City
Council Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2013
1.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, welcomed
everyone and made introductions. Voting and Seating Order as called by Interim
City Manager Trudgeon: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also
present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Laliberte requested
removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.c. entitled, “Authorize Environmental
Specialist and Communications Manager Position” for discussion.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee;
Laliberte; 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.
4. Council
Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced the upcoming
Roseville Fire Department Annual Booya hosted by the Fire Department Auxiliary,
scheduled on October 6, 2013, beginning at 11:00 am at the V. F. W. Post on
Woodhill adjacent to the City Hall campus. Mayor Roe noted that proceeds
funded various programs and support of firefighter families not funded through
taxpayer dollars.
On a related note, Mayor Roe
announced the grand opening of the new Fire Station on Lexington Avenue N,
scheduled for October 12, 2013, from 1:00 – 4:00 pm, with tours and numerous
activities planned for the whole family, and encouraged residents to attend.
Mayor Roe announced the annual
“Taste of the Arts” fundraiser for the Northeast Youth and Family Services
organization, scheduled for October 3, 2013, from 5:30 – 8:30 pm at the Vadnais
Heights Commons. Mayor Roe noted that additional information was available
online at NYFS.org or by phone at 651/379-3422; with tickets for the event $30
in advance, or $40 at the door, with the event featuring local eateries and
area artists.
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 September 9, 2013 Meeting
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the September 9, 2013 Meeting Minutes as amended; and incorporating
those suggested revisions submitted via e-mail by Councilmember McGehee,
provided as a bench handout.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; 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, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
Check Series #
|
Amount
|
|
ACH Payments
|
$346,542.17
|
|
71337 – 71391
|
236,442.36
|
|
Total
|
$582,984.53
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus; Etten;
McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the
following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Heather Marie Simmer; Juut SalonSpa
1641 County Road C
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
|
|
Saint Rose of Lima Church;
2048 Hamline Avenue N
|
Two (2) One-Time Exempt
Gambling Permits
1) Midland Hills
Country Club, 2001 Fulham Street for a raffle on October 25
2) At their school
at 2072 Hamline Avenue N for a bingo event on November 3, 2013
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
c.
Authorize Environmental Specialist and Communications Manager Position
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized this request for creation of
the two (2) positions as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
September 16, 2013.
Councilmember Laliberte requested
discussion of several aspects of concern to her, while recognizing the need to
proceed in posting these positions and getting the hiring process underway.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there were policies in place for
management positions and grade assignment for supervisory positions; in
addition to the status and grades for other positions in the Administration
Department currently being restructured and changing duties. Councilmember
Laliberte asked that Interim City Manager Trudgeon describe the process; and
whether job descriptions throughout were being reviewed, or if these two (2)
positions were being addressed in a piece-meal fashion.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
advised, that whenever new positions were created within the City organization,
there were a matrix of items going into determining the pay grade, and to
maintain or achieve organizational consistency with positions with similar
duties. While there was no magic number for determining supervisory grades,
Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was dependent on a number of determining factors,
including the scope of management responsibilities (e.g. city-wide, department,
or a small work group); and noted that there was a science to the process based
on extensive analysis.
Regarding other positions
referenced by Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he was still
reviewing the Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk position, and
anticipated bringing that back to the City Council for official ratification at
next week’s meeting, as well as at a future date the revised Communications
Specialist position. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he was aware of the City
Council’s desire for a thorough review of the entire organization; however, he
noted the need to move forward with these two positions in the near future.
Councilmember McGehee asked that
Mr. Trudgeon report back to the City Council comparison information as these
positions move forward and in relationship to the recently adopted compensation
revisions made, to allow a review of how the City’s pay grades are measuring up
in terms of recruiting new hires.
Mr. Trudgeon acknowledged that recruiting
would be the best test in the open market to determine if qualified people were
interested in the positions.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
authorization the creation of an Environmental Specialist Position in the
Public Works Department and a Communications Manager Position in the Administration
Department at the proposed pay grades within the City Compensation Plan.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Approve 2014 Benefit Renewals and City Contribution
Human Resources Manager Eldona
Bacon summarized the request for approval of 2014 employee benefit insurance
renewals and cafeteria contributions by the City, as detailed in the Request
for Council Action (RCA) dated September 16, 2013.
Ms. Bacon noted that the City had
made numerous changes in the employee benefit package over the last ten (10)
years, which had served to minimize premium increase and share the burden
between the City and employee to ensure affordable health care options for
all. Ms. Bacon advised that the City currently offered three (3) medical
options for its 167 FTE participants, along with 23 former employees currently
on COBRA. Ms. Bacon advised that the City’s claim history was very good last
year, with the provider, under the National joint Powers Alliance (NJPA)
consortium, indicating a zero percent increase in premiums. However, with the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act on January 1, 2014, Ms. Bacon
reported that there would be a 1.33% increase to account for the transitional
tax that will be imposed by the ACA beginning at that time..
Ms. Bacon further reported that
staff was still loading options into the new HRIS, in order to be ready for
open enrollment in November, with testing to begin completed by November 1,
2013.
Ms. Bacon referenced the
recommendations of the Benefits Committee as detailed in the RCA; and the
request of the Wellness Committee for an additional $15 incentive increase for
that program prorated according to employee participation, but serving to keep
health insurance premiums low and employees focused on a healthier lifestyle
and prevention.
Ms. Bacon noted that the City’s
self-insured dental program was also at a zero percent increase, with those
claims also trending favorably. Regarding long-term disability and life
insurance, Ms. Bacon advised that the RFP resulted in remaining with the current
provider, who agreed to two (2) year contract with no changes or increases
during that term.
With the proposed $50,000
allotment for the 2014 budget, Ms. Bacon advised that the projected amount
would sustain proposed cafeteria benefits for 2014 as detailed.
Discussion included nationwide
participation requirements of the City in the Affordable Care Act with
recommendations that the City pick up the additional 1.33% for implementation
of that Act; and recommendations that the City also cover the additional $15
incentive for eligible and participating employees in the Wellness Program,
currently having three (3) tracks; COBRA coverage paid for by retirees with no
City costs other than for administration; and meetings of the Employee Benefits
Committee on an annual basis for review and analysis, and subsequent recommended
changes as applicable
Further discussion included
difficulty in access for employees beyond Police and Fire Department employees
to use the limited equipment available in-house for workouts and training, with
the City providing financial incentive for employees for private gyms in the
area; and also limited due to security issues and timing of access and
equipment availability, with the in-house gym not a full-scale gym and heavily
utilized already.
Councilmember McGehee commended staff
for being proactive with the Wellness Program and control of premiums.
Mayor Roe concurred, and also
thanked employees for taking the initiative for the Benefit Committee to bring
recommendations forward rather than coming from management or the City Council.
Mayor Roe noted that it was definitely positive for the City’s work force to
participate in those programs and more fully understand those benefits.
Ms. Bacon also concurred, opining
that it had proven fruitful as evidenced with the City’s premium rates over the
last few years compared to those nationwide.
Mayor Roe agreed, based on his
historical perspective on the City Council, noting the advantages of being in
the larger NJPA pool as well.
Ms. Bacon noted that another
positive is that the City was self-insured and funded, saving taxpayer money,
as the City didn’t have to pay taxes on insurance.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of 2014 City benefits insurance renewals and cafeteria contributions
as described in the Request for Council Action dated September 16, 2013; and
authorizing executive of the respective contracts, contingent upon review and
approval by the City Attorney.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
thanked Ms. Bacon and the Employee Benefit Committee for their efforts, as well
as creating good will among employees through team efforts such as this.
Based on her experience working in
the Health Care Industry, Councilmember Laliberte asked the Benefit Committee
to consider mandatory screenings based on age and/or gender for employees as a
further advantage to reduce risk to the total employee pool.
Ms. Bacon advised that this was in
discussion, and offered that the new HRIS should allow better tracking
capabilities for such data.
10.
Presentations
a.
Receive State of the School District Presentation from Superintendent
John Thein, District 623
Mayor Roe welcomed Dr. John Thein,
Superintendent of School District No. 623 to provide an update on District 623.
Dr. Thein presented demographic
data and comparisons through a Power Point presentation, including enrollment;
open enrollment status; exploration of partnering opportunities with area
private schools; inclusion of seven (7) communities that make up the school
district; and levy referendum renewal information.
Councilmember Laliberte requested
that Dr. Thein provide an electronic copy of his presentation for reference by the
City Council and taxpayers, with Dr. Thein supporting that request.
Specific to the Levy referendum
renewal sought for long-term financial stability of the District with the
current levy expiring on June 30, 2014, Dr. Thein advised hat additional information
and “fast facts” were also available on the School District’s website at www.isd623.org.
In closing, Dr. Thein expressed
the pride of the District in its students, families, schools, programming,
partnerships, communities, and staff. Dr. Thein thanked the City Council for
their service to the community and district, expressing his pride in working
with them, and in being a resident of the Roseville community. Dr. Thein noted
the valuable dynamic in the community being served by two school districts.
Councilmember McGehee thanked Dr.
Thein for his presentation, and for the District’s open and cooperative
program, based on her personal experience.
At the request of Councilmember Etten,
Dr. Thein touched upon various opportunities for partnership between both
school districts and City of Roseville in addressing the needs of the community’s
large immigrant populations to make programs and services more user-friendly
and supportive of various cultural distinctions. Dr. Thein offered District
623’s support in working with the City, noting that the District had made
significant changes to its hiring practices across the board to provide a culturally-competent
staff.
Mayor Roe thanked Dr. Thein for
his presentation and his service to the community and School District.
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Budget Items
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
b.
Approve Final Design for Lexington Park
Parks & Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke, Park Superintendent Jeff Evenson, and Tim McIlwain, partner at
Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain Architects.
Mr. Brokke briefly summarized the
request as detailed in the RCA dated September 16, 2013; for final design
approval for the Lexington Park Building as presented.
Mr. McIlwain reviewed the proposed
schematic floor plan and building images/elevations; including access point and
security issues; how the site shaped the building; types of architectural
styles considered; and the aggressive nature of the process to-date, especially
with the value added item for a five (5) week early delivery for one (1)
project in the Renewal Program within the allotted budget of $500,000.
Discussion included considerations
for energy efficient and green components and options based on cost
efficiencies and various cost analysis comparisons; balancing of parks and
different arrangements for each based on planning models and site specifics;
proposed building use during the winter season as a warming house and for
neighborhood and./or community gatherings; potential redundancy of dual
heating/cooling systems with pricing considered as an alternate; projected
lifespan of the building at fifty (50) years; and functionality versus
long-term maintenance.
Further discussion included
projected construction schedule with groundbreaking anticipated yet this fall
depending on weather-related challenges; pre-proposal contractor meetings
scheduled yet this week as detailed in Attachment D of the RCA; exclusion of
the Lexington Pathway connection at this time; access or dual service capabilities
of the storage room based on sketches; and consideration of a cupola design
with windows at the peak of the roof to allow natural light; welcoming
atmosphere of the trussed peak building balanced with no plans to use that
upper space; and whether cost-savings at this park could be used to enhance
amenities at subsequent parks by keeping in mind alternate options without diminishing
the character or usefulness of any of the structures.
Additional discussion included installation
of ceiling fans for use during the winter; interest in buildings that area
usable and comfortable with easy cost efficient, long-term maintenance without
a high surcharge for residents; connectivity of buildings with fiber optic or
I-net capabilities for users, as well as remote control by the City for
monitoring, security, and other data access without requiring an employee to be
on-site; staff’s collaboration with the City’s IT Department staff to
incorporate a system-wide approach, as part of data upgrades at the Arboretum and
Nature Center; and ability to remotely control HVAC and irrigation systems as
well, if not now at least available for the future.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the final design and images for the Lexington Park Building as
presented and authorization to staff to seek proposals for construction through
the Best Value Procurement Method.
Discussion ensued regarding the
RFP process and incorporation of those items addressed during tonight’s
discussion in that RFP, with final bids coming back to the City Council for
authorization, similar to street and most recent fire station processes;
pending finalization of the final plans and specifications as part of the RFP
process; and encouraging trust of the deliberative process as it goes through
staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the policy aspect for the
City Council as well as their final review and approval.
Councilmember Willmus stated that
he was comfortable with the floor plan as presented; and advised that his only
concern was with some of the building material choices; encouraging further
vetting as the process moved forward to address some of his concerns.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Councilmember Willmus’ comments; requesting that an updated drawing and
list of alternatives for the RFP would come back to the City Council at next
week’s meeting.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Brokke advised that, depending on the weather, he was aware of
some contractors in the area who were eager for work on a winter project; but
advised that he would know more following the pre-proposal meeting later this
week. After that meeting, Mr. Brokke advised that a clearer picture should be
available on whether to move forward with this first project, or package it
with the remaining projects or a different approach.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
requested action was similar to other projects, authorizing plans and
specifications for an RFP to go out for bid; with the City Council still
involved in the process and controlling final approval.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her discomfort with not having an additional step with such large expenditures
and projects.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested
an update on next week’s meeting agenda, yet allowing staff to meet deadlines.
Mayor Roe opined that this seemed
to be a reasonable request; with Interim City Manager Trudgeon duly noting the
request.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Adopt Interim City Manager Goals
A suggested alternate received
from Councilmember McGehee entitled “Interim City Manager Goals for 2013” was
distributed as a bench handout out,
At the request of Mayor Roe, the
Subcommittee of Councilmembers Willmus and Etten provided a brief summary of
their draft of Interim City Manager Goals for 2013 (Attachment A), seeking
further discussion by the body. Councilmember Willmus recognized the
submission by Councilmember McGehee with a different organization of those
goals.
Under Section A of Attachment A,
Mayor Roe questioned “Creating a volunteer management position as part of the
2014 budget process,” and whether there had been City Council consensus of that
as an actual goal.
Councilmember Laliberte sought
additional clarification from the subcommittee in her recollection of a
position either for parks or for the entire City. Councilmember Laliberte
questioned the ability to measure that goal unless clearly initiated.
Councilmember Willmus reported
that the subcommittee was aware of the discussion regarding a budget allocation
going forward; and opined that initially it was needed in the parks area, which
would ultimately have city-wide impacts. Councilmember Willmus recognized that
volunteers were needed in other areas as well, and suggested additional
discussion on whether or not that should be a goal as well. From his personal
perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that such a position would be of
great benefit and of significant value for the community,
Mayor Roe stated that he continued
to be unclear as to whether there had been a consensus for this goal.
Councilmember Etten noted that it
had come up in discussions; and advised that the larger goal areas had been
identified in the subcommittee’s discussions with Interim City Manager
Trudgeon, recognizing that such a position would be a key way to improve the
quality and delivery of programs. Whether or not it belonged in the list of
Interim City Manager Goals for 2013 or as part of a larger budget discussion,
Councilmember Etten opined that remained open for further discussion if the
majority felt it was inappropriate in the list of goals.
Councilmember McGehee referenced
her proposed revisions as provided, noting that she essentially agreed with the
goals as provided by the subcommittee. Councilmember McGehee noted that she
had only made two significant changes: stating that a goal was to reconvene the
Website Task Force in light of administration department changes being
undertaken. Even though it should be at the discretion of the City Manager on
how the website goes forward, Councilmember McGehee suggested that implementation
should rest with the City Manager and new Communications Manager; with her
intent that the goal be separated out.
In drafting her revisions,
Councilmember McGehee stated that her intent was for the Interim City Manager
to have very specific and measurable areas, with many of those areas being
requested prior to his term, and some easily doable (e.g. revised RCA’s).
However, Councilmember McGehee opined that other areas should allow for input
and recommendations from the Interim City Manager from his unique perspective
in administering the City, and key areas for the City Council to base its
evaluation based on those things they felt were important; but allowing discretion
of the City Manager for flexibility and evaluating his performance on those
initiatives.
Mayor Roe stated that he liked the
language in Councilmember McGehee’s draft somewhat better; specifically noting
language for “creating documentation for and seeking approval of a Volunteer
Manager position…” rather than whether or not the position is budgeted.
Councilmember Willmus stated that
this was the intent of the subcommittee, to establish a goal, then step back
and provide direction to the Interim City Manager for how it was attainable, or
steps that could help enable his ability to attain that goal. Councilmember
Willmus suggested that this may be the difference in the format of the two (2)
documents even with their similarities. Councilmember Willmus stated that he
preferred the subcommittee’s draft as it was more easily apparent for anyone to
look at, with different areas or goals and areas of impact.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that format provided more of a specific work direction. Councilmember McGehee
opined that ultimately she wanted a City Manager who thought things through and
came up with ideas of his own and deciding on how best to proceed with his
recommendations. Councilmember McGehee further opined that she felt more
comfortable assigning a general area versus laying out specific steps for an
Interim City Manager.
Councilmember Etten agreed with
some of Councilmember McGehee’s recommended changes, such as the Communications
Manager process; however, he stated that he preferred the format of the
subcommittee draft for reasons previously stated by Councilmember Willmus.
Councilmember Etten noted that, while the same issue may come back three times,
how it was tied to a specific goal was important. Councilmember Etten advised
that he was open to changes in focus suggested by Councilmember McGehee, he
preferred to keep the subcommittee’s overall format, suggesting that the two
could be incorporated quite easily.
Councilmember Laliberte stated
that she liked the specificity of the subcommittee goals, opining that they
were measureable to avoid grey areas. However, Councilmember Laliberte agreed
that some of the challenges preferred for the Interim City Manager to address
were specific things that had previously been found lagging and not done, representing
a high priority and desired for accomplishment by the City Council.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of seeking ideas generated by the City
Manager and bringing forward his recommendations. However, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that some of the items addressed by Councilmember McGehee were
too soft and wouldn’t work in the limited timeframe (e.g. conducting and
completion of a Community Survey in January).
Councilmember Etten advised that
he and Councilmember Willmus had pushed timeframes in some areas, with the
majority providing for that aggressive timeline and recognizing that they were
asking for a lot. However, if things did not get done during that allotted
timeframe, Councilmember Etten stated that expectations were that an update on
how and why there were not completed would be indicated for further discussion
by the City Council. Councilmember Etten recognized that some of the goals may
not be possible, noting that there needed to be flexibility in all areas;
however, he noted that some goals were easily attainable (e.g. revised RCA’s)
and would serve to identify areas and the extent of progress.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested
that a measurable checklist should be available for those items easily
accomplishable as well as those more aggressive or having other components
needed before the City Manager could achieve those goals. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested a full timeline or plan, with scheduled costs and
implications was needed to happen by January (e.g. community survey) as that
would be a deliverable.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with
Councilmember Laliberte on that aspect; opining that it wasn’t soft to have a
plan that is acted upon; and she wanted to stress the Interim City Manager plan
versus that of the City Council. Councilmember McGehee further opined that it
was important to know how the Interim City Manager approached problems, his
priorities, and how he would address issues, not only from a broad perspective,
but with an extremely aggressive timeframe rather than having the Interim City
Manager constantly driven on line items by the City Council.
At the request of the body, Mr.
Trudgeon provided his general comments on tonight’s discussion. With only
3-1/2 months left of the Interim position, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be
challenging to set goals and calibrate expectations on what is achievable. Mr.
Trudgeon agreed with the conversation regarding his vision and plan, and the
need to have that dialogue ongoing, with both parties understanding the limits
during that timeframe. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this didn’t mean that
things can’t be initiated allowing for some progress, and allowing the City
Council to determine the direction and whether they had confidence in it being
the right direction. As he had discussed with the subcommittee and his
concerns with the aggressive list of goals and whether that is part of the
litmus test, Mr. Trudgeon noted their assurances that there was some give and
take built into the list of goals, but that the ultimate determining factor
would be whether or not progress was being made. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he
was fully aware of the scope and expectations, noting that some of the goals
were already in motion. Whatever language became final, Mr. Trudgeon advised
that he would support; and if the position continued to progress in the future
with annual goals, it would be necessary to recognize those goals that were
continuing based on what had been achieved during the interim 3-1/2 month
period as part of the City Council’s judgment. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he
had reviewed the goals as set forth by the subcommittee as well as those
drafted by Councilmember McGehee, and was comfortable with both formats. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that both documents basically contained four (4) elements; and
suggested that everyone may be at a point now to set him loose and move
forward. If the City Council desired additional language tweaking, Mr.
Trudgeon suggested that the document be included in next week’s meeting agenda
for final approval, allowing City Councilmembers to determine the exact wording
they preferred.
If Mr. Trudgeon was comfortable
with both versions, Councilmember Laliberte suggested that language be tweaked
for final approval at next week’s meeting; allowing Mr. Trudgeon to get started
on some of the goals, while asking the subcommittee to consider the
deliverables, timeline or process as applicable.
Councilmember Etten expressed
appreciation for Councilmember McGehee’s input on the website redesign, opining
that that made sense; and further agreed with changes in language for the Volunteer
Management position. Councilmember Etten asked that Councilmember Laliberte
provide her suggested language on the community survey via staff for the
subcommittee’s subsequent receipt.
Concluding discussion ensued for a
consensus on the preferred format, with directive to the subcommittee to
provide a final document based on tonight’s discussion and formatting preferences
for consideration on next week’s Consent Agenda; requesting any further
suggestions be provided by individual Councilmembers at their earliest
convenience to staff for the subcommittee.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:07 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:15 pm.
14.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Rental Licensing Ordinance
Mayor Roe clarified that there
would be no action by the City Council tonight on this item, and intended only
as a policy discussion for the Multi-family Rental License Chapter 908 to City
Code, currently under consideration. Mayor Roe further advised that, while the
City Council would accept limited public comment at tonight’s meeting, a formal
public comment opportunity would be scheduled and duly noticed in the future
as the process moved forward.
Mayor Roe introduced Acting HRA
Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey and Codes Enforcement Coordinator Don Munson
for tonight’s presentation.
As detailed in the RCA dated
September 16, 2013, and related attachments, Ms. Kelsey provided a brief history
of rental licensing since initial 2006 findings and a public hearing process
held in 2008 with the subsequent recommendation that the City pursue a rental
registration program for 1-4 unit rental properties only versus licensing at
that point. Based on ongoing calls and complaints from social workers and
others concerned with the health and safety of tenants, Ms. Kelsey advised that
the present situation dictated the need for further recourse to address those
concerns.
Ms. Kelsey noted that a grant had
been awarded to the City and additional research conducted, with the Roseville
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and their due diligence providing
for a recommendation that an incentive-based rental licensing program be
implemented to reward good multi-family property owners and encourage others to
improve and maintain safe and healthy multi-family rental units in Roseville.
Ms. Kelsey advised that throughout
the process of the HRA, substantial and frequent public testimony had been
sought and provided, and various meetings with multi-family property owners and
their associations, resulting in various modifications and revisions in the
original draft of an ordinance, as detailed in lines 14 – 30 of the RCA.
Throughout the process, Ms. Kelsey advised that the City Attorney had been in
consultation with staff in drafting the ordinance; resulting in the draft
ordinance presented tonight (Attachment A) and Implementation Plan (Attachment
C). Ms. Kelsey advised that the only remaining component still pending was related
to a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program (Attachment D). Ms. Kelsey noted that
the recommended implementation program was based on first-year inspections
between May and September of 2014, allowing for full implementation in January
of 2015. Ms. Kelsey noted that this schedule would also allow property owners
to allot inspection fee costs in their budgets.
Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA
was recommending hiring a seasonal code official for the first-year inspections
in-house versus the original thought for a third party inspector, and would allow
for a modified/reduced fee structure in future budget years. Ms. Kelsey noted
that this would allow for reduced inspection fees for property owners, and
should fees not cover inspection and/or personnel costs, those additional costs
would be funded from the Community Development Department budget. Ms. Kelsey
clarified that if the City Council and community supported a crime-free
education element, currently modified out of the program, it would require
additional staffing in the Police Department, and if desired for incorporated
by 2015 implementation, it would need action by the City Council as part of
their 2014 budget deliberations to determine staffing and funding for that
element.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Ms. Kelsey advised that there were no figures available for costs associated
for the crime free implementation; as it would need to be determined
internally. Ms. Kelsey referenced information provided (Attachment D) for the
crime-free tiered certification program and required training and education
based on applicable phases and license types.
Councilmember Etten opined that,
as he reviewed the various phases, it seemed logical and positive.
Councilmember Etten questioned the overtime funding required for staff’s
training, and questioned whether some of the training or check-off items nor
requiring additional research could be completed as part of a building’s
initial assessment for the first year. Councilmember Etten further questioned
if part of Phase III requiring staff’s presence could be accomplished as a
regular outreach component, since the Police Department was already very active
and proactive, suggesting that some elements could be incorporated without
major expenditures.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
advised that the crime-free element is beyond that typically done with current
resources or sustainable long-term. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this
responsibility would fall primarily on the Police Department as the experts on
safety and crime, and would need to have recognition as a budgetary impact.
Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was an excellent outreach effort and if it could be
formalized in this program, would provide excellent long-term benefits for the
rental community and the City as a whole. Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that it was
necessary to understand that the crime-free program element needed to be proven
sustainable moving forward.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Kelsey reviewed the initial day-long meeting required of each multi-family
property owner in categories A through D; and how the number of units could be
determined at that point for planning and staffing for 2015.
At the suggestion of Councilmember
McGehee that in-house staff from the Police, Fire, HRA and Code Departments
cycle through and make presentations for tenants of multi-housing units;
Councilmember Etten clarified that the educational components were intended for
property owners, not tenants.
Ms. Kelsey further reviewed the
various tiers and property categories and requirements by HRA and Police
Department staff to sustain outreach, engagement of property owners, and their
involvement in maintaining or enhancing a working relationship between property
owners and the City.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting
that this component was entirely different than the crime-free component.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of pursuing crime-free multi-housing and the resident training in
Phases II and III as one of the tools in the toolbox, putting residents in a
better position to advocate for their interests in some situations.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Ms. Kelsey reviewed eviction technicalities based on state law and
challenges, resulting in the proposed language modification in the ordinance, allowing
the owner to make the best choices case by case.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that staffing and fees would be taken care of
for full inspections during 2014.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that, while
there would be properties to inspect every three years depending on their
specific tier, the gap in funding thereafter would need to be made up from Community
Development Department funds.
Councilmember McGehee thank you
the HRA and staff for their collaborative work and excellent job in finding a
compromise in balancing funding and needs of tenants and multi-family owners.
Section 908.04 (Licensing Term)
Mayor Roe offered some suggestions
and his questions on several technical areas needing further clarification in
Attachment A. In Section 908.04 (Licensing Term), Mayor Roe suggested clarification
of language as “Application for Renewal” to indicate that the property owner
was responsible for filing for their renewal.
In Section 908.04,E (License Process
and Renewal) related to the established fee schedule and fines for not filing
with a certain timeframe, Mayor Roe opined that the language was redundant of
language in Section 908.05 (Fees) and should be incorporated with
fee/fines being discussed in Section 908.05.
908.07 (Licensing Suspensions,
Revocation, Denial and Nonrenewal)
Mayor Roe questioned if a new
license was prohibited for one property or revoked on one property, could there
be a license issued or renewed on other properties owned by the same owner, or
not until the previous property was brought in line. If so, Mayor Roe
questioned if that wasn’t being overly harsh for a property owner.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan
referenced the second sentence of Part G.e of Section 908.07 addressing that
situation, with no new license being issued for any new property for the same
property owner or those same tenants, clarifying that the property owner could
continue to operate its current licenses, but not be granted any new licenses.
908.08.D (Appeals – License
Action Sections)
Mayor Roe suggested that the
actual fees/fines being discussed needed to be clearly outlined.
Mayor Roe provided additional
minor technical and grammatical issues to staff to incorporate into the next
iteration; and invited limited public comment at this time specific to the
draft.
Public Comment
Mr. Eh Tha Khu provided written
comments to Interim City Manager Trudgeon for follow-up.
Ms. Mu Nana Loo, representing the
Karen Organization of MN, read written comments, consisting of concerns and
questions, of the organization and their reservations about the proposed program.
Ms. Mu Nana Loo noted that their organization supported the City’s attempt to
create safer housing but was concerned with possible negative consequences of
such a program. Some of the questions highlighted included:
·
Who is responsible for families evicted from their unit of complex?
·
Since many represented by their organization did not speak
English, was there a plan in place to ensure non-English speaking residents
fully understood their rights and responsibilities and possible consequences?
·
Due to the language barrier, who would be responsible in
helping tenants find new housing if evicted, or would it fall on other organizations?
·
Given the lack of affordable housing available, often five (5)
or more people were housed in one bedroom. If the proposal passes, will owners
be more hesitant to look the other way, but families more susceptible to
eviction if their unit is inspected?
·
With many tenants living paycheck to paycheck, it is often difficult
to get the first month’s rent and deposit money together, making it even more
difficult to make the transition if evicted.
While the proposal is intended to
protect tenants, Ms. Mu Nana Loo wanted the City to be aware that there may be
negative impacts on residents in the community, and invited the City to work
with their organization for everyone’s benefit.
On behalf of the City Council,
staff and community, Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Mu Nana Loo and Mr. Eh Tha Khu for
their comments and their attendance. Mayor Roe noted that the solutions may
involve organizations outside the community as well. Mayor Roe noted that
there were protections against eviction in Minnesota State Law, but clarified
that it was key for renters to understand their rights, especially those new to
the country and community. Mayor Roe noted that it was unfortunate that
apartments were affordable due to their lack of maintaining a safe and healthy
presence; and if kept orderly, were then able to charge more rent. With
numerous State and Federal programs available to assist with rent, Mayor Roe
noted that the important thing was for the City to connect renters with those
resources. Mayor Roe thanked the speaker for bringing the potential for unintended
consequences to the City Council’s attention early on in the discussions to
avoid them.
Mayor Roe thanked the City’s Human
Rights Commission for working with the Karen community, specifically on this
issue.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with comments that the City and its staff needed to connect with various
immigrant groups.
Mayor Roe suggested this may be a
partnership opportunity with the School District.
Gary Grefenberg, Roseville Human
Resource Commission Chair
Mr. Grefenberg advised that,
during a recently held meeting with the Karen community, this was one of their
major concerns. Mr. Grefenberg advised that, due to their significant
concerns, their response to staff’s licensing proposal had been guarded and fearful.
Subsequent to that meeting, Mr. Grefenberg advised that he and leaders of the
Karen community had met with Ms. Kelsey, with the result that a lot of good
will and common ground found on both sides. With ongoing communication between
staff and the Karen community, Mr. Grefenberg opined that their fears could be
further resolved.
Mr. Grefenberg noted that most of
the Karen community did not speak English, and asked that when flyers were sent
out in the future, the City allow for funding to have those translated and mailed
accordingly.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
since the community was new to the country and not English-speaking, it was
even more important for them to be close geographically, thus the number living
in a unit; and suggested that this was something for staff to take into
consideration.
b.
Discuss Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Two additional bench handouts were
distributed, , consisting of the District 10 Land Use District
and summary of land use categories from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted
October 26, 2009.
City Planner Thomas Paschke
included a background of discussions and staff challenges to-date as detailed
in the RCA dated September 16, 2013.
Mr. Paschke suggested two (2)
discussion areas upon which to focus:
Property Zoning – With most
of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area zoned Community Mixed Use (CMU) or High Density
Residential (HDR); and if there were some areas in the CMU that needed to be
removed or other areas to separate out, specifically the area east of Fairview
Avenue
Uses within Twin Lakes – Whether
or not retail should be a component, if so whether its size should be limited;
and whether certain Permitted Uses within current Tables should be revised, or
specific uses that are not of interest to the City Council.
Mayor Roe suggested, since uses
and where they were or were not permitted may direct zoning, focusing first on
the “Uses within Twin Lakes” to define those uses and their locations.
Discussion included how the Twin
Lakes area should be defined geographically, and how far north or south, and
whether it included the area east of Fairview Avenue (west of Byerly’s strip
mall) or whether that area should be rezoned or considered in the context of
Twin Lakes or not.
Discussion specific to that area
included what significance there was to make it part of the Twin Lakes
area; of if it should remain zoned Community Mixed Use (CMU) in accordance
with the Regulating Plan, or narrowed further, consistent with the area north
of Terrace Drive guided toward HDR, considering that it abutted HDR even
though guided CMU.
Further discussion on current uses
in that specific area included management of the multi-tenant properties based
on current uses and their range of uses; and if zoned HDR how much change could
occur or if other uses could be opened if zoned CMU, but not having definite
clarification of what those uses may be.
Whether or not the properties were
zoned CMU, Mayor Roe opined that he would argue what significance there was for
including the properties in the Twin Lakes area other than the Master Plan as a
guiding document for the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
some businesses operating on the other side of Fairview Avenue south of this
area had just been rezoned to Regional Business-2 (RB-2), while she considered
some of those businesses Light Industrial. Since some of those provided good
wage jobs, Councilmember McGehee suggested that that factor should be
considered as part of the equation as well.
Mr. Paschke agreed that their use
was limited light industrial or processing.
Mayor Roe opined that they could
be considered CMU or RB-2.
Councilmember Willmus concurred,
noting that there was little delineation between the two; but cautioned if either
were further expanded at Fairview Avenue and County Road C, serious discussion
was needed about the implications of that, particularly with traffic
situations.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she didn’t want to consider RB-2 as an option, but liked Light Industrial,
opining that the current Industrial zoning designation was very broad.
Mr. Paschke noted that
Office/Warehouse was already part of the zoning.
Mayor Roe questioned if it made
sense to further define CMU-1 and CMU-2 to focus on specific uses, allowing
residential or more intense uses, but still providing some flexibility.
Councilmember Willmus stated that
he didn’t want zoning that was overly restrictive or focusing toward one
specific use.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
suggested working within the CMU framework, with distinctions for limited
production east of Fairview versus the west side. However, Mr. Trudgeon
cautioned by not being too specific to allow flexibility, if developers were
given full reign to let the market determine what they think is best, the City
would not be able to dictate or control that development if the use fell within
that broad parameter. If the City wished to retain more discretion, and avoid
the potential for a housing development directly behind Byerly’s or a big box
retailer, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to be aware of potential consequences.
Mayor Roe suggested that the CMU
be more defined by which uses the City didn’t want.
In referencing the current
live/work/play model, Councilmember McGehee opined that the CMU is too narrowly
defined right now, limiting work that consists of a restaurant or small store
on the first floor and housing above it. Councilmember McGehee further opined
that she didn’t want warehouse distribution with trucks coming and going, but
preferred a use where something was actually made. Councilmember McGehee
stated that she wanted something that provided good jobs above and beyond the
current level of wages offered in Roseville.
Mayor Roe corrected that
perception by referencing the CMU designated land use category, as included as
one of the bench handouts. Mayor Roe further stated that the CMU does not currently
allow for a high production use.
Mayor Roe referenced Use Tables,
some that were included in the packet materials for the CMU District; noting
that artisan or catering uses were currently allowed in Industrial Districts,
but neither was on the list of permitted uses for CMU or Commercial Districts.
Mayor Roe advised that those were the types of uses he wanted to rethink, and
opined that warehousing was not part of that consideration.
In polling the Council, Mayor Roe
found majority consensus to look at CMU-1 or CMU-2 to address some of those
uses.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested the next
step for staff’s review of those sections and use tables, and bring them back
for further discussion; opining that it could make a difference in part of the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area than how it was known today.
There was no consensus at this
point as to whether the Byerly’s strip mall should be included within the CMU
designation.
After further discussion, Mr.
Paschke stated that it was easy to determine which uses the City Council did
not want permitted, noting that the definition was intentionally broad, but
that the chart drove what happened within the Twin Lakes boundaries once assigned
and the desired achievement for that area; and those uses further defined if
included on the chart and design standards created in remaining areas with
specific design plans.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that while
staff understood there may be specific things not preferred in other districts
(e.g. asphalt plant), it was necessary to understand that the challenge was the
size and impact of a permitted use.
Mayor Roe noted that further
discussion was necessary in the area west of the Byerly’s strip mall, agreeing
with Councilmember Willmus that a large format retailer would not work in that
area; while the City found that it would work at County Road C and Cleveland
Avenue given the easy access to major highways. Mayor Roe suggested that
perhaps the CMU-2 guidance was to not include large impact retail; however, he
noted that it needed to be clearly defined and would need further discussion,
but not precluding it in areas where it is already existing or appears to fit
well.
With the whole area involved,
Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not sure if the Regulating Map and
Design Standards for a common design look were appropriate; expressing her
preference for something if phased properly that could allow developers to come
in with their own interesting ideas. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City
should not serve as the design police.
Mayor Roe opined that developers
could come forward with interesting ideas, but the regulating map and design
standards defined what the City didn’t want, thus the challenge. Mayor Roe
opined that the Regulating Map didn’t get that specific, and only defined the
25’ feet rule.
Mr. Paschke agreed with Mayor
Roe’s comments, opining that the design standards attempted to provide
flexibility to address creativity, but if not there, a design needed to meet
minimum standards, with the Twin Lakes Development Area ramped up to higher
standards based on the Master Plan and Urban Design Standards.
While agreeing with that intent,
Councilmember McGehee opined that her perception of the sketches included were
that there was an attempt for uniformity in how buildings looked.
Mr. Paschke suggested that may
have been evidence in schematics during the early 2000’s when the intent was
for one master developer. However, since that was no longer the situation, Mr.
Paschke advised that each development was considered on a case by case basis
needing to meet more practical standards while achieving overall commonality.
It that was the case,
Councilmember McGehee accepted that, as long as there remained enough
flexibility for individuality among property pieces.
Mr. Paschke advised that a number
of buildings had already been built in that area that achieved those same
standards, while providing differences in design. Mr. Paschke noted that this
was also the case for all three (3) commercial zoning districts, with each
achieving goals embedded in Master Plans and building design standards.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
appreciation to Mr. Paschke for drawing that distinction, opining that he
didn’t have a problem with design standards, but was always concerned with building
placement as it related to an adjacent street.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Willmus advised that his concerns were both with the zoning code
and design requirements elsewhere, using the proposed development at the
intersection of County Road B and Lexington Avenue, and his concerns with sight
lines at that intersection.
Mayor Roe opined that the issue
was addressed in the regulating map, with a building possible up to the
property line, but not necessary.
Councilmember Willmus opined that,
in some areas, the City should allow that to occur as it could create unintended
consequence for fairly significant intersections.
Mr. Paschke noted that it was a balance
with that and to avoid not having parking lots serving as front yards for
businesses, another undesirable consequence.
Mayor Roe opined that this was
what he liked about the regulating map, it provided enough flexibility and
considered what worked for a particular development, while still allowing
parking no closer than 25’.
Even with busy agendas coming up
in the next few weeks, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would like to return for
further discussion sooner rather than later to keep things fresh for everybody
and continue making progress. Mr. Trudgeon summarized that the consensus was
to head in separate districts with distinctions within the CMU designation,
which staff would bring back as a draft at the next opportunity.
Mayor Roe opined that by focusing
on CMU sub districts, perhaps including some with a primary focus on
residential, but not precluding all other uses, it sent a clear message to
developers what the City’s primary intent was.
15.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Mr. Trudgeon noted the Closed
Executive Session on September 23, 2013, for the purpose of discussing the PIK
property acquisition and updates on potential park property acquisitions,
estimating that a minimum of one (1) hour would be needed for that Session.
After some discussion, Mayor Roe
determined that a 6:00 p.m. start time would go forward.
Councilmember McGehee left at approximately 9:24 pm
16.
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Willmus requested
that Mr. Trudgeon review current code language regarding pervious surfaces
related to new construction, in order to address a citizen concern for a
property on Owasso Boulevard.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested additional
discussion with Councilmember Willmus offline to clarify the specifics of that
situation.
17.
Adjourn
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:25 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Etten;
Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: None.