City
Council Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2013
1.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, and welcomed
everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and
Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted that a member of
the public had requested removal of Consent Item 7.c entitled, “Consider
Interim Use for Corpus Christi Church.”
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled,” Set Public Hearing to Consider Approving
an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Fantasy Flight Game Center at 1975 W
County Road B-2, Suite 1, Roseville, MN.”
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus;
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
Councilmember Laliberte announced
that she would be attending the second of four planning meetings for the
Snelling Avenue Bus Rapid Transit on Wednesday of this week, and would report
on that meeting at next week’s City Council meeting.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
a.
Approve Minutes of August 12, 2013 Meeting
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the August 12, 2013 Meeting Minutes as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte;
McGehee; Willmus; 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
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
Check Series #
|
Amount
|
|
ACH Payments
|
$326,223.38
|
|
70998 – 71101
|
1,033,947.14
|
|
Total
|
$1,360,170.52
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus;
Etten; 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
|
|
Timothy Brinkman; Roseville Acupuncture and Massage
2201 Lexington Avenue N, #103 AND
Massage Xcape; 1767 Lexington Avenue N
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
Keisha McBride; Massage Envy
2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
d.
Consider approving Reservoir Woods Access Permit with the Saint
Paul Board of Water Commissioners
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her distress that the City was unable to negotiate the equivalent of a
conditional use permit for long-term access at this park, without it being
subject to a 90-day termination clause. Councilmember McGehee noted how
unpleasant it would be to lose that trail, as discussed at length by the Parks
& Recreation Commission.
Councilmember Etten clarified that
there was a mutual agreement with the Board of Water Commissioners allowing for
them to cross city-owned property in that vicinity.
Mayor Roe further clarified, base
on his confirmation with staff last week, that the City had granted the Board a
permanent access easement across city-owned property, predating the Purchase
Agreement with other terms.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
approval of an Access Permit Agreement (Attachment B) between the City of
Roseville and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul; and authorizing
the Mayor and Interim City Manager to execute the document.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve St. Paul Board of Water Commissioner’s Wholesale Water Contract
Revisions
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval
of Agreement No. 02-13496-1 Amendment No. 1 (Attachment B) to Contract for
Water Services between the Board of Water Commissioners and the City of
Roseville (Attachment B); and authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to
execute the documents.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
c.
Consider Interim Use for Corpus Christi Church
At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim
City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA
dated August 19, 2013; with concurrence by City Planner Thomas Paschke.
Mr. Paschke further advised that
the best location for the temporary structure was determined to be as close as
allowable under Building Code regulations to allow restroom access from the
temporary building to the main (church) facility via ADA ramping and fire code
stipulations as outlined by the City’s Building Official. While plans remained
pending as to the actual location of the temporary structure as plans become
finalized, Mr. Paschke advised that the preliminary review by the Building
Official had indicated that it should be located up to 30’ from the main structure.
Until final building plans are submitted to the City by the applicant’s
architect, Mr. Paschke advised that the actual location remained an unknown,
but was anticipated as close as 20’, but at a maximum of 30’ from the main
structure. Mr. Paschke advised that the greatest distance would still provide
for an approximate 110’ setback from adjacent residential properties.
A brief discussion among
Councilmembers and staff included differing fire rating standards for
free-standards and those attached to existing structures, whether temporary or
permanent in nature.
Mr. Paschke advised that a
representative of the applicant was available at tonight’s meeting for any questions
of the City Council or public.
Public Comment
Ed Cunningham, 1857 W Eldridge
(south of Corpus Christi Church)
Mr. Cunningham noted that while
one of his concerns with drainage from this temporary structure had been
discussed at the recent Planning Commission meeting, he also had issues with
the proposed location of the structure. As he had stepped off the distance
from his property line to the school, Mr. Cunningham stated that it will only
be a setback of 106’ if placed 30’ from the main structure. As noted at the
Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Cunningham opined that the student roster was
pushing closer to 300 students, with the area for outside play located directly
to the south, and with the slope of the ground, it would look directly into his
backyard. Mr. Cunningham opined that the structure was too high, too close to
neighbors to the south, and would result in too many kids playing on the slope
adjacent to residential properties, especially during winter months; and
therefore significantly affecting the quality of life and adding to general
congestion for those adjacent residents. Mr. Cunningham expressed preference
that the applicant and City explore flatter areas on the site, referencing the
former use by Waldorf of an area west, or suggested a small section of the
parking lot on which to locate the temporary structure. Mr. Cunningham opined
that the bathrooms were located in the middle of a hallway in the main
structure, and therefore their proximity would be no further away if the
temporary structure was placed on the north side. In general, Mr. Cunningham
opined that the proposed temporary structure was too big, too long, would be
located on site too long, and would add to the general congestion of the
immediate area.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he had taken the opportunity to walk the site earlier today, and had discussed
the drainage issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting with City
Engineer Bloom as well. In his review of the proposed stormwater mitigation
plan developed by Ms. Bloom for runoff from this structure, Councilmember
Willmus opined that the plan will prove satisfactory. Councilmember Willmus
noted that there was an underlying problem in this area further to the south
that the City had taken and continued to take steps to remedy; and that those
steps would continue in the future to correct the overall drainage issue.
Councilmember Willmus further opined that the City Engineer’s plan that
incorporated drain tile for this structure would mitigate any additional runoff
created from this temporary structure.
Regarding the proposed setback
issue, Councilmember Willmus noted that even with the proposed location of the
temporary structure, in lieu of Building Official requirements, the setback
remained in excess of 100’ from adjacent residential properties. Since this
parcel is guided Institutional Zoning, requiring only 20’ setbacks,
Councilmember Willmus opined that
the applicant was well in excess of that requirement. Using the Brimhall
School as another example, Councilmember Willmus noted that their setback was
60’ from residential properties. Councilmember Willmus further noted that the
playground area at Corpus Christi had a 30’ setback from adjoining residential
properties, and therefore, he could find no sufficient concern with the
proposed setback. With the solution the City’s Engineering Department had developed
for stormwater runoff mitigation proving satisfactory as well, Councilmember
Willmus spoke in support of this requested Interim Use.
Regarding the proximity of the
building to the south end to access restrooms in the main structure, Mayor Roe
noted that there was no access door to the main structure on the west side, and
if located in one of those areas, it would require walking around the building
to the north or south to access those restrooms.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she didn’t share Councilmember Willmus’ belief that all drainage issues had
been fixed.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he had not stated that at all, but was saying that any additional impervious
surface drainage concerns had been addressed.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this entire area has experienced some serious drainage problems; and referenced
the City’s Stormwater Master Plan for the area; and further opined that this
drainage mitigation appeared to her as a piecemeal approach warranted by this
additional impervious surface, and simply created more for the City to
address. While not sure how this fits with the overall site, Councilmember
McGehee advised that she was very familiar with the Corpus Christi facility,
and expressed her interest in exploring the application further.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the City did not have any requirements or specifications for temporary
structures, and as far as she could tell, the proposal could be for a pole barn
sticking at the end of another perfectly fine building, at a high point on the
parcel and very visible. Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with the City
getting into the business of allowing temporary structures without regulations
that may result in a city of pole barns. Since the proposal was not scheduled
to go before the Church Council until September, Councilmember McGehee noted
that their reaction remained an unknown at this time.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the City had attempted to work with the Church on drainage issues in the past,
opining that there hadn’t been much cooperation on the Church’s part until this
proposal came forward. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like to
table this request for a thorough review of the possibility of a physical
connection between this and the main structure. During that time,
Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City consider developing a policy on
pole barns or temporary buildings; as well as determining if there was a way to
coordinate this drain tile solution with the overall drainage problem in the
area. Without the applicant having submitted a final plan, Councilmember
McGehee further opined that the temporary structure was clearly not going to be
built yet this fall, and therefore she saw no particular rush to approve the request,
allowing sufficient time for determining another location and to address
overall drainage.
Councilmember Etten opined that
his understanding of the drainage mitigation proposed by City Engineer Bloom as
part of this request served to address a portion of the overall drainage issue
allowing positive progress toward the overall stormwater management goal, even
though this was a small and site-specific portion of that goal.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz responded that staff was currently meeting
and negotiating with Church Administration and their Council, with the next
meeting scheduled in September, to address broader easements for a drainage
plan. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the application currently before the
City Council was for the School, a separate entity from the Church itself.
Mayor Roe asked Mr. Schwartz if
the City’s overall drainage project was being held up by the Church or
progressing as anticipated.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had continued to work throughout 2012 on the overall drainage plan, as well as
into 2013. During this time, Mr. Schwartz advised that the Church had undergone
a change in its administration as well as pastors, and had asked that
discussions wait for their new staff to be on board. Mr. Schwartz expressed
staff’s hope that things will progress in a favorable manner for all parties as
those discussions proceed.
Councilmember Willmus requested
clarification by Mr. Schwartz on his interpretation and that of Councilmember
Etten on the mitigation proposed by Engineering, and whether it solved part of
the existing overall problem or just that created by the increased impervious
surface created by this temporary structure, but nothing for the underlying
problem.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
it was her understanding that, although this solved the immediate temporary
structure issue, there remained easement issues with land controlled by the
Church Council without a viable solution since 2012; and that it was those outstanding
easement issues with the Church were outside this application that continued to
languish.
Mayor Roe noted that this was an
individual interpretation of the status of negotiations; opining that all
parties to an issue needed to proceed through their own governing structure and
processes.
Mr. Schwartz reiterated his
comment that staff considered that things were progressing and were hopeful of
a favorable outcome for all parties.
Regarding the timeframe for
responding to this requested action, Councilmember Etten sought advice from the
City Attorney as to the process, and implications or negotiations between the
Church and/or applicant.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan noted
that the City remained under the 60-day land use timeframe; and if tabled, advised
that the City would need to notify the applicant in writing of that action; and
also encouraged staff, if that was tonight’s action, that staff also pursue a
written, 60-day extension of the review time for notification of the applicant
as well. Under 60-day land use review requirements, City Attorney Gaughan
advised that there was somewhat of a rush on the application.
Specific to Councilmember Etten,
City Attorney Gaughan advised that each case was different, and whether or not
the drainage issue was related specifically to the current application or with
a previous situation, they were separate issues. City Attorney Gaughan
encouraged the City Council to make their decision based on the merits of this
application alone; and reiterated that the most pressing issue was to make sure
the City did not let the 60-day review period eclipse without action.
At the request of Mayor Roe, the
applicant’s representative came forward to address their plans for the
temporary structure related to the school year.
Brent Thompson, Hand In Hand (HIH)
Montessori
Mr. Thompson advised that the
temporary structure was intended to be in place yet this fall; with the plans
in process pending tonight’s action. If approved, Mr. Thompson advised that
the final signed architectural drawings, addressing code requirements, would be
submitted to staff, and a final drainage plan submitted to the City Engineer
for approval. Mr. Thompson advised that the goal remained for the structure to
be up and operating by October 1 or 15th of this year.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned
if the purpose of the building was because the existing building could not
accommodate existing students.
As discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Thompson advised that the Montessori School model provided
for twenty-five (25) students maximum for every two (2) teachers at the junior
high level, as per State Law. Mr. Thompson advised that the temporary
structure was intended to house that junior high level class, currently at
fifteen (15) students, and therefore allowing for an additional ten (10)
students if the Interim Use was approved. At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Thompson responded that their use of the existing Church space
was reaching maximum capacity and would create some displacement of Church
activities unless a temporary structure was allowed for an interim period of
time.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Thompson assured that this building was not going to be a pole barn. Due
to the nature of an Interim Use, Mr. Thompson advised that their goals was to
make the building as maintenance free as possible; and in initial reviewed with
the City’s Building Official for meeting City Code, was intended to consist of
shingles, a sloped roof at the same pitch as the current building without a
peak at 24’ deep; and to locate it as close to the existing interior classrooms
as possible. Mr. Thompson advised that the intent was to wrap the structure in
vinyl siding similar to that of area residential properties.
With Councilmember McGehee
questioning how the applicant found itself in the position of having more
students than they could accommodate without approval of this Interim Use, Mr.
Thompson responded that it was because HIH was a fantastic school.
In response to Councilmember
Laliberte as to the building being portable and moved off site once the Interim
Use expired after three (3) years, Mr. Thompson advised that it would require
that the construction needed to be such that it would be removed as soon as possible.
Mr. Thompson expressed his caution in ensuring that there was no perception
that the building was intended as a mobile home trailer that was pulled up on
wheels and parked; assuring that this was not going to happen.
Mayor Roe noted that such a situation
was commonfor temporary classrooms, as evidenced elsewhere..
Mr. Thompson concurred, noting
that this was typical in many public school scenarios. However, as a private
school, Mr. Thompson noted that it was their concern that parents paying private
school tuition have the perception that they were receiving what they paid for
and that the building be legitimate to justify that perception. Mr. Thompson
advised that the school’s real focus was how to acclimate the temporary
structure to existing classrooms.
As a contractor by trade, and
regarding the suggestion that the temporary structure be attached to the
existing structure, Mr. Thompson advised that the temporary structure would not
be sprinklered, and if there was any way to provide an outside double access
door from one building to another, he would attach the buildings in a
heartbeat. However, Mr. Thompson advised that his interpretation of comments
he’d received to-date regarding such an option, included that, due to the
church building’s significant size and needed access for Sunday School and HIH
students, there remained things to be determined yet (e.g. points of exit,
evacuation plan in case of fire), all requiring him to adhere to those
determinations. At this time, Mr. Thompson advised that the 30’ distance
between the two buildings was the only known available until further review was
completed.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11087 (entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Temporary
Classroom Facility as an Interim Use at 2131 Fairview Avenue (PF13-010).”
While in favor of moving forward
with this particular project based on its specific merits, Councilmember Laliberte
expressed her support of getting something in place to provide construction
standards for temporary structures; and suggested that the City be proactive in
going forward on that in the immediate future.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
opposition to the motion; opining that she would support tabling action at this
time. Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be much better for the
students if the temporary structure was connected to the existing structure;
and expressed her confidence that a reasonable solution could be found to do so
while also meeting fire code requirements versus students having to go outside
to access restroom facilities. By tabling action on this application, Councilmember
McGehee also opined that this would provide the City leverage to address the
overall drainage issue in this area.
McGehee moved to TABLE action on this
request to address connection of the temporary structure to the existing
structure, and to address overall drainage issues in the area; for action at
the earliest possible time to consider the issue.
The motion failed due to the lack
of a second.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the
motion; opining that it was important to remember that the Interim Use was
limited to no more than three (3) years; and expressed his concern in putting
unreasonable terms on this approval; opining that the motion currently before
the body did not preclude the applicant from attaching the temporary structure
to the existing structure, which appeared to be the applicant’s preference as
well. Mayor Roe suggested that these details were dependent on and should be
left up to fire safety and building official determinations.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; Willmus;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
e.
Set Public Hearing to Consider Approving an On-Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License for Fantasy Flight Game Center at 1975 West County Road B-2,
Suite 1, Roseville, MN
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized the request as detailed in the
RCA dated August 19, 2013.
Councilmember McGehee noted
existing regulations regarding the proportion of food to intoxicating liquor;
and since none of that information was included in the staff report at this
point, wanted to point that out to ensure that the information will be included
at the time for consideration of approval/denial of the application.
While recognizing this as a good
point, Mayor Roe clarified tonight’s requested action in establishing a Public
Hearing to consider this proposal.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
scheduling a Public Hearing for Monday, September 9, 2013; for the purpose of approving/denying
the requested On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Fantasy Flight Game
Center at 1975 West County Road B-2, Suite 1; for the remainder of calendar
year 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
10.
Presentations
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Budget Items
a.
2104 City Manager Recommended Budget
With assistance from Finance
Director Chris Miller, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon presented the 2014
City Manager Recommended Budget as detailed in the RCA dated August 19, 2013
and related attachments. Presentation materials displayed tonight were
provided as a bench handout entitled, “City of Roseville – 2014 Budget dated
August 19, 2013;”
In reviewing the proposed
timetable, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s hope that the August 26,
2013, City Council meeting would allow for more time to review and move toward
implementation of the proposed Administration Department reorganization as more
details came forward.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that this
budget proposal included three (3) new positions: a Park Maintenance Operator
(Levy supported) repurposing of an existing position as a new position as Communications
Manager (Communications Fund), and a new position of Environmental Specialist
(funded through the City’s Recycling and Stormwater Funds). Mr. Trudgeon
advised that this would be a net of two (2) new FTE’s, with only one of those
positions needing levy support.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed proposed
2014 Revenue Sources, including increased building license and permit fees,
increased court fines, but noted that those increased revenues would be offset
by a decline in interest earnings. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that the Parks
& Recreation Fund was expected to experience an approximate $41,000 in
increased fee revenue, but would also be negated to offset higher operating
costs.
Mr. Trudgeon that the City
anticipated receipt of one-time $225,000 in Local Government Aid (LGA) from the
State of MN that the City Council had previously directed towards the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and not available for operating costs.
Of the City’s estimated $400,000
in reserves previously designated for funding the 2014 property-tax supported
budget, Mr. Trudgeon strongly urged that the use of reserves be eliminated in
the 2015 and 2016 budgets.
With concurrence by Finance
Director Miller, Mayor Roe clarified that some changes to the CIP appeared
greater than initially identified in the CIP Task Force memorandum and its recommendations,
but during that seven (7) year vestment, the City’s debt service was being
reduced and applied to and increasing the CIP accordingly.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Miller advised that even by repurposing the debt service dollars into the
CIP, it didn’t make it entirely sustainable, without further policy discussions
and determinations by the City Council related to the Pavement Management
Program (PMP) and building replacement schedule; and whether to adjust those
two programs over the long-term with specific funding set aside or to rely on
bond financing for those two major items. Mr. Miller noted that the City
Council had determined in May of 2013 to not yet deviate from its existing plan
for these two programs, continuing the existing plan as adopted in 2012 and
2013. Even though requested by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that
he was unable to respond to her question of how much that gap was by 2020,
without refreshing his memory through further review of his records.
In all fairness to Mr. Miller’s
recollections, Mayor Roe clarified that there was actually no gap until the
City Council officially changed its policy. Mayor Roe noted that the factors
in the current CIP were addressed; but the question was what level of quality
for the PMP and pathway system the City Council wanted to maintain in the
future and for the long-term. Mayor Roe noted that there was currently no
funding for new pathways in the original CIP Task Force recommendation; but
that there was no gap unless the City committed to constructing new pathways;
and therefore, opined that it wasn’t fair to ask Mr. Miller to quantify that
gap.
Councilmember McGehee opined that of
those items, it included the current need for replacing buildings because the
City previously chose not to maintain the existing structures. Councilmember
McGehee further opined that the City currently had no policy or fund to
maintain the buildings, even though they now had a software program to track
them; while also making the commitment to install additional pathways beyond
the existing 75 miles, with no fund for repair or maintenance.
Mayor Roe opined that this was not
a true statement; advising that all existing pathways were incorporated into
the CIP at this time as well as those planned through the Park Renewal Program,
even though those new segments represented a small number of miles compared to
the broader Pathway Master Plan. Mayor Roe further noted that the City
included pathway and parking lot maintenance under annual levy funding.
With Councilmember McGehee
suggesting further discussion of maintenance expectations of residents for
existing assets, Mayor Roe suggested that an additional question is how
confident the City Council was for continued funding and at what available portion
of that funding through Minnesota State Aid (MSA), and whether it would
continue to adequately fund the PMP, as those funds were not sustainable, and
had actually been reduced in the recent past.
In referencing 2013 Budget
memorandums from staff dated July 22, 2013, Councilmember Etten identified
$20,000 savings for the HRIS acquisition as a one-time item; reduced funding of
$80,000 needed in 2014 for Fire Relief Fund obligations; and questioned how
that money figured into this budget recommendation as well as that targeted for
2013 staff merit pay. Councilmember Etten sought clarification if those dollar
amounts were part of these recommendations or where those funds could be
identified.
Finance Director Miller advised
that some of those dollars represented operational savings (e.g. $80,000
decline in Fire Pension obligations in 2014) that served to free up savings to
offset inflationary increases across the board for all operations and offsetting
the need for additional dollars for supplies, maintenance, and professional
services; with those savings already factored into the 2014 budget.
Councilmember Etten questioned if
staff had a slide showing how those dollars factored into those items (e.g.
$400,000 in reserves used plus the $80,000 for Fire Relief Fund) and asked if
staff could provide that more detailed information at the next meeting to
identify where that money was going.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
$20,000 saved on the HRIS budget expenditure, was not a levy cost but had been
taken from reserves last year.
Mr. Miller noted that the actual
level of existing reserves available for the 2014 budget remained in flux at
this time, with staff providing their best estimates over the last week at the
previous direction of the City Council.
Mr. Miller provided a breakdown of
where the $400,000 in reserves was earmarked as shown below; but would find it
difficult to identify where the operational money was going, as it was
dispersed among 100 plus programs, services and areas.
|
Breakdown for Use of Reserve Funds
|
|
Employee 2% COLA
|
$165,000
|
|
Employee Step Increases
|
80,000
|
|
Mandated PERA Increase
|
30,000
|
|
Employee Healthcare Contribution (3% or ½ of total
increase)
|
50,000
|
|
Increase in Contracted Dispatch Services
|
65,000
|
|
Inflation (adjusted and reduced sales tax exemption)
|
10,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$400,000
|
Specific to the merit pay portion,
Mr. Miller advised that this factored into and was in conjunction with phasing
the 4.6% compensation study recommendations, and was netted back into the $104,585
and $40,215 for factoring in the 2.6% increase in January of 2014 and the
subsequent 2.0% in July of 2014.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
Mr. Miller confirmed that a 3% inflation multiplier was used as a standard
throughout the recommended 2014 budget as an initial exercise. Regarding the
multiplier used for the 2013 budget, Mr. Miller advised that he would need to
verify the exact multiplier percentage used, whether it was 3% or not.
Councilmember Willmus requested
that staff provide information on the actual multipliers used for the 2012 and
2013 budgets.
Mr. Miller expressed his caution
to make that determination across the board, noting that each Department Head
reviewed their specific department budget and forecasted based on actual
amounts; but offered to provide the information to the best of his ability.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that projections given in April of 2013 had proven
accurate with the revised market value changes for the community made available
just last week from Ramsey County, indicating a 1.3% increase in tax base based
on the City’s total market value.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee
for the next discussion, she requested that staff provide information on their
recommended increases to business licenses and fees; as well as how those rates
compared to other comparable communities. Councilmember McGehee
opined that with the City increasing utility fees in recent years, any
additional cost for permit fees amounted to an additional tax on residents; and
should be identified accordingly rather than listed as an additional revenue
source without recognizing those full implications.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that while
staff could determine how much fees were anticipated to change from 2013 to
2014 as its annual exercise in reviewing the overall fee structure every
November, it would take considerable staff time to research comparables with
other communities. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he was not trying to resist
providing that additional information; however, in setting Roseville fees, the
determination was based on the costs for performing those services, not
comparing to neighboring communities, but attempting to cover the actual costs
for the City. Mr. Trudgeon noted that while those comparables didn’t factor
into the fee structure, it was certainly important for staff to be aware of
that information to remain competitive (e.g. recreational services and
programs); however, building permit fees were based on the valuation to cover
processing costs. Mr. Trudgeon offered to provide projected as much
information on fee recommendations for 2014 by the next meeting, he was not
sure if all of the information would be readily available by then.
Mayor Roe clarified for
Councilmembers that fees supporting the Community Development Department (e.g.
building, land use applications, etc.) were budgeted within the department as anticipated
costs and associated fees to cover those costs, adjusted as indicated.
However, Mayor Roe noted that none of those fees had any impact on the annual
tax levy; with the fees addressed during tonight’s presentation including
business, pet, court fines and law enforcement costs; and didn’t represent a
significant amount of revenue in general.
Mr. Miller concurred, noting that
in the context of the overall General Fund, the City could not legally profit
from imparting regulatory fees; and further noted that he didn’t expect a lot
of relief in those fees.
In response to Councilmember
McGehee’s observation, Mayor Roe noted that while those particular fees were
always listed as a revenue source as such, they were not significant.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her surprise in actually seeing proposed increases in fees, as she recalled in
past meetings having been told that the community could not handle additional increases
in fees. Councilmember Laliberte expressed confusion about what and where
those fees were that were being addressed during those past discussions.
Regarding the $35,000 savings in merit pay, Councilmember Laliberte questioned
why that was not singled out since the $20,000 savings in the Wellness Plan had
been listed. Councilmember Laliberte opined that it would have been nice to
see those comparables singled out as well.
Mayor Roe concurred that this was
a reasonable request; and asked that staff balance information contained in one
RCA with subsequent RCA’s.
Mayor Roe asked if staff was using
the Municipal Cost Index to determine inflation bases for budgets going
forward. Mayor Roe observed that even by taking the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
into consideration from the taxpayers’ perspective for tax impacts for median
property compared to the CPI and Prevailing Wage Indices, they all looked backwards.
Mr. Miller advised that the same
thought process being used by several indices was used to project fees; but
projections were often made through contacting suppliers and contractors to
predict their future costs. Mr. Miller noted that this served to underscore
the unique aspect of running government versus private industry; with the
indices serving as good benchmarks as well.
Councilmember Willmus opined that
the CPI was a good index for municipal government, as it trended similarly,
while agreeing that they did all look backwards.
Focusing on tonight’s City Manager
Recommended Budget and City Council preferences for future meetings, Mayor Roe
noted that the September 9, 2013 agenda included action on setting a
preliminary not-to-exceed 2014 levy. While the City Council could not set a levy
any higher after that preliminary action, based on current levy limits put in
place by the legislature, Mayor Roe opined that it didn’t seem to be an issue
of the City Council deciding to exceed that preliminary levy. Mayor Roe
suggested that it may be a quick process between now and September 9th
unless the City Council wanted more discussion at their August 26 and September
9 meetings.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the amount set aside in the Police Budget for the New American program; with
Mr. Trudgeon advising that $1,000 was set aside for that program with the
remainder proposed for additional overtime for court appearances and/or
training. Councilmember McGehee questioned why it was not possible to use some
of the donated or forfeited vehicle funds to the department for overtime
purposes, rather than putting those items on the levy. Mr. Trudgeon clarified
that donations were typically specific to particular items and not available to
earmark for those suggestions at this time. Mr. Trudgeon opined that there may
also be restrictions on forfeiture funds; and was typically calculated as a
line item in revenue.
Mr. Miller suggested that Police
Chief Mathwig repeat his previous presentation regarding that specific
information, typically given annually over the last few years as requested by
previous City Councils to provide a summary of forfeiture purchases.
Police Chief Rick Mathwig
Since he was in the audience
tonight, Chief Mathwig advised that each February or March annually, with 2013
having been the second presentation after being requested by the City Council,
a report was provided summarizing the supplement of law enforcement services
paid by forfeiture funds. Chief Mathwig advised that allotment of
approximately 90% of those funds are determined through State Statute, often
based on federal sharing; and having different statutes that cover different
forfeitures, but typically earmarked by the legislature to be used for supplemental
law enforcement services. Chief Mathwig advised that the key word was
“supplemental;” with that definition not including regular overtime, an extremely
common situation with any 24/7 public safety operation. Chief Mathwig noted
that, for many officers, their off-duty time is during their court appearance,
and not covered by the term “supplemental.”
In response to Councilmember
McGehee’s request for a definition of “supplemental,” Chief Mathwig advised
that such a definition was not readily available, since the civil law
enforcement required due process, including resolution through the court as a
common occurrence. Chief Mathwig provided several sample scenarios for simple
theft or speed citations and request for a court trial, subsequent continuances
or other issues; but still requiring the continued appearance of an officer,
typically at a minimum of 3 hours at $51.00 payable to the officer; with the
City only able to receive reimbursement of $20.00 of a typical $120 fine, in
addition to rescheduling coverage for that time. Since this due process is a
basic foundation of the U. S. Constitution, Chief Mathwig advised that it was
not considered or categorized as “supplemental.”
From his perspective, City
Attorney Gaughan advised that a responsible and reasonable view of the
definition of “supplemental” would not include overtime wages that were part of
the primary functions of an officer normally available for those hours or include
that type of expenditure. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City
Attorney Gaughan advised that it may include equipment not typically used as
the primary focus of a particular department (e.g. boating patrol equipment,
extra equipment used for SWAT-related events), but not part of a patrol
officer’s primary duties.
While Councilmember McGehee opined
that there appeared to be a bad return in issuing citations, Mayor Roe observed
that a broader return figured into issuing those citations, including providing
public safety.
Reverting to Mayor Roe’s request
of the body regarding moving forward with the budget process, Councilmember
McGehee questioned if moving forward meant accepting this initial City Manager
Recommended Budget as final.
Mayor Roe clarified that this was
the question; or whether Councilmembers needed further feedback from staff.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that
she would look for more answers to her questions going forward; specifically
identifying the proposed reorganization of the Administration Department and
changes coming primarily out of the Communications Fund. Under those auspices,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned what functions would leave other departments
and impact their operating budgets.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there
would be no communication functions immediately leaving other departments, as
they would still need to retain content creation; with the intent for the new
position to streamline those efforts overall. Mr. Trudgeon cautioned reality
with this communication effort, opining that he didn’t want to oversell the
intent; but opined that over time there may be some savings seen, but advised
that he could not specify any in 2014.
With concurrence by Mr. Trudgeon,
Mayor Roe noted that, if anything, it may free staff to perform other functions
within their department.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her interest in receiving additional clarification in future discussions
regarding reorganization of the communication function and realistic expectations.
Referencing Councilmember
McGehee’s comment for the intent and purposes of setting the Preliminary Levy,
Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Manager Recommended Budget served as
a guide, but that it was up to the City Council to continue discussion and fit
things together by December of 2013.
After a brief discussion led by
Mayor Roe, Council consensus was that no additional discussion would be
required at the August 26th meeting, but to provide sufficient time
at the September 9th meeting; with individual Councilmembers encouraged
to reach out to staff with their questions or additional information needs
between now and then.
Mayor Roe reiterated the function
that the September 9, 2013 adoption of the Preliminary Levy could not be
exceeded, and until then there were fewer restrictions beyond the legislative
levy limits imposed for 2014.
Councilmember McGehee sought
further clarification from staff on the reduction in the employee Wellness
Plan; with Mr. Trudgeon advising that this past year the Fund had not utilized
all of the money allotted to it, prompting staff to reallocate funds for a
better use during these tough budget times. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the
value provided through the Wellness Plan in reducing health care rates for the
City, and cautioned any consideration for eliminating or further reducing the
program.
Mayor Roe thanked Interim City
Manager Trudgeon and staff for their efforts and presentation.
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Classification & Compensation Study Policy Recommendations
and Implementation
Mayor Roe noted
that he took the liberty of drafting a Compensation Policy (Attachment A) to
provide a starting point for this discussion.
Councilmember
McGehee asked if Mayor Roe had drafted the policy with Human Resources Manager
Eldona Bacon or all by himself. While not sure if he had accurately captured
the majority thought process, Mayor Roe noted that areas without consensus
appeared to be the range of comparable wages, supplemental studies and a
timeline following initial implementation (lines 34 – 38), and implications for
budget cycles, ultimate City Council decisions and parameters.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned how to float this policy to received feedback from staff.
Mayor Roe
clarified that this draft information had been provided to staff for their
review prior to tonight’s meeting; and noted that Ms. Bacon was in attendance tonight,
and advised that the City Council would welcome any staff comments tonight or
as part of subsequent discussions.
Interim City
Manager Trudgeon opined that the draft provided an overall good start allowing
for more detail to be developed, recognizing that the policy was ultimately at
the discretion of the City Council. As mentioned before, Mr. Trudgeon advised
that he and management staff were still advocating for 100% of the average of
top wages measured among peer employers. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he found
the trigger mechanism intriguing, even though needing to allow for some slack,
he liked that aspect. Whether or not percentages were good or not, Mr.
Trudgeon opined that it provided fairly good merit as a framework for the
policy. Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that, from his perspective, regardless of the
future application, it was important to get employees up to 100% and define the
parameters to get there and then how and when to address it in the future; all
points worthy of discussion.
Human Resources
Manager Bacon concurred with the comments of Interim City Manager Trudgeon,
that the draft policy provided a good start in outlining the parameters. Ms.
Bacon opined that it was important to understand that it is a policy and
guideline, and within the City Council’s prerogative to change, update, abide
by or not; and to fully recognize that it was not a statute, but a guideline
and place to begin. Ms. Bacon advised that her only initial concerns were
making sure everyone understood the flexibility needed and if asking that exact
matches be found in the market place, it would prove extremely problematic or
like seeking a needle in a haystack. Ms. Bacon noted that, even though
comparable peer employers, they each were separate entities offering different
services, and finding such an exact match would prove quite a task.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon recognized that “comparable” addressed a portion of that;
but reiterated that she didn’t want the City Council to have the impression
that she could go to the marketplace to find exact job comparisons.
Mayor Roe opined
that past discussions should provide that evidence.
Ms. Bacon noted
that, while the proposed policy did not follow the format of the City Employee
Handbook, it would be easy to reformat it to do so; and further noted that
implementation was typically separate from the actual policy. Ms. Bacon
advised that, overall the draft policy followed her understanding of previous
City Council feedback and discussions.
Mayor Roe
clarified that the draft policy followed the format of other City Council
policies (e.g. financial policies) and suggested that format be retained based
on that model versus the handbook policy; further suggesting that it eventually
be adopted along the same lines as the City’s financial policies in City Council
format and record systems.
Councilmember
Willmus thanked Mayor Roe for taking the initiative to draft this policy for
discussion. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had only one concern
regarding the process to-date, and focus on communities with similar job descriptions
while not taking into consideration the different tax capacities and
demographics. Going forward, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was vitally
important to do so, if the City was intent on looking at a 100 – 102% policy.
Ms. Bacon
clarified that the most recent study compared the ten (10) most comparable peer
cities, not just individual positions.
If that was the
case, Councilmember Willmus opined that this was great; and opined that such a
comparison needed to be maintained. Councilmember Willmus advised that he
struggled with a policy stating that the City would always be at 100%, opining
that the City may always be chasing that. Councilmember Willmus opined that
there was nothing wrong with a policy with a range of 95 – 100%. Specific to
implementation, Councilmember Willmus clarified that the total 4.6%
implementation was intended to be phased in, in addition to a proposed 2% COLA.
Mr. Trudgeon
confirmed those percentages, intended to keep the City in line with other
cities typically offering a 2% COLA in 2014 as well.
Mayor Roe
addressed Item 3.a under implementation (page 2) indicating on lines 50-51
specific to whether COLA need be considered for a budget year, entirely at the
City Council’s discretion.
Councilmember
Etten opined that he preferred that those provisions be adjusted on the draft
policy as they automatically put the City behind again.
Mayor Roe
clarified that the draft language stated “ need not be considered,” should
address that.
Councilmember
McGehee expressed her support of this draft policy; and given comparisons with
other peers, opined that the percentage range was favorable with COLA.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a six year review versus the current
ten year review; opining that if a study was done more often, it may be less
painful.
Mayor Roe
suggested that if done more frequently, it may be less out of whack.
Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City should always be mindful that it wasn’t going to
be at 100% of the top, but at 100% of the median of ten comparable cities in
tax base, size, etc. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that it didn’t
seem to her to be outrageous to use 99% as a trigger; nor would she have any
particular problem with the range if 99% was the trigger and adjustments made
for any employees under that percentage accordingly.
Mayor Roe further
clarified that the study was done with an average of positions as well, and
spread across different positions, with calculations adjusted accordingly.
Councilmember McGehee
concurred with Councilmember Etten in finding lines 50-51 as problematic,
especially if the policy was implemented this year.
Councilmember
Laliberte applauded Mayor Roe for taking the initiative to get something on
paper as a starting point; opining that the draft mostly represented previous
discussions of at least two of the five Councilmembers.
In all fairness,
Mayor Roe noted that several Councilmembers had been reserving their thoughts
to-date.
Councilmember
Laliberte advised that she struggled with including any percentage at all;
opining that the City invariably chased something that varied from city to city
even when looking at peer cities, causing a negative situation to be set up.
Mayor Roe
clarified that the comparison study looked at the top of the range.
Councilmember
Laliberte noted that there was no comparison with an employee’s education,
certification status, or other things that went into their jobs since it was
proving difficult to find the same similar jobs. However, Councilmember Laliberte
opined that the City wanted to be similar in pay when other factors were
entering into that. Councilmember Laliberte also sought further comparison information
on the amount of staff turnover and longevity compared to peer cities if
available, such as those not taking jobs or leaving the City’s employment only
due to compensation issues. Councilmember Laliberte noted that,
if not already being done, those should be discussion points during exit
interviews with employees, or at a minimum the Subcommittee reviewing the City
Manager position, or even a subcommittee or staff level report. Councilmember
Laliberte opined that this would determine if the City had a problem with its
compensation, or if positions could not be filled with current or prospective
employees seeking employment elsewhere.
Councilmember Laliberte
opined that she would like to see something for a specific job, with
similarities and comparables to the ten peer cities at a low, mid and high
range; supporting a subsequent policy stating that the City would never fall
into the low range on average of peer cities, but without a specific percentage,
rather than setting themselves up to fail. Councilmember Laliberte reiterated
her interest in using existing ranges with variances or experience,
certification and the other factors she mentioned; then utilizing those
existing ranges if within the mid to high range.
In response, Ms.
Bacon advised that the City already compared ranges with other cities, and that
the City of Roseville ranges are behind those amounts spoken about. Different
from the private sector, Ms. Bacon referenced the salary steps within that
range, with local government typically starting an employee at the bottom and
working their way up to mid-range based on their competences; with the top of
the reserved for those having reached a certain tenure or reaching the top of
their peer or same similar job description ranks. Ms. Bacon reviewed the definition
of “same similar” as meaning qualifications and certification requirements are
basic and the same for all benchmarks; with the difference being that some of
the City of Roseville jobs combining several positions (City Engineer serving
as Assistant Public Works Director) which may not be comparable to other cities
having two positions performing those functions versus the one position in Roseville.
Ms. Bacon advised the difference was found in the range of those responsibilities,
even though the core job description and range were similar.
Regarding
turnover, Ms. Bacon advised that she performed voluntary exit interviews for
employees; and information provided by those willing to do so were kept on
file, with her performing an evaluation on where and why an employee was
leaving. With no formal method in place, Ms. Bacon advised that her comparisons
with other cities indicated that Roseville was pretty average with the experiences
in turnover with other communities. Ms. Bacon advised that the market was
opening up and loosening up, and would probably create more turnover versus
that seen in the last few years when it had been low with the economic uncertainties.
Councilmember
Laliberte recognized the move of employees in the public sector from one city
to another depending on their position. However, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned if total compensation attributed to that average to low turnover
beyond wage, but considering total compensation.
Ms. Bacon advised
that the study considered the benefit package as well as wages, but noted that
the information had not been detailed in reports. Ms. Bacon advised that the
City of Roseville had always been pretty consistent and comparable with its benefit
package and time off with other cities on average.
Councilmember
Willmus clarified that the compensation study included benefits, opining that
he had been told something different in the past.
Ms. Bacon
responded that the compensation study compared premiums versus contributions
for life insurance and other rudimentary things and proved pretty average in
that comparison.
Councilmember
Etten expressed his support for a review every four years versus ten years,
even though he could support six years, but preferred four years.
Councilmember Etten advised that he was concerned with line 51 (page 2) indicting
that there would be not COLA considered for a budget year that provided a
compensation adjustment; opining that this again put the City automatically behind,
setting it up to fail, and continuing always being off somehow. Councilmember
Etten questioned if there were compensation policies available from other
cities versus creating one, suggesting that it would be great to have policies
from the ten peer cities or 3-4 surrounding cities.
Ms. Bacon offered
to ask for policies if and where available.
Councilmembers
Laliberte and Etten spoke enthusiastically about such models from which to work
in addition to this draft.
Councilmember
Etten opined that this would provide an option versus operating in a vacuum;
even though expressing his appreciation for the draft created by Mayor Roe and
trigger mechanisms. Councilmember Etten opined that his intent was to see if
there were other options that may be more successful.
Mayor Roe noted
that this was the first discussion and that it needed to continue. Mayor Roe
advised that his intent was to determine if there was consensus by the body to
continue looking at a version of this draft along these lines or not; or consideration
by the majority to consider such a draft policy. If that consensus had not
been evident, Mayor Roe noted that then that the discussion need go no further.
McGehee moved,
Roe seconded, that the City Council continue to consider a Compensation Policy
based on the Roe draft dated August 19, 2013; with additional input as
requested by Councilmembers.
Public
Comment
Gary
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
Mr. Grefenberg
stated that this proposed policy bothered him as it made the assumption that
those ten or eleven other cities were actually Roseville’s peers. Mr. Grefenberg
opined that he didn’t see that, as those cities were mostly larger geographically
or in population, few were inner ring suburbs, and few compared to Roseville’s
senior population, nor did they consider the ability of taxpayers to pay higher
wages, since those peer communities had a higher average household income than
Roseville did. Mr. Grefenberg opined that if Roseville employees wanted to receive
wages comparable with those in the City of Edina, they go to the City of Edina
for their employment. From his perspective, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the
City of Roseville’s higher proportion of limited income taxpayers could not
afford to pay wages similar to Edina; and questioned if Roseville faced similar
challenges to Woodbury or Maple Grove. Mr. Grefenberg opined that the question
remained open as to the identity of Roseville’s peer communities. Mr.
Grefenberg opined that he would feel more comfortable in comparing with the
Cities of Maplewood, New Brighton and Little Canada, all communities with
comparable equivalencies and abilities to pay.
Mr. Grefenberg
further questioned whether the study was actually fair and impartial, or
provided an equitable solution, since Roseville taxpayers had less ability to
pay than the majority of other communities, noting that the average household income
from 2000 to 2010 had shrunk, but the City of Roseville’s levy budget had
increased by 32.6%. While property taxes have increased by that significant percentage,
Mr. Grefenberg advised that his wages had only increased by 6%.
Mr. Grefenberg
stated that he believed in government; however, he opined that this was not a
moral or ethical question, but one of what we could afford. While the City
Council needed to make that decision, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the residents
had to also be at the table to respond to the question articulated by the City
Council. Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was difficult for Roseville citizens to
pay more taxes so employees could be paid comparable to the City of Edina. Mr.
Grefenberg further opined that the City Council could not be insulated from economic
downturns or societal problems; and it was unfair to ask new residents, senior
citizens, or those with less income from other communities in the state to pay
as much as they did.
Until tonight’s
meeting, Mr. Grefenberg advised that he had been unaware that the compensation
study included compensation, providing some validity in comparing public and
private sectors. Having been a part of both of those sectors, Mr. Grefenberg
opined that the public benefits (e.g. pensions) far outweighed those offered or
available to most residents; and urged the City Council to compare those
private sector wages and benefits as well, most specifically pension plans.
Mr. Grefenberg opined that the public pension plans should provide a very attractive
reason to keep employees; and observed that tonight’s discussion indicated that
there weren’t a lot of people leaving employment with the City of Roseville for
other jobs.
In conclusion,
Mr. Grefenberg expressed his concern about a potential conflict of interest,
seeking specific information on which six employees would benefit from the
compensation study; requesting more transparency for the public. Mr. Grefenberg
opined that, since this study was instituted by staff and the consultant hired
by staff, the study itself should be considered biased. Mr. Grefenberg opined
that the entire process and study results needed to be opened up and questioned
if the City was actually being considered equitably with peer cities.
Mayor Roe
clarified and corrected any misperceptions of Mr. Grefenberg of others the
categories for the study, based across the entire city and including exempt and
non-exempt employees from every level, and explicitly stated in all reports.
Mr. Grefenberg apologized
for his inaccuracies and references to the study only addressing “top
employees,”, but suggested that if non-essential employees wanted better
compensation, they should unionize. Mr. Grefenberg opined that the City needed
to better articulate to the public the issue so they were aware of the
realities between a levy increase and rationale for the increase.
Mayor Roe advised
that several employee groups were unionized, noting that they were most at 100%
compensation, and that this effort was intended to provide equity for
non-union, exempt and non-exempt employees.
Councilmember
McGehee noted that while the City’s levy had experienced a significant increase
over the last decade, increasing taxpayer burdens, and recognizing that median
income may be low, she further noted that not every senior citizen living in
Roseville was living on a fixed income, and suggested that every senior citizen
should not be painted as impoverished. Councilmember McGehee further noted
that, over the last five years, a significant percentage of the increased levy
was for debt service, with only 2% of those increases going annually going toward
capital or operating costs.
Councilmember Etten
stated that, until additional information is provided by staff from peer
cities, he did not want to proceed with this draft policy; and didn’t want to
vote using the draft as a base until that other information had been provided
and reviewed.
Councilmember
Willmus concurred with Councilmember Etten’s statements; opining that there was
no need to vote on this right now, but rather preferred to use it as a guide
for further discussion.
With Mayor Roe
clarifying intent of the motion to determine whether or not discussions
continued, Councilmember Willmus opined that there was no need to vote on that
intent, that it was evident.
Councilmember
Laliberte stated that she would not be voting in support of this particular
motion; but believed that the discussion should remain on the front burner with
the eventual intent that a protocol or policy be provided. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested using this draft policy and written policies from other
communities to model the City of Roseville’s policy.
For future
reference, Councilmember Laliberte suggested that it would be preferable for
staff to provide such comparable information from peer cities as well as those
not in the peer group, with future RCA’s providing a “good”, “better,” and
“best” option for proposals like this.
Mayor Roe advised
that he was supportive of the motion to go forward based on input from other
Councilmembers as to what is most appropriate. With whatever solution may come
forward, Mayor Roe advised that he may still have a differing point of view of
whether or not to COLA along with an implementation increase in the same year,
but offered to hear all opinions. Mayor Roe opined that he recognized that
compensation needed to factor in taxpayer ability to pay applicable taxes;
however, he expressed his interest in better understanding the relationship between
salaries/wages and employees in various communities and median wages and
income. Mayor Roe noted that he was not aware if that information was
available for what Edina employees were paid compared to other communities,
questioning if their employees were actually the highest paid or if there was a
link between public employee salaries and what a community earns or what they
want to pay for property taxes. Mayor Roe suggested that there may be cities
having more conservative political vents than those of Roseville. Mayor Roe
referenced Councilmember McGehee’s comments that, if we desire to be average,
our striving to be average should not overburden taxpayers.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee
and Roe.
Nays: Laliberte,
Willmus and Etten.
Motion failed.
Etten moved,
Willmus seconded, to TABLE indefinitely consideration of a Compensation Policy
until more information from other peer cities becomes available through staff
to enable formulation of a policy.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Laliberte;
Willmus; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Abstention:
McGehee
Motion
carried.
Discussion ensued
among Councilmembers and staff, including timeliness of employee reviews by
managers compared to implementation of step increases for employees;
clarification by Finance Director Miller that pay increases were not being
authorized prior to employee reviews and discussions; differences in the annual
review performed by the Police Department that may not be on an officer’s
employment anniversary; and the internal issue of department managers getting
the paperwork processed for review and recording by the Human Resources
Manager.
14.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Interim City Manager Goals
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her personal goals for: completion of the recycling contract and website
development.
Rather than having specific goals
and based on his perspective as a Department Head and as Interim City Manager,
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of having Mr. Trudgeon provide over the
next few months a clear and concise document specifically outlining his
personal observations and subsequent recommendations to improve efficiencies or
processes of the organization overall. Personally, Councilmember McGehee
opined that she would like to see something addressing the current silo
structure, and provide more centralization (e.g. purchasing) and to provide for
a more unified look for city-wide communications.
Mayor Roe suggested that
requesting as an assignment a series of recommendations from the City Manager
serve a GOAL for the Interim City Manager.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that she would like to see that sooner versus later, and appropriately
prioritized.
Mayor Roe suggested if that was
the desire of the majority that it be a work assignment for Mr. Trudgeon with
an assigned timeframe.
Specific to land use RCAs,
Councilmember Willmus requested that each RCA develop options to provide
guidance for both support or denial of a proposal, similar to that done in the
past. Councilmembers McGehee, Laliberte and Etten concurred that this was
desirable and provided for a very specific GOAL.
Specific to the recycling
contract, Mayor Roe advised that it was scheduled for action on an upcoming
agenda already.
Specific to the website, Mayor Roe
noted that this fell into the communications reorganization, and that the City
Council’s approval or denial of that budget recommendation would cause that to
happen or not as part of that action and subsequent timeframe for redevelopment
of the website.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested
that the administrative reorganization would need to occur first.
Mayor Roe stated that he wanted to
get specific about the reorganization and a realistic timeframe for it to
occur; and asked that Mr. Trudgeon report back on when it could occur.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested
that, as Mr. Trudgeon brought forward his personal recommendations, he include
times for implementation of each of those items.
In addition to the
communications/administrative reorganization, Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her interest in a goal of centralization of other functions such as purchasing
as an example. Councilmember Laliberte noted that it kept coming up for discussion,
but questioned if a process and plan could be put in place to move forward.
Regarding Asset Management
Software, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the Public Works Department seemed
to be the only department with it fully implemented; and opined that there
needed to be a clear timeframe in place to have that implemented city-wide.
Specific to the volunteer
management, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the Volunteer Coordinator was
not included in the City Manager Recommended Budget recommendations as a new
position.
Regarding the implementation of
the HRIS, Mayor Roe noted that this was in process, but requested an update
from staff on that implementation.
Councilmember Etten expressed
interest in a variety of goals or plans, basically all extensions of the
administration reorganization, including a timetable for new ways to engage and
communicate with residents, with leading form the City Manager with staff in
the new Communications Department, not as a policy but as the everyday practice
to engage the community in a deeper way and to bring more people into the
process, or basically a shift in communications efforts.
Councilmember Etten further
expressed interest in staffing investments, whether through a volunteer
coordinator or not, and how volunteer or staff positions within the existing
framework could be reorganized in a creative way without increasing taxes.
Mayor Roe summarized that it would
serve to improve efficiencies or redirect department resources.
Mayor Roe noted that many
departments (Parks & Recreation, Fire, Police and Community Development)
had already reorganized in recent years, with Councilmember Laliberte opining
that this was ongoing, but should always be reviewed periodically.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that Mr. Trudgeon be given time to absorb this and return with not just a
checklist but actual bodies for involvement, whether added to, subtracted from,
or shifted; and any budgetary implications to balance that shift.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she considered Mr. Trudgeon’s feedback to
the City Council broader and less immediate; but the broader structural things
organization-wide given more time for his more careful evaluation and pursuit.
Mayor Roe advised that many things
may not have a budget impact for 2014, since the City Manager Recommended
Budget had already been presented or prioritized. Mayor Roe advised that his
only personal concern was that the City Council was essentially asking Mr.
Trudgeon to do more things with no more money available; while these items
could be considered for the 2015 budget rather than in 2014.
Councilmember Laliberte opined
that the things being asked for would not increase the budget, but through
centralizing efforts could actually decrease the budget or be budget neutral.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested a two-phased approach, with immediate things
for Mr. Trudgeon to work on between now and the end of December or January when
the City Manager search may resume, allowing the ability for the City Council
to provide Mr. Trudgeon with feedback, whether the City Council decided to
continue with Mr. Trudgeon in the role of City Manager or to proceed with the
City Manager search. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council owed
Mr. Trudgeon the ability to be reviewed on something specific that provided him
with measurable goals.
Mayor Roe opined that some of
those things had been identified.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that it would
be helpful to him if something written could come back to him from the City
Council, allowing for very clear expectations that he could work on.
Councilmember Laliberte opined
that it was unfortunate that the City had been unable to gather citizen survey
information this year, and asked that it be ramped up for 2014, expressing her
interest in having the benefit of that information, as well as providing for
succession planning.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
Mr. Trudgeon had a unique perspective with his service as a Department Head in
Roseville, his experience in other communities, and now as Interim City
Manager; and expressed her sincere interest in hearing his perspective with
Roseville operations.
Mayor Roe suggested a mid-range
timeframe for Interim City Manager recommendations for improvements between
now and January, asking Mr. Trudgeon to focus on specific things and what is
measurable or how to implement it over time; and tasked the City Council
Subcommittee (Councilmembers Etten and Willmus) with developing that information
based on tonight’s discussion.
Mr. Trudgeon expressed his
interest in seeing that defined list and working on it.
Mayor Roe reviewed his
interpretation of specific recommendations being sought from Mr. Trudgeon,
including:
·
General changes to the overall organization for more efficiencies
·
A response and timeframe to implement centralized purchasing
·
Timeframe for implementation of a reorganization of the Administration
Department
·
Timeframe for implementation of the Asset Management Software
organization-wide, how it will be implemented, and any issues or challenges
that could delay implementation
·
Recommendations for managing and recruiting volunteers organization-wide
·
Revision of land use RCA’s providing options for approval/denial
·
2014 Citizen Survey implemented
·
Succession planning
15.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember Willmus requested
that recycling contractors be present at the August 26th meeting,
duly noted by Mr. Trudgeon.
Discussion included the budget
timetable between now and the public hearing in December, with Mayor Roe
encouraging public comment on the 2014 budget at any open meeting.
After further discussion, it was
the consensus that there was no need to include “budget discussion” as an
agenda item on August 26th.
It was noted that the Fire
Department would be displaying their recent acquisition, in partnership with
larger gas line companies, of a foam truck at upcoming meeting, available for
the public and City Council.
Noting that the School
Superintendent John Thein was scheduled to attend a meeting for an annual
update, Councilmember Willmus questioned if the entire Board would be attending
or just Dr. Thein. Mr. Trudgeon advised that just Dr. Thein was scheduled
unless he was directed otherwise by the City Council. After further
discussion, it was the consensus that the entire board was not required this
year, but should be invited next year following their upcoming elections.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the
upcoming rental licensing discussion was intended as a work session with the
HRA for discussion; and the schedule had been adjusted to avoid numerous action
items.
Mayor Roe noted that this was the
original intent that middle meetings each month have few if any action items,
and serve as primarily discussion oriented meetings.
16.
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember McGehee requested a
future review of the City’s Pursuit Policy for the Police Department.
17.
Adjourn
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:55 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee;
Willmus: Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.