forecast for debt
service or contract obligations, to make sure they were on the radar as far as
they could be known in advance, similar to the CIP planning recently
accomplished. Councilmember Laliberte suggested a set of upfront questions of
the City Council to initiate discussions with Department Heads versus an
on-the-spot discussion with substantial information provided. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested a “best wish list” from each Department, what they would do
if planning for a certain percentage reduction in their annual budget, a flat
budget, or a certain percentage increase; with those Department Heads coming
prepared to answer and consider shared efficiencies.
Mayor Roe concurred with that
suggestion; opining that it would allow Department Heads to be more prepared
and that it would provide a good framework to begin with.
Discussion ensued regarding
scheduling of those meetings; with Mayor Roe directing staff, by consensus, to
poll the City Council on available dates and times that could work. When
considering whether to include weekends in that potential schedule, Mr.
Trudgeon opined, with consensus of the City Council, that it would be unfair to
staff during the summer months to ask them to meet other than during a
weekday/evening.
Further discussion included
whether to focus on levy versus non-levy funds, with Mr. Miller clarifying that
the levy was statutory, but the budget was not, even though it was past
practice that the budget and levy went hand in hand; and the public preferring
to know the whole picture, whether levy or non-levy funded.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller advised that he would research when the preliminary budget needed to be
adopted and report back to the City Council.
It was the consensus of
Councilmembers that the entire budget and levy, and non-levy funds be reviewed.
b.
Receive Update on Legislative Impacts on the 2014 Budget
At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance
Director Miller provided a more informed review of the recent legislative
actions on the 2014 budget, as detailed in the RCA dated June 3, 2013; and as
addressed in the RCA dated May 13, 2013, provided as a bench handout, outlining
preliminary major budget impacts for the property tax-supported programs. Mr.
Miller provided estimated dollar amounts for each category in 2014 budget
dollars.
Discussion included Local
Government Aid (LGA) benefits in relation to levy limits reinstated for 2014;
the reinstatement of sales tax exemption for cities with some exceptions;
mandatory PERA contribution increases for the City and employee for Police and
Fire employees; and ways to capitalize or reduce CIP tax-related benefits in
non-tax supported areas while recognizing quick erosion of savings with
inflationary impacts.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that he would alert Department Heads of the
prudency of deferring any applicable major purchases of equipment/vehicles
scheduled for later in 2013 to 2014 to save sales tax.
Mayor Roe noted that the estimated
levy increase under the levy limit would be reduced with the impact of LGA
allotment, creating a smaller net impact. Mayor Roe advised that he would be
looking to staff feedback as to whether to use the $225,000 for operating for
year 2014 or continue to follow current policy in not using the unanticipated
funds for operational needs. Mayor Roe advised that he personally thought the
City Council should continue to follow its policy and not become dependent on
LGA for normal operating expenses.
Additional discussion included
potentially using the LGA to address CIP needs and meet some of those goals;
defer or reduce levy impacts; the LGA re-implemented in a spirit of reform by
the State Legislature to provide some relief to taxpayers, while recognizing
the minimal amount and minimal impact to taxpayers based on 2013 median value
homes in Roseville.
Staff was asked to coordinate with
Mayor Roe to provide the property tax impact calculator on the City’s website
in a user-friendly format for Roseville taxpayers to access, once more details
were known and finalized.
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
14.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss City Manager Search Process
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Trudgeon briefly summarized the RCA and attachments dated June 10, 2013; as
prepared by Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon. Mr. Trudgeon apologized that
Ms. Bacon was unable to attend tonight’s meeting do to a family medical emergency.
By consensus, the City Council
agreed with the proposed stakeholder group; and staff was directed to implement
that group as presented.
Discussion included evaluation
rankings and how to spread the numbers for the clearest understanding and greatest
spread, noting that the Best Value Procurement method used 1-5-9 for
evaluations with no numbers in between; and resumes provided by the consultant
firms with individual expertise and experience; proposed content and point
system weighting (e.g. service process steps structure).
Councilmember Etten expressed
preference to provide more emphasis for Items B and I.
Mayor Roe suggested less weighting
for bid completeness and completion, since that was a technical detail.
Mayor Roe, with City Council
consensus, suggested that the evaluation group be tasked with weighting; with
Councilmember Willmus concurring, questioning its value to be included in
weighting performance follow-up after placement other than for a reference for
that firm in future bidding endeavors.
Councilmember Willmus suggested
removal of Item E from the criteria evaluation list, since two (2) members of
the review committee had already expressed their opinion.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that, until RFP’s were received and a cost estimate available, she would wait
to provide her perspective on how fast or slow the process could be.
Staff was directed to proceed as
indicated.
b.
Consider Making Recycling a Utility under City Ordinances
Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the
RCA; with Councilmember Willmus speaking in support of the proposed ordinance
revisions and subsequent action tonight.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1440 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Title 4, Section 403.01, Recycling Collection;” and “Ordinance No. 1441 (Attachment
B) entitled “An Ordinance Amending Title 1, Section 106.09, City Departments:
Public Works.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her preference that the zero waste community events not be lost in the shuffle,
as they provided good public statements for the City to encourage others to do
the same.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the
Recycling RFP discussed that option; and that staff would consider it in the
interim as well.
c.
Discuss Reorganizing Administration Department
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the organizational structure of
the Administration Department, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013. Mr.
Trudgeon suggested a two-fold discussion: how an Environmental Specialist could
work long-term in Public Works as addressed by Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz in Attachment A; and how the Administration Department could restructure
to reflect that change and meet the needs of the City Council, community and
staff.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the RCA
outlined the current Administration organizational structure and suggested
tonight’s discussion focus on the more important and broader community values
and City Council initiatives for the community and how to refocus resources rather
than focusing on specifics. As an example, Mr. Trudgeon noted that duties
reassigned in the Communications Department could provide additional time for
customer service and provide some much-needed clerical assistance to the Human
Resources function; as well as working with Department Heads to make sure
services are provided that they need, and to allow other department
administrative staff to work up options. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that no firm
conclusion be drawn tonight; but sought City Council input to make sure staff
was moving in the right step.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was his understanding that C-TV could provide
employees for video production, with preliminary discussions having taken
place; however, he was not sure of the savings potential or cost implications
if the City contracted exclusively with C-TV for those services.
Mayor Roe advised that former City
Manager Malinen had held preliminary discussions with C-TV in his role on the
Franchise Renewal Committee; noting that current City staff supervises those
employees, and could provide some savings if that function was reallocated to
free that employee for other duties.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
his interest in understanding those aspects more fully.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred,
adding that it should be determined if those previous conversations were still
current.
Mayor Roe advised that C-TV was
currently providing similar services to the Village of Saint Anthony, and they
could be used as a model.
Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr.
Trudgeon for bringing this forward as requested and as part of his role as
Interim City Manager. Councilmember McGehee expressed her main interest in
bringing together the website review for the entire City with that function
part of the communications face of Roseville, freeing those within various
departments now performing that function. Councilmember McGehee also expressed
her interest in seeing a change in the City’s newsletter to make it more
informative with issues current in the City rather than a piece of paper
patting the City on the back for a job well-done. Councilmember McGehee noted that
this was the avenue for some residents, without internet access or not fluent
with it, to be aware of current events, since the Roseville Review did
not get delivered to apartment complexes. Councilmember McGehee suggested more
information and education versus propaganda.
Mayor Roe noted that an aspect of
the newsletter format was based on timing, since it was only issued a handful
of times per year; and to address issues was difficult based on that timing.
Mayor Roe suggested that a strategic analysis of communication opportunities
may be more prudent, and if issues were included in the newsletter, it would
need to be published more frequently at a possibly greater cost. Mayor Roe
opined that it made more sense to have that functionality as part of strategic
thinking as a part of this organizational plan.
Discussion ensued regarding a job
description with someone experienced in those areas of strategic thinking;
Councilmember Willmus expressed
the vital importance for the administration function to provide customer
service; noting that he repeatedly heard from residents that they are not able
to receive that service in a timely and helpful way. Councilmember Willmus
noted at an employee may be someone’s first contact with the City, and
historically, this has been a struggle over the years.
Mayor Roe opined that customer
service is what someone does, not what they also do.
Councilmember Laliberte referenced
her discussions with individual Department Heads and how many of their staff
worked on communications items; and opined that one resident employee with the
tools and vehicles to make sure the City communicated and engaged citizens was
better than having quasi-expertise within each department. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested that this should be a communication position with a broader
scope and who could provide assistance to other departments as well as
residents. Councilmember Laliberte opined that such a role could drive some of
the Administration Department’s structure internally, and also provide an
opportunity to create some hierarchy in the Department for current employees to
delegate their duties and/or enhance their current job descriptions.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested more
detailed discussion at a future meeting; noting that while he and Mr. Schwartz
had held preliminary discussions, they needed to expand on that before bringing
a recommendation forward to the City Council.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Public Works Director Schwartz reviewed Attachment A, noting that it was the
first draft of roles and responsibilities of the position seen to best fit
given the shift of the Recycling function to the Public Works Department. Mr.
Schwartz noted that this also addressed current focus areas, goals and
direction of the City Council and community, as well as meeting some of the
department’s needs and goals based on the Imagine Roseville 2025 community
visioning process. With assistance from Ms. Bacon, Mr. Schwartz advised that
staff attempted to make sure the position was structured with the right
background and skills. Mr. Schwartz recognized that many other communities had
a different focus, while some were similar to that of Roseville; but those the
size of Roseville or larger had these specialist areas to deal with natural
resource and recycling issues, and some of those went even broader. Mr.
Schwartz advised that one of the next steps would be to create an actual job
description and look at appropriate salary ranges and return to the City
Council for further discussion, in conjunction with working with the Interim
City Manager and Finance Director on how to fund the full position. At this
point, Mr. Schwartz advised that there was no particular time frame in place.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of the draft (Attachment A).
At the request of Councilmember Etten,
Mr. Schwartz advised that consideration was being given for the recycling
portion of the job description to be in the range of 25-40%; but noted that
this would be further refined; with the recycling fund providing a portion of
funding for the proposed position.
Depending on the recycling vendor
chose, Councilmember Willmus noted that there were other considerations to be reviewed
and potential reallocation of funding accordingly.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of this approach, especially the sustainability and natural resource
components. Noting that several residents had approached her about the status
of organized collection in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee suggested this
position could serve as a model for joint partnership agreements similar to the
City’ Information Technology and Telephony services to be offered to other
communities. On a related note, Councilmember McGehee advised that those residents
providing feedback were not supportive of the Maplewood organized collection
plan, but appeared more comfortable with the Little Canada model.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of
offering the service to other communities, suggesting that application certain
development fees could also fund the position.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked
staff for pulling this together so quickly, and for getting the recycling
position into the Public Works Department without the benefit of knowing the
resources available.
Mayor Roe noted that the
communication function of the City was currently funded by franchise fees; and
opined that, with those fees currently being negotiated, he anticipated that
they would be at similar levels; and expressed confidence that they would
continue to be funded for some time. Mayor Roe opined that, if there were
increased communication costs, they be funded sufficiently and that the CIP not
be shortchanged again.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would provide additional information
in the near future regarding time and dollar resources realized among departments
and whether either was significant.
Councilmember McGehee asked Mr.
Trudgeon to discuss centralized purchasing with Department Heads as well.
Councilmember Laliberte encouraged
Department Heads to provide other creative ideas during their upcoming budget
meetings with the City Council.
d.
Discuss Subdivision Open House Report
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Trudgeon briefly reviewed the most simplistic approach to modify Zoning Code to
include developer open houses and a trigger point for subdivisions. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that staff did not incorporate wholesale revisions at this
point to seek a requirement for a meeting summary signed by the developer, as a
neighborhood representative, since there could be varying opinions among
residents unless or even if they were an organized group. Mr. Trudgeon
suggested additional discussion on the subdivision ordinance, slated for revision
in the future, could address that option. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this staff
recommendation, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013, would require a
formal public hearing process at the Planning Commission level, and if so
directed by the City Council tonight, could return to them in July for their approval.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the rationale for a three lot of more trigger would create any code
conflicts if the trigger was “three (3) lots or more” versus “greater than
three (3) lots” language was used; with Mr. Trudgeon responding that it probably
would not.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were
few land divisions coming forward; and he didn’t think the revised language
created a huge burden for anyone.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, discussion ensued regarding the rationale in having a thirty (30) day
window and how that would proceed; with staff advising their intent was to
allow sufficient time while keeping the timeframe succinct enough to address
any major issues between residents and developers. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
this also facilitated the timing of a developer in the entire application
submission, Planning Commission review, holidays, scheduling open houses and
public hearings, and other considerations.
After further discussion, it was
decided by consensus that an open house should not be held earlier than 15 days
prior to submission of an application and held no longer than 45 days prior to
the submission of an application
At the request of Councilmember Willmus
regarding meeting location, and the rationale in holding the open house at a
neutral location and to avoid any adversarial situations, it was Council
consensus after discussion to insert the word “public” on line 27 to ensure
transparency and convenience.
Councilmember Willmus suggested
that the open house be conducted at City Hall, but after further discussion, it
was decided that this may give the impression to the public that it’s a City
project; and would also allow the flexibility for other meeting locations to
avoid tainting the process.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte regarding line 27 stating that the open house “shall” be held at a
public location, City Attorney Mark Gaughan clarified that this was the
strongest language available, and no change was made.
Councilmember McGehee expressed concern
that any objections or issues were fully documented at the open house, while
recognizing the difficulty in getting someone to sign off on the meeting
summary.
At the request of Councilmember
Etten, discussion ensued regarding lines 45 – 47 regarding the written summary;
and determined that more specificity was not needed, and the language would
remain as recommended by staff. Councilmember Etten also questioned the word
“therefore” on line 18 and the need to include it, with City Attorney Gaughan advising
that it referenced the previous sentence providing the basis for that
requirement.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff provided a list of applicable
addresses that provided a list of who was invited; but had no way of monitoring
who attended the open house or who didn’t.
Mayor Roe suggested reference
language in code, similar to Recycling as a Public Utility (e.g. Subdivision
chapter 1101.02) providing for the necessary application data requiring an open
house and requirements.
e.
Discuss Owasso School Property
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Willmus provided an update for the public from the Closed
Executive Session held earlier this evening related to acquisition of property,
including the former Owasso School property at 934-950 Woodhill Drive and 2659
Victoria Street.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
the School Board of the Roseville School District No. 623 had formed a citizen
task force to provide recommendation on the disposition of this school-owned
property, with several recommendations made by the group to the Board. One of
those recommendations was to potentially engage in the sale of the entire
parcel to the City of Roseville; and one was to split the parcel and sell the southern
portion of the parcel to the City of Roseville and possibly allow the City to
acquire an option to purchase the remainder (northern half) at a later date;
and the third option to offer the parcel for sale to any party.
Councilmember Willmus advised
that, given that information, the City of Roseville’s City Council had
submitted an offer to the School District based on the City’s appraisal in the
amount of $818,157 for just the southern portion of the parcel (5.39 acres);
with that offer subsequently turned down by the School District.
Given that status as of today,
Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council felt it was beneficial to
continue a dialogue with the School Board, and if the opportunity became
available, to pursue a joint meeting of the School Board and City Council to
look at the offer currently on the table. Councilmember Willmus advised that
the City Council was bringing this information to the public to address ongoing
curiosity expressed by residents as to the status of the property and potential
for the City’s acquisition.
Mayor Roe noted that the School
District had done their own appraisal of the property, for split into two
parcels, as well as for the entire parcel, and had based their appraisal on
future zoning for the entire parcel as High Density Residential (HDR). Mayor
Roe clarified that the City’s offer was based on the City appraisal using
current zoning and condition of the site, with zoning of the southern portion
designated as Park/Open Space and the northern portion designed as HDR,
providing for slightly different appraisals of the two (2) parties. Mayor Roe
further clarified that the City’s offer was based on its desire to create
parking for and ensure access to the ball fields on portions of the property.
In an effort to continue the
dialogue, Councilmember Willmus suggesting directing staff to reach out to the
School Board and attempt a joint discussion as previously noted.
Councilmember Etten opined that
both bodies had a responsibility to the public to get together and talk about
intent, goals and breaking down costs and other factors driving both parties,
and finding a beneficial solution for the community.
Mayor Roe noted the past level of
cooperation experienced between the City and School District and their staff
regarding facilities and jointly constructing and/or managing various
facilities; opining that this fell along those same lines.
Councilmember Laliberte also noted
that the City heard back from the School Superintendent that the School Board
rejected the City’s offer, but wanted to sell the parcel as a whole; and
expressed her personal interest in making sure that position was sufficiently
addressed as well.
Mayor Roe sought consensus for
direction to staff to facilitate some discussion with both bodies and staff to
accomplish mutual goals.
While recognizing the City Council
consensus, Councilmember McGehee opined that this effort had the appearance of
public coercion by the City attempting to bring the School Board over to the
City Council’s point of view; and questioned if this was the best approach,
further opining that this would not be her way of playing the game.
Mayor Roe took issue with
Councilmember McGehee’s interpretation, advising that the City Council was
saying and assuring the public that they remained willing to talk; and
emphasized that they were not trying to publically shame anyone into a
particular viewpoint, but simply bringing the public up-to-date on discussions
so far, as many had expressed curiosity about it.
Councilmember Willmus also took
issue with Councilmember McGehee’s statement, opining that he didn’t agree with
her comment at all, noting that the School Board had held several public
discussions on this issue; and in an attempt to provide transparency as well,
the City Council was following suit. Councilmember Willmus noted that these
were public dollars being discussed by both parties; and the public had every
right to know what the outcome of discussions up to this point.
Councilmember McGehee agreed that
they were public dollars on both sides and that the public had the right to
know; however, she opined that it seemed the wording was of a coercive nature.
Councilmember McGehee encouraged Interim City Manager Trudgeon to schedule a
joint meeting of the School District and City to discuss this; or
representatives from both parties negotiate a counter-offer in some form; since
she had not seen any counter-offer from the School District.
Mayor Roe questioned whether that
was a motion or not.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
directing staff to contact the School Board in an attempt to facilitate a joint
meeting with the entire School Board, and barring that meeting, that a subset
of the School Board and City Council meet in a public forum to continue dialogue;
and if all else fails that the School District provide a counter-offer to the
City’s original offer.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
15.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
suggested a Special City Council Meeting on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. for the
purpose of:
·
A joint meeting with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority to
recap of the Dale Street Project and recommendations coming forward;
·
Fire Relief Association meeting related to upcoming issues.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the
meeting be limited to those two (2) items to educate the City Council on those
items, and for the City Council to provide feedback to those parties.
Mayor Roe noted that Mr. Trudgeon
would be out of town from July 8 -15, 2013; and discussion ensued regarding
potential alternate dates to meet and potential individual calendar conflicts.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
scheduling a Special City Council Meeting on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. for the
purpose of:
·
A joint meeting with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority to
recap of the Dale Street Project and recommendations coming forward;
·
Fire Relief Association meeting related to upcoming issues.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
While Mr. Trudgeon reviewed
upcoming agendas, Councilmember Willmus questioned the timing of the Recycling
RFP; and sought a discussion as soon as possible.
After further discussion, it was
Council consensus that some flexibility be provided in the Special Meeting on
July 1, 2013 to provide for that discussion if so indicated and as time allows.
16.
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Laliberte anticipated
further information of the Administrative Department reorganization
approximately July 15, 2013.
17.
Adjourn
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:03 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten;
and Roe.
Nays: None.