City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 25, 2013

1. Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe noted that staff requested removal of Agenda Item 13.d entitled, "Perform Abatement of Unresolved Violation, 1841 Draper," as the issue had been resolved.

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, "2014 Council Calendar" for council discussion.

McGehee moved, Etten 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 noted that local television station, KARE 11 would be holding a competition among its four news anchors at four different principle areas on November 26, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., to raise funds for Second Harvest.  Mayor Roe advised that Anchor Julie Nelson would be at the local Byerly's Store in Roseville at County Road C and Snelling Avenue during those hours; and encouraged citizens to stop by and make a donation.

Mayor Roe announced that City Hall was the collection site for holiday donations for the Fire Angels organization during normal weekday business hours from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

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 November 18, 2013 Meeting

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the November 18, 2013 Meeting Minutes as amended.

Corrections:

·         Page 17, Line 31 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "situation where the private industry [and residents] could work things out on their own, whether"

·         Page 22, lines 9 - 24 (Roe)

Mayor referenced the bench handout provided by one of the testifiers at the meeting, normally attached to the meeting minutes; and suggested it may be more appropriate to make it part of the official packet for tonight's meeting; and sought Councilmember consensus.

Councilmember consensus was to make the bench handout part of the official packet materials for tonight's meeting as the item came up for consideration; and to not attach it as a bench handout in the November 18, 2013 meeting minutes.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

With no additional changes to the Consent Agenda other than those already 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

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

On page 6 of the Check Register, Mr. Grefenberg questioned a blacked out portion of the report listing $2,000 for childcare. While not asking to whom payment was made, Mr. Grefenberg questioned when and how employees received an additional benefit for childcare.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon clarified that, as part of the employee benefit package, they were able to have pre-tax money withheld from their paycheck for dependent care; but that it was not paid as a benefit from the City to an employee.

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

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

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

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

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

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

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

d.            Receive Proposed Acquisition and Sale of 1840 Hamline Avenue by RHHA

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the Planning Commission's report and determination that the proposed acquisition and disposal of 1840 Hamline Avenue through the Roseville Lot/Sale Replacement Program is in compliance with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan as recommended.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

e.    Authorize Extension to Minnesota Wildlife Rehabilitation Center Ground Lease Addendum

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the lease extension agreement with the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota, extending Item 3 of the Ground Lease, Development and Use Agreement Addendum (Attachment d) from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2018; authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document, with final City Attorney approval.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

f.     Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Apply for SCORE Funding Grant

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption Resolution No. 11108 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Requesting 2014 Score Funding Grant for Use in Roseville's Residential Recycling Program;' for funding in the amount of $70,419.00

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

8.    Consider Items Removed from Consent

g.    2014 Council Meeting Calendar

Councilmember Etten noted several conflicts with his work/concert schedule, and suggested some alternate days for meetings in various months.

Councilmember Willmus suggested additional regular business be added to the January 6, 2014 organizational meeting agenda.

Mayor Roe noted that other schedule adjustments could be accomplished during the year as conflicts came up.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of 2014 City Council Meeting Schedule dated November 18, 2013, as amended:

9.    General Ordinances for Adoption

10. Presentations

a.            County Road B Discussion

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized comments received by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) at their October 2013 meeting from residents in the County Road B neighborhood, relative to the advisory commission's low ranking of a pathway in their update of the Pathway Master Plan Build-Out; as well as other issues related to County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue.

Mr. Schwartz reviewed some of those issues heard at that meeting, and study and/or actions taken by staff since then regarding that stretch of roadway, seeking to confirm and/or clarify those concerns. 

Speed

Mr. Schwartz advised that the road was posted with a speed limit of 40 mph, with a study performed since the October 2013 PWEC meeting by Roseville staff indicating the 85^th percentile speed recorded at a high of 46.1 mph at the Cleveland Avenue end and a low of 36.2 mph further west.  Mr. Schwartz further advised that the existing pavement was 26' wide; and had a remaining life of between 8 to 10 years.

Jurisdiction

Mr. Schwartz clarified that the roadway was still under Ramsey County's jurisdiction, with County and City staff currently negotiating turn back agreement terms for consideration by the City Council at a future date.  As typical, Mr. Schwartz noted that, while the desire of Ramsey County is to turn back jurisdiction of the roadway to the City of Roseville, the City's concern was related to dollars accompanying that turnback to address deficiencies with the pavement and drainage along County Road B.  Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that terms for a turnback agreement were still under negotiation at the staff level.  If the City Council was amenable to a potential turnback agreement for their consideration in the near future, Mr. Schwartz asked that staff be directed to continue negotiating with Ramsey County.  While an agreement is getting closer, Mr. Schwartz advised that County staff had asked that no numbers be shared at this time, as it was still under study in an attempt to remain consistent with their past turnback agreements with municipal jurisdictions.

Pedestrian Facilities/Safety

Mr. Schwartz noted that, of major concern to those giving testimony at the PWETC meeting was the lack of any pedestrian facility along that road.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this had been a request from that neighborhood for at least ten (10) years; and went beyond when County Road B had been disconnected from Highway 280, as a result of the I-35W bridge collapse.  Mr. Schwartz noted that a signed petition from a high percentage of neighbors to that affect had been received for an off-road facility as part of that earlier plea.

In anticipation of this discussion coming forward tonight, Mr. Schwartz reviewed some options that could address a pedestrian facility, and challenges or obstacles in accomplishing that goal.  Those options included a separated sidewalk or tail from the existing pavement or widening of the shoulder with a buffer zone.  Mr. Schwartz noted that obstacles for a permanent separate facility affecting feasibility at this time included drainage and topography creating the need to install some retaining walls.  Mr. Schwartz note that while those remained concerns, without waiting for a road reconstruction project, some issues could be mitigated by shifting the roadway and therefore shifting impacts; with the goal for a separated facility at some future date.

If the City Council desires to look at improving pedestrian safety along County Road B in this area, Mr. Schwartz suggested it consider widening the shoulder facility, estimating that this could be accomplished at a cost less than $120,000, excluding stormwater mitigation, in addition to $30,000 to $50,000 of City staff time, as he would anticipate using City staff for some of the prep work and any other in-house options to reduce costs, while contracting out concrete work, pedestrian ramps, and paving to a private contractor.

Possible Schedule for Completion

Mr. Schwartz provided a very preliminary and tentative timetable for the work to be accomplished if so directed by the City Council:

March 1, 2014:         Complete turnback negotiations at the staff level

Spring of 2014:        City Council turnback agreement approval

Spring of 2014:        Petition MnDOT Commissioner to lower speed limit, or as soon as the road comes under City jurisdiction

Summer of 2014:     Complete pedestrian improvements during summer construction season

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff met today and talked about potential dollars for a pedestrian improvement, noting that the Parks bonding funds had earmarked $2 million for trail improvements; and while there was more than enough projects to go around, a good share of that money had been earmarked for a pathway construction and/or improvements along County Road B-2 and Victoria Street.  Due to extensive stormwater mitigation work along that route, Mr. Schwartz advised that some of the funding for the stormwater mitigation could come from the City's Stormwater Utility Fund, estimating $10,000 to $15,000; with the City's existing Street/Stormwater Budget able to absorb the  staff time for the project.

Mr. Schwartz displayed a typical cross-section for this type of a separated facility, recommending the improvement on the south side of the road to avoid driveways, mailboxes, and power poles, with fewer obstacles on the south side.  Mr. Schwartz recommended paving a new 8.5' pedestrian pathway with a 2' buffer between the road and that pedestrian facility.

Mr. Schwartz reviewed the map of this area, adjacent to Cleveland Avenue; and existing curb and turn lanes as the roadway widens; existing 200' sidewalk adjacent to curb; recommending widening of the shoulder to Fulham Avenue to Fairways Lane and houses to the west; and the existing 6' striped shoulder, with the road wider in that location.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the existing facility could be utilized, or a permanent sidewalk constructed in that location, and another short stretch of widening of the cul-de-sac at Eustis Street.

Mr. Schwartz sought direction for staff from the City Council based on the research completed up to this point.

Council Discussion

Councilmember Willmus thanked Mr. Schwartz for bringing this forward to the City Council following the October PWEC meeting and public comment, as well as that Commission's work over the summer months and their process in scoring and balancing their ranking for the Pathway Master Plan Build-out while balancing it with feedback from this specific neighborhood.  When he had observed this project sliding lower on that ranking, Councilmember Willmus advised that it had concerned him.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that reconstruction of the County Road B was at least 8-10 years out; and any widening of the roadway would only be an interim solution.  At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz further confirmed that a reconstruction project would eliminate most of this short-term solution, as it would be difficult to match grades of a future roadway, which he anticipated to be at a lower elevation; although if the off-road construction was of concrete, there was some potential that a portion of it could be saved (e.g. Fulham to Fairways and just beyond).

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that he had not had further discussion with the neighborhood since putting this together, as it had been intended as an immediate response following the PWETC meeting.  Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in hearing feedback from the neighbors about widening the road, and whether or not there was widespread support for doing so; with Mr. Schwartz suggesting a Public Hearing could be held at the PWEC level to hear their feedback at a later date, once under City jurisdiction.

Councilmember Etten also expressed his appreciation to staff for taking time to research this issue and bring it to the City Council for consideration, as well as for his time spent negotiating with Ramsey County, opining that it was an important connection piece, hoping that this could be accomplished.  Councilmember Etten questioned if there was any way to create a separation from the roadway (e.g. trees or a fence) with this type of scenario to visually affect that it was still an open roadway.  Mr. Schwartz responded that there was little space to do so.  Once the roadway is reconstructed, Mr. Schwartz confirmed for Councilmember Etten that there was potential to install a pedestrian facility on the north side, and with wetland issues and embankments on the golf course side, both sides of the road could be reviewed to further spread the impact.  Councilmember Etten opined that, from his perspective, that would be preferable long-term to avoid crossing a busy roadway; however, he expressed his full support of moving forward with speed limit reductions.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding any Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding available for construction of this pathway and whether or not this pedestrian facility needed to be built to the same standards of the roadway since there would be no truck traffic on it, Mr. Schwartz responded that the City would experience the same difficulties as Ramsey County in meeting the requirements for MSA funding now that it was no longer connecting to Highway 280. 

Mr. Schwartz advised that City staff had met with MnDOT, with them acknowledging that the City potentially had some undesignated mileage in its state aid account; making it possible to designate Fulham and back around on the frontage road for MSA funds.  Mr. Schwartz advised that, given the nature of why this road was disconnected in the first place, MnDOT appeared willing to look at the potential for state aid designation; however, he noted that it would take time to build up those MSA funds to any significant level.

Councilmember McGehee opined that, while she was interested in hearing the perspective of residents, she was not in typically in favor of striped walkways on the side of streets for bicycling or walking with small children; and preferred a physical separation.  Councilmember McGehee recognized that something was better than nothing; however, she was in support of including this in long-term permanent pathway planning.

Councilmember Etten questioned the rationale for not being able to install trees, or signs to establish a safety zone, and whether this was primarily due to costs.  Councilmember Etten opined that it would at a minimum create a visual barrier for vehicles, and could prove an effective investment for that 8-10 year period.

Mr. Schwartz advised that, a 2.5' narrow strip was difficult to maintain, to provide sufficient drainage, or maintain growth of plantings; with consistent erosion causing difficulty in establishing any significant plantings in that area, even though it could possibly be accomplished.

Mayor Roe questioned if an asphalt curb could be installed at the edge of the 2.5' buffer strip to change elevation or serve to visually separate that edge for drivers.  Mr. Schwartz responded that there was no Stormsewer on that side; and at some point there would be some drainage required to get water off the existing roadway.  Mayor Roe noted that even though there was a fairly significant multi-family apartment building on Eustis Street, staff had not gone that far with their proposal and sought their rationale.  Mr. Schwartz responded that staff could go further at the direction of the City Council.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz advised that he estimated a full road reconstruction with a pedestrian facility at approximately $1 to $1.2 million, excluding stormwater costs.

For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe asked Mr. Schwartz to review the process for speed limit changes at the discretion of the State Highway Commissioner, noting that often the speed study indicated an even higher speed limit, set at the 85^th percentile, opining that this was probably not what residents were seeking, and how they could accomplish a lower speed limit for the area.  Mr. Schwartz responded that, one of the reasons he suggested that the City wait until the turnback agreement was finalized and approved, was that the City may have more control of the resulting speed established by the Commissioner under its jurisdiction versus that of the County when it was no longer designated as a state aid route.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the roadway's different functionality would then signify something different; and if the City didn't agree with the Commissioner, there was a process to negotiate and come to a future agreement; but reiterated that the City would be in a better position if County Road B was no longer a County road.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding drainage issues, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could further review the possibility of prairie style vegetation similar to that along County Road C that would address some drainage issues for the road, and also provide a visual break, while not having a high cost for maintenance.  Mr. Schwartz advised that there may be some potential to separate the trial and roadway further after a more refined look; noting that this was simply provided as a preliminary and very rough look at a possible short-term solution.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, representing SouthWest Area of Roseville Neighborhoods (SWARN)

Speaking tonight as a representative of SWARN, noted the neighborhood's involvement to-date in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and Renewal Process and their focus on that track, with this pathway remaining a significant part of those discussions, and providing a significant improvement in the SW area of Roseville, currently lacking a neighborhood park or other amenities.  Mr. Grefenberg addressed the rationale for his inferiority complex and their neighborhood always getting the leftovers; with this area landlocked with the only access on County Road B to the Fairview Community Center and area schools being by vehicle. 

Mr. Grefenberg opined that a boulevard pathway was better than nothing; however, he referenced the $600,000 remaining in 2013 budget funds based on his review of tonight's budget documentation; opining that it could be used for this purpose.

Mr. Grefenberg reminded Councilmembers that neglect of this neighborhood and the need for a safe pedestrian amenity was not new, with Ms. Shirley Friberg involved for over thirty (30) years, with many residents having petitioned for such an amenity in the past. 

While the residents were satisfied with assurances from the Parks Department that this remained a high priority; Mr. Grefenberg expressed their shock when the PWETC ranked it near the bottom of their scores in the updated Pathway Master Plan, noting how high the most recent community survey had ranked the need for pathways throughout the community.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this pathway was much more important than the one proposed along County Road B-2, of which approximately 70% of the $2 million set aside for pathway funds had been allotted.  Mr. Grefenberg further opined that it seemed that there must be some funding that could be found for this vital pathway; opining that he was not satisfied that all alternatives and funding sources had been researched or identified.  Mr. Grefenberg questioned why the neighborhood should have to settle for this 8-10 year short-term fix and asked if the City Council actually believed this was the best solution; with the surplus and contingencies built up in the City's budget; and suggested the City Council further review those funds and come up with something better to provide a pathway for County Road B residents.  While appreciating that the neighborhood may get something, Mr. Grefenberg personally, found it to once again be leftovers; and encouraged the City Council to search out a solution to bring this up to something similar to pathways in other areas of Roseville.  Mr. Grefenberg reiterated the $600,000 available funding in tonight's budget materials; and opined that he was therefore not personally willing to settle for an expenditure of only $124,000.

Jerry Larson, 2180 St. Stephen's Street

As a 32-year resident of Roseville, Mr. Larson advised that he had been a long-term supporter of improvements in this area; including a playground park, which appeared to be moving forward, as well as a better walking surface along County Road B.  As he had stated at the PWETC, the current situation is unsafe, with no pedestrian refuge, with that road still having a fair amount of traffic; and a lot of people walking or biking along it.  Mr. Larson stated that he really looked forward to a neighborhood meeting to discuss options as outlined by Mr. Schwartz; opining that there needed to be a full discussion on the preferences of the neighbors.  Mr. Larson stated that he could be supportive of this short-term solution if the City was committed to looking at it again in 10 years for a permanent solution; even though he recognized that interim projects often became permanent.  If the neighborhood could get a 6' paved pathway and 2' buffer, Mr. Larson opined that a lot of people in the neighborhood would be quite pleased, with the understanding that the road and trail would be separated at some future point.

John Bachhuber; 2223 Marion Road

Mr. Bachhuber thanked the City Council for looking at this issue; one of importance to him and his young family.  At the current time, Mr. Bachhuber stated that it created a challenge and he couldn't allow his children to bike in the neighborhood as there was no safe place for a loop.  Mr. Bachhuber stated that he shared the concerns of Mr. Grefenberg in not wanting a half-way solution that still created risk; and expressed appreciation for a short- and long-term solution.  As part of the short-term solution, Mr. Bachhuber asked that the City consider rumble strips as part of the project, as a way to alert vehicles to pedestrians/bicycles, should they be going off course, given this frequent problem for walkers along the road.

With no additional audience members coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe ended public comment at this time for further City Council discussion and staff direction.

Mayor Roe thanked residents for their comments; reiterating the process that would occur with additional opportunities for staff to meet with residents as a proposal is refined.  Mayor Roe noted that this would be prior to the formalized process for a project of this type, as a feasibility report or study was authorized, allowing additional opportunities for public comment and before subsequent action approving bids.  As always, Mayor Roe noted that staff and the City Council welcomed public comment throughout the process.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that, with holidays and new engineering staff coming on board after Thanksgiving and the need to make them part of this discussion and meetings with neighbors, he would anticipate early January for neighborhood meetings; with a report back to the City Council late in January.

As part of this project, Councilmember Willmus suggested that staff look at all potential funding sources, including the Park Renewal Program or potential turnback monies; as well as other sources of funding that may be appropriate, and identify those sources as part of staff's report to the City Council and subsequent discussion to provide the best course possible based on all input given.

In terms of Mr. Grefenberg's reference to documentation included as part of tonight's budget discussion materials, Mayor Roe clarified that this report is through October of 2013, and any remaining funds may not represent a surplus, but simply funds not yet expended for projects funded or approved, or final payments still pending and not made until year-end or perhaps even into next year.  Mayor Roe sought to clarify and not give the impression that those funds may not be obligated; however, he agreed with Councilmember Willmus in finding creative sources for short-term project funding.

Councilmember Willmus encouraged residents to continue to provide feedback to staff and individual Councilmembers as the process went forward.

b.            Asset Management Software

Public Works Director Schwartz introduced Public Works Department Assistant Sally Ricard to provide a demonstration on the City's Asset Management Software.  Mr. Schwartz credited Ms. Ricard for her data input and use of this system for the Public Works Department, recognizing her as the key staff member critical to the success of this software program for their department.

Prior to the demonstration, Mr. Schwartz briefly provided background on the product and original selection of the vendor: PubWorks from Colorado, who had over 400 public sector clients from around the nation, and specifically served the public sector infrastructure and facility needs versus those of the private sector operations.  In choosing this vendor, Mr. Schwartz advised that one of the concerns was that the software match the capabilities of staff, without having to dedicate staff strictly for managing the asset management software, but that it would be user friendly enough for front line staff to enter data based on their given workday; and that the information be easily understandable and in language the average employee could understand.  Mr. Schwartz advised that this vendor seemed particularly interested in meeting the City's data needs, as indicated by references given by other clients; and their development of a program based on client needs.

Mr. Schwartz advised that all Public Works activity for 2013 was currently included on the software program and based on a two-week time period; with most staff, other than maintenance staff, entering data daily themselves (e.g. supervisors, engineers, and engineering department staff); allowing better tracking back to assets or projects; building data to better manage in the future.

Mr. Schwartz advised that some key issues for his department in the beginning was to make a commitment to succeed, rather than a more expensive and robust program used by some larger cities that had to dedicate staff, but had not gotten their management programs off the ground or were not able to understand the full undertaking.  While this took a huge time commitment of Public Works staff in 2012 in addition to the daily work load, Mr. Schwartz noted that they had met the challenge and everyone in the department has a role in this management program.

Mr. Schwartz advised that the remaining work to be done was in the GPS area in defining utility coverage; and while completion was close, there was some field coverage missing and would be required and critical to have the data as accurate as possible; and expected that it would be completed in 2014.  Mr. Schwartz anticipated mobile applications in the near future; with as-builts currently accessed through another software program for availability electronically in the field. 

Mr. Schwartz offered his department's assistance to other departments; and anticipated future availability of website requests versus online submittals to administration and filtered down to various departments, as is currently done.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this would allow city-wide service reports generated directly to staff people; as well as allowing the public to track the status of their specific service requests.

Mr. Schwartz noted that time/task sheets were audited by the department every two weeks by supervisors who reconciled everything through this program to generate its payroll.  While this was a daunting task, with some tasks going beyond department lines (e.g. mowing in parks or public rights-of-ways), Mr. Schwartz noted that the goal was to have all the tasks generic enough to cross department lines; allowing base work to be completed as more departments come on line with the software.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this took skilled data entry and GIS staff, and expressed how fortunate the City of Roseville was to have them available.

Ms. Ricard provided an overview of the three major parts of the software currently in use on a daily basis.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that once the remainder of the City's infrastructure and utility coverage was in place, with maps available on screens, as-builts could be pulled up in the field; with huge amounts of data and information available to allow better management.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in the program and reports, and questioned if other departments intended to utilize the program or if it would be funneled through the Public Works Department for buildings and maintenance beyond parks and infrastructure.

Mr. Schwartz advised that some facilities were already included, especially those for which the City had contractual maintenance to some extent (e.g. City Hall and Public Works Maintenance Building), as well as the department's entire fleet, including 10 years of old data converted into this program, with preventative maintenance and any service requests for vehicle repair.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz noted that there were flags built into the program for preventative and/or periodic maintenance (e.g. new fire station) such as for HVAC equipment and other typical building maintenance items.  Over time, Mr. Schwartz advised that other departments would be able to get their facilities into the system as well.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Interim City Manager Trudgeon responded that other departments could and would bring their infrastructure assets online as well.

Councilmember McGehee suggested that, rather than having it accomplished department by department, consideration be given to someone to oversee this project to ensure consistent reports across the board versus disparate information; with Mr. Trudgeon duly noting that request for staff consideration.

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that this was a really good tool and asset to have for the future; and advised that they were in the process of inputting information, recognizing that it took time to accomplish, but that his department was making an effort to do so in 2014 as their new buildings came on line, as well as the existing skating center.  Mr. Brokke advised that the information was available on spreadsheets, but needed conversion to the asset management system.

Councilmember McGehee recognized that everyone was busy, with most departments already having a full plate; and justified her rationale for getting this critical information completed to provide for better planning for residents and use of their monies.

Councilmember Laliberte took those comments one step further, and asked that each department submit a report listing their anticipated implementation plan and date of completion.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed that if one department at a time was attempted, totally new technology would be available by the time it was completed.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff could prepare such a report; however, he asked that he be allowed to talk more with Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Ricard about the software's capabilities; and training/demonstrations for Department Heads.  Mr. Trudgeon questioned if other departments were even aware of what this software could accomplish.  While it would take some time to evaluate it and bring it back to the City Council, Mr. Trudgeon committed to do so.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the program could provide 20-year cost projections to predict capital improvements; opining that the more data available, the more you had to work with in managing assets.

Mayor Roe noted that this was what had originally sold him on the software, the amount of information and capabilities available for capital improvement planning.

Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Ricard and Mr. Schwartz for the presentation.

11. Public Hearings

a.            Northern Brewer LLC Minnesota Investment Fund Loan

Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the RCA dated November 25, 2013; with Northern Brewer, LLC seeking a $247,000 low interest loan from the Department of Employment and Economic Development's (DEED) Minnesota Investment Fund State Loan Program to purchase additional equipment.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation of the review of the company's financials and credit reports performed by GREATER MSP on behalf of the City of Roseville; noting that the nominal 1% interest rate was for the purpose of covering administrative costs.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that representatives of Northern Brewer were unavailable to attend tonight's meeting; and advised that some of the remaining details remained to be worked out (e.g. information needed by DEED, and completion by GREATER MSP of their due diligence).

Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation for supporting a firm that was providing a living wage.

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of this step in reaching out to the business community; opining that the best way to grow jobs was within existing businesses.

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:28 p.m. for the purpose of considering request of Northern Brewer LLC for a loan from DEED.

Public Comment

                      Stacy Bordner, 1989 N Lexington Avenue

Ms. Bordner spoke in support of the City of Roseville supporting locally-based businesses to make the community better and helping community-based businesses.

                   Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:30 p.m.

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11109 (Attachment C) entitled, 'Local Government Resolution Economic Development Program.'

Mayor Roe noted that this would also serve to revitalize a currently vacant building, while recognizing that it would create another vacancy in the Langton Lake area, which hopefully would be filled in the near future with recent increased interest in that area.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

12. Budget Items

a.            2014 Utility Fees

Finance Director Chris Miller advised that this staff analysis and recommendations were intended for discussion purposes only tonight, with formal City Council action anticipated at a subsequent meeting.  Mr. Miller noted that this analysis was performed by staff on an annual basis to determine if adjustments were indicated for the City's utility rates using a number of external factors to address fixed costs, variable costs, capital replacement costs, and customer counts and consumptions patterns and rate structures.  Mr. Miller advised that staff's recommendation was based on this analysis.

Mr. Miller reviewed comparisons charges (pages 6-8) with peer communities for its enterprise funds, with those communities representing first-ring suburbs having their own systems.  Mr. Miller referenced the draft resolution (page 9) for adoption tonight or when the City Council was comfortable in doing so by December. 

Water Conservation Rates (Attachment B)

Mr. Miler referenced the current water conservation rate structure and policy challenges with its effectiveness without punishing those already exhibiting conservation efforts.  Mr. Miller also referenced discussions held and recommendations regarding that issue at the October 2013 PWETC meeting (Attachment D).

Councilmember McGehee expressed her concurrence with the recommendations of the PWEC; opining that conservation rates have not done much, but haven't hurt.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a larger policy discussion on the entire topic of business and retail rates and funding infrastructure in that area.

Utility Bill Senior Discount Program (Attachment C)

Mr. Miller noted that this had been a topic of discussion over the last decade; with the PWETC also weighing in and making recommendations (Attachment D); and reviewed the origination of this program, put in place since at least 1970, as detailed in the staff report.

Since the PWETC meeting, Councilmember Willmus questioned whether Mr. Miller had an opportunity to explore how to phase out the Senior Discount Program; and how to initiate an income-qualified or means-tested program.

Mr. Miller advised, that while more time was needed to fully research it, solely addressing the means-testing, he saw no need to reinvent the wheel, and recommended seeking guidance from other aid programs (e.g. State or County), who already had a good base of knowledge and methodology that could guide the City at the local level.  Mr. Miller noted that how many homeowners would be affected would depend on the threshold applied by the City Council, whether sliding scales for adjusted gross income and number of people in a household, or whether simply income verification; as well as whether it would be an honor system versus verifiable results.  Mr. Miller advised that the administrative burden for staff depended on the City Council's directive; however, given current Roseville demographics, he anticipated that there would not be a significant number of single-family homeowners who would qualify.

Based on the PWETC discussion he had observed, Councilmember Willmus opined that it would easier to implement a new program and phase out the old program and no longer enroll anyone in the Senior Discount Program until a means-tested program was in place.  Councilmember Willmus questioned the viability of keeping enrollment open for the program while attempting to phase it out.

In response, Mr. Miller cautioned that, as part of such a process, he would want to ensure that a fair amount of education and awareness was done for the public before implementing any changes.  Mr. Miller suggested that education could be done over the next 6-12 months. If the City was to decide on phasing out the current program, Mr. Miller estimated that if those currently receiving the discount were grandfathered in for the rest of their lives, it could realistically take 20-25 years before that last person left the discount program under that scenario; creating a 25-year administrative burden to hold onto.  If the City Council considered a 2-5 year phase out of the current program; Mr. Miller suggested they cap enrollment sooner rather than later.  However, Mr. Miller personally would not suggest doing so by January 1, 2014; but suggested an end date (e.g. January 1, 2015) sooner rather than later to alert people that an end date was coming and allowing sufficient communication, education and awareness. 

As the only Councilmember who would qualify for the discount program, Councilmember McGehee admitted that she would be embarrassed to do so; and while recognizing that many take advantage of the discount without any actually need, she supported the idea of capping things now.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a means-tested program; opining that the recent economic downturn may find many people qualifying.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this should not be a lifetime means-testing, but with many people in a wide variety of circumstances that may change frequently or periodically, it could be an important program for many residents, and should be made available, but not in its current form.  Councilmember McGehee suggested coming up with a better program for full implementation by January 1, 2015, allowing for education and communication and thorough research of the best, and most effective means-tested program.

Councilmember Laliberte sought information from Mr. Miller on estimates of the size and scope of the demographic that may qualify for a means-tested program, if the age component was removed, but open to any age; and if that information was known.

Mr. Miller offered his very anecdotal calculations, based on his review of 2010 census data and current criteria for a discount based only on single-family homes, owner-occupied (no rentals or commercial properties).  If that was the City Council's direction, Mr. Miller noted that the potential candidate pool shrunk considerably; and roughly estimated no more than 100 homes would probably meet that threshold, depending on where the City Council set their threshold.

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there was already means-test data available in Ramsey County that the City could use so residents would not be asked to provide their personal information to the City.

Mr. Miller opined that he thought there may be, if the City applied the same threshold locally as eligibility requirements for the State or County; which would lower the administrative cost and burden for the City; and recommended that the City Council look in that direction first before attempting to go it alone.

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of this shift and phasing out the current discount program over a 2-5 year range, and capping any new entries in the short-term future.  While there may be some concern in residents sharing data with other levels of government, Councilmember Etten suggested that the City become part of the process (e.g. one application process for discounts) and not simply calling Ramsey County for a list of people; expressing concern that they may be violating some law in sharing that information.  Councilmember Etten spoke in support of coupling with the County in the data process and sharing of information.

Mayor Roe concurred with the potential for data sharing; and suggested the possibility of tying into the Ramsey County Administration's Property Tax Discount Program for income-qualified homeowners; and if they could demonstrate that they qualified for one, they qualified for other discounts as well, without the City of Roseville required to verify that eligibility.

Councilmember Willmus cautioned that there could be a fairly high household income and high property value situation; and questioned if that is the desired target to use.

Mayor Roe clarified that this was just one example of a program that could provide an opportunity o use qualifications without verifying all the data again.

If embarking on that scenario, Councilmember McGehee requested that another part of the process include a determination on the overall fairness and distribution if the City bonded for infrastructure repairs in this area similar to parks and other projects.  Councilmember McGehee requested some data and study about that possibility; opining that the base fee was currently so high, especially for those on a fixed income, with it costing $200 per year just to hook up; with usage fees not bad in comparison for those on a fixed income.

Mayor Roe opined that, while this may prove interesting information; it was getting further afield of the utility discount program under discussion; and represented a different type of cost shifting.  While supporting further discussion at a future date, Mayor Roe suggested refocusing tonight's discussion on the Utility Discount Program and if there was Council support for any change in the program to direct staff accordingly.

Mayor Roe suggested that a larger policy discussion on utility rates could be held in the future, if the Council chose to do so, and could include Councilmember McGehee's request in the broader scope of that discussion.

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to provide proposals and materials regarding ways to revamp the current Senior Utility Discount Program into a needs-based program; and analyze ramifications in doing so.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified that this motion was specific only to the Senior Discount Program, not the water rate tier system.  Mayor Roe opined that the key part in any transition would be the education component, and the need to be very clear with the public that the discount program was not going away January 1, 2014, and to be careful and clear about the process and opportunity for public input into that process.  With that caveat, Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Regarding whether to consider the utility rates as part of the December 2 and December 9, 2013 budget discussions, Mayor Roe sought individual Councilmember input as to their preference.

Councilmember McGehee opined that, having gone through the process for increasing the base fee 62% over the last two years, she was personally disappointed to see this staff recommendation for another 4.65% increase on top of that when the water usage fee only increased by ninety cents.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if this was what should be anticipated annually going forward; a 3% operating cost plus increases for water charges.

Finance Director Miller opined that it was a great question.  Mr. Miller noted that staff performed rate analyses annually, and while not a perfect science, the base rate had been phased over two years, but intentionally did not include an inflation factor.  Mr. Miller noted that the long-term CIP was a fluid situation; and the methodology used and the policy or philosophy for infrastructure replacement may change, those big increases were most likely behind the City; and he expected only inflationary costs moving forward unless that philosophy was replaced moving forward.  However, based on those inflationary costs and variables, Mr. Miller anticipated similar annual increases.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller addressed the most significant increase that of the water base fee.  Mr. Miller advised that this came to approximately $5 increase per quarter or 10%.  Mr. Miller noted that there were two things driving that: the lack of including inflation for the years 2012 and 2013, and the City Council's choice to freeze the 2013 rate at the 2012 rate, resulting in approximately 6% of the total 10% increase.  Mr. Miller advised that the remaining 4% of the increase was due changes in the 20-year CIP schedule, with more assets for replacement at the end of their life cycle, new technologies, and analysis of the water tower rehabilitation indicating a higher cost than estimated several years ago.  Mr. Miller noted that, as assets came closer to replacement, more refined costs were available; but could also serve to increase the base fee as indicated, as well as some going down, or staying the same.  As an example, Mr. Miller noted that the sanitary sewer base fee remained unchanged for 2014; and expressed hope that this served to offset some of the other increases.  Mr. Miller reiterated the fact that this is not a perfect science from one year to the next; and recognized that there had been some large increase recently as the sustainability of the City's infrastructure was addressed.  Mr. Miller stated that he was aware that the City Council, nor staff, took that lightly; however, he encouraged them to stay on track.

Councilmember McGehee, while having no argument with staff's proposal, reiterated her rationale in a larger policy discussion to address this issue; and see if there was a better way to even things out.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was disappointing when the City already had the highest base fee, and now has to probably continue increasing rates 3% annually.

Councilmember Etten reiterated that a large chunk of the increase was due to the final kick-in of CIP dollars; and going forward, he anticipated that it would be more stable.  Councilmember Etten also noted that, the addition of the Environmental Engineer position as also another one-time bump in the rate structure.

Mr. Miller concurred with the personnel costs stated by Councilmember Etten and impacts to the rates.

Mayor Roe noted that the whole objective of the utility fee structure was to even it out as the adjustments were made and changes in the replacement schedule.  Mayor Roe noted that it was intentional of the CIP Task Force to not recommend automatic inflationary increases but to allow an annual review of its 20-year CIP, and not simply put it on automatic pilot; but to consider how costs fluctuated and allow for less-drastic spikes.

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe; however, opined that she also saw nothing wrong with having additional information to look at; and further opined that policy and review of policies was a large part of what the City Council was tasked to do.

Mayor Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that a review of the policy was not  a good idea.

Councilmember Laliberte noted that the two-tiered water conservation rates didn't produce the desired effect in providing a penalty for someone using a large volume of water versus a smaller family; and opined that the City should not continue applying it if the desired effect could not be proven.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in keeping an open mind on that aspect as things moved forward; opining that the biggest punishment should be a larger bill if you use a lot of water.

Mayor Roe concurred, and indicated that was the rationale in delaying that discussion; suggesting that it was a good topic for discussion in 2014; combined with Councilmember McGehee's request for a policy discussion.  However, Mayor Roe noted that it was also separate topic deserving information on its own.

Councilmember Willmus expressed support for staff's recommendation; and a suggested a future discussion through 2014 on policy and the conservation rate structure.  Councilmember Willmus suggested taking action on the proposed resolution tonight to get it off the table before further budget considerations at upcoming meetings.

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she could not, at this time, support staff's recommendations; opining that utility rates came into play with the upcoming budget and levy discussions.  Councilmember Laliberte note that the City Council had communicated to the public as a body that big utility rate increases in the past were well thought out; and now the residents were continuing to see increases.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that this issue had not been discussed sufficiently to move forward tonight.

Councilmember McGehee opined that it would have minimal impact on the 2014 levy.

Mayor Roe stated that he would not support action tonight, without the benefit of receiving public comment on December 2, or December 9, 2013; opining that it was not respectful to the public to adopt rates before they were able to speak to the budget.

No action was taken.

b.            Council Budget Questions/Suggestions

Councilmembers were given the opportunity to seek additional information from staff or other Councilmembers before the upcoming 2014 budget and levy meeting.

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Miller for providing the additional information she requested in tonight's packet materials.  While the budget is set at the beginning of the year, Councilmember Laliberte noted that in working with available staff and resources to the best of everyone's ability, she was attempting to get a feel for how much if any carryover may be going into reserve funds.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned Mr. Miller if he was aware of any other discretionary expenses in addition to those listed.

Mr. Miller clarified the question as: "How are we doing and how will we finish the end of 2013'"  Mr. Miller advised that, without discussing it further with Department Heads, he was reluctant to respond, as he didn't know what additional purchases or outstanding bills they may have for December of 2013 or January of 2014.  While he could provide a ballpark for next week's meeting based on trends, Mr. Miller advised that to-date through October, things looked encouraging.  However, he expressed his preference to touch base with Department Heads; opining that he didn't see anything coming in much under budget.

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in and appreciation for that information being provided by Department Heads for the December 2, 2013 budget hearing; with Mr. Miller duly noting that request.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:27 p.m.

13. Business Items (Action Items)

a.            Total Wine Liquor License Transfer

Mayor Roe announced that this was a continued Council discussion for consideration of the transfer of an Off-Sale Liquor License from Network Liquors at 2727 Lexington Avenue N to Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, operating under the name of Total Wine & More and relocating the operation to 2401 Fairview Avenue N, Suite 105, with an anticipated opening in the spring of 2014, pending local and state approvals.  Background information was provided in the RCA dated November 25, 2013; as well as additional materials from several sources provided at last week's meeting; and subsequent tabling of the item for consideration of those additional materials before taking action.  Mayor Roe noted additional materials provided over the last week to the City Council as well.

Mayor Roe noted that the duly-noticed Public Hearing had been held at the November 18, 2013, regular business meeting at which time the Public Hearing had been opened, public comment heard, and subsequently closed.  Therefore, Mayor Roe advised that no additional public comment would be taken at tonight's meeting for this particular action item; but would be focused on City Council discussion and consideration.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in hearing from members of the audience who came prepared to speak tonight; opining that public comment should be acceptable at any time.

McGehee moved to accept additional public comment at this meeting as it related to this issue.

Mayor Roe declared them motion failed for lack of a second.

Councilmember McGehee opined that she found it interesting that the City Council wouldn't allow a change in another item tonight related to utility rate changes without public comment, but was willing to do so for this item.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had questions on some of the materials presented in supplemental materials.

Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee's request for additional information.

Councilmember McGehee advised that she wanted to direct her questions for the purpose of clarification to the person presenting materials, the Larkin Hoffman Attorney representing the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association. 

For the express purpose of answering Councilmember McGehee's questions, Mayor Roe recognized the Larking Hoffman representative, Bill Griffith.

Councilmember McGehee referenced Item 7, Tab 3, containing a transcript from an administrative hearing included in bound materials presented, and providing detail about the litigation brought by Total Wine & More in Florida.

Prior to Mr. Griffith's response, Mayor Roe asked City Attorney Mark Gaughan if he would prefer to provide his feedback on any questions on material presented; or how best to do so, expressing concern that he saw this devolving into public testimony, which he had previously clarified was not going to take place.  Mayor Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan if he preferred a process to directly address information provided to the City Council.

City Attorney Gaughan responded that, from his review of materials, and his interpretation of Tab 3 as referenced, he was not clear if the Larkin Hoffman representative or his firm had represented a party at the event or, with all due respect professionally speaking, whether that made that representative legally competent to provide an interpretation of the event.  City Attorney Gaughan noted that, under those circumstances and limited exposure to the litigation, he would not find himself legally competent to address it either.

Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, representing the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association

Mr. Griffith stated that he could address those items of which he had direct knowledge, specifically the ongoing investigation in the City of Bloomington, MN; admitting that he had no direct knowledge of the Florida case.

City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the document could speak for itself; specifically an administrative action brought by Total Wine & More on its own against the State of Florida's licensing authorities, in which they sought clarification of state law; resulting from a final order from an administrative agency in Florida.  As there was no one in the room tonight who was versed in Florida law to his knowledge, City Attorney Gaughan opined that his personal conclusion of what the rules and different actions in out-of-state action played related to the requested action before the City Council would be difficult to address.  City Attorney Gaughan further opined that any conclusions on whether the existence of an administrative order or other order has any direct bearing on this item or the task before the City Council.

Mayor Roe concluded from City Attorney Gaughan his legal advice that the City Council had the information presented by Larkin Hoffman in their agenda packet; there was also a response in writing related to that information provided to the Council from the applicant; and the City Attorney's legal advice and opinion was that those documents should stand for themselves.

City Attorney Gaughan concurred, based on his legal perspective.

Mayor Roe advised that his intent was to avoid any issues in accepting public comment when the Public Hearing had been closed, creating some legal and process concerns for the City Council; and sought guidance from City Attorney Gaughan on how best to proceed at this time.

City Attorney Gaughan noted that the Public Hearing held on November 18, 2013, regarding the license transfer had been opened and closed; advising that it was now decision-making time for this body.  Mr. Gaughan advised that he could provide the City Council with no in-depth analysis on those out-of-state matters; however, he opined that his conclusion was that they did not lead him to any particular conclusion on the moral character component of the applicant.  City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that, based on the normal process, it was now time for the City Council to make a decision on the liquor license transfer.

City Attorney Gaughan noted that the next step, immediately following this item, was the City Council's consideration of a renewal of the liquor license; and advised that he was unclear if the City Council had determined that it had held a Public Hearing on that issue  or not.  If the City Council chose to hold a Public Hearing tonight on that renewal, City Attorney Gaughan advised that they could do so, opining that the meeting and agenda item had been duly noticed based on last week's agenda and tabling of this renewal until tonight's meeting; thereby meeting all notice requirements from a legal perspective.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that he could not provide the City Council with any additional analysis on the importance or lack of importance of the litigation provided beyond acknowledging that they exist and stand for what they stand for.  City Attorney Gaughan opined that it would be up to this body on how the existence of this litigation did or did not affect the City of Roseville's licensing requirements.

Mayor Roe asked for a motion from the City Council related to approval or denial of this Off-Sale Liquor License transfer, allowing for additional discussion.

McGehee moved to TABLE any action on this license transfer pending a finding from the investigation of the City of Bloomington and any subsequent action brought by the Minnesota licensed Beverage Association.

Mayor Roe declared them motion failed for lack of a second.

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, APPROVAL of the transfer of the Off-Sale Liquor License from Network Liquors to Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC.

Mayor Roe called for discussion based on the motion to approve the liquor license transfer.

Councilmember Willmus recognized the substantial documentation received from both parties: the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association in opposition to the transfer, as well as from the applicant.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the City Attorney testified on several occasions that he had reviewed the information and was comfortable in the City Council proceeding forward.  Based on his review of materials and the guidance of that legal advice, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the transfer.

Councilmember Laliberte concurred that there had been a great deal of information provided by both sides on this issue; and concurred that she also looked to the City Attorney for guidance.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that the City Attorney had, following his review of those materials, on several occasions and consistently found no reason for the City Council to deny this transfer request.  Councilmember Laliberte recognized that there had been a great deal of community input, with the majority opposed to the requested transfer.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council was not in the position of picking small versus big or winners versus losers; but in a position to encourage small, independent businesses to provide personalized service to customers in the marketplace, that should allow them to maintain their loyal customer base.  Based on the City Attorney's review of information and his guidance, and within the purview of what the City Council was being asked to do, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the liquor license transfer.

Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to this liquor license transfer based on her opinion that the City Council had not done its due diligence in allowing facts to go forward, completion of the investigation by the City of Bloomington, MN, or the investigation by the State of MN Attorney General, or final review of public information requests of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City of Bloomington was surely far more experienced with liquor licensing; and she saw no benefit in moving forward so quickly.  Councilmember McGehee opined that from her perception, this was an unsuitable applicant and project for the City of Roseville to undertake due to the nature of the allegations and actual activities documented in various ways, including the applicant's own materials as well as their failure to include some of these cased in their application, making their application false and therefore in violation of State law and City Code.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment at the outset of tonight's meeting, based on and referencing City Code, Section 302.07, Section 302.03, and the League of Minnesota Cities handbook's relevant information specific to liquor licenses.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that the City Council was not required to issue its full contingent of off-sale liquor licenses, or transfer any of those licenses if not in the best interests of the public.  Councilmember McGehee questioned whether any due diligence had been done locally on the impact this license could have on the community, given the documentation of liquor law violations in other states and problems in other locations by this firm.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that denial should also be considered based on the specific objections of residents in this community whose lives may be negatively impacted; noting that a liquor license was a right, not a privilege, and that it was the City Council's duty to look at all aspects of this requested transfer.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had deliberately overlooked those residents coming to this meeting to speak, even though they were part of the local community and had been for a long time.  In her personal review of the League of Minnesota Cities model liquor ordinance, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was by far better than the current City of Roseville ordinance; and referenced several of its provisions.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had not served the Roseville community well; and she was personally embarrassed if the City Council majority proceeded with this motion.

Councilmember Etten recognized and expressed his understanding of the current and local business owners in the community with the potential of a new store in Roseville, opining that any new store meant more competition.  With the former Network Liquors already out of business, Councilmember Etten noted that those customers were going to other stores or other communities, already; and further noted that the former off-sale liquor license holder, World Market Cost Plus, had already been located in that same strip mall being proposed for this new venue.  Given the current cost of fuel, Councilmember Etten opined that he didn't think people would deliberately drive across town to get their liquor, but would continue to shop closer to home.  Councilmember Etten stated that he would follow the guidance of the City Attorney, as well as the City Attorney in Bloomington, MN in their legal opinion that there were no legal concerns with the applicant; with responses provided for some of those past legal issues and concerns, many of which were the applicant itself filing legal action in other states, and not litigation brought against the applicant.  Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for tabling action on this at last week's meeting to allow additional review and information to be addressed by City Attorney Gaughan; and offered his support for the motion to transfer this off-sale liquor license.

Mayor Roe expressed his sincere interest in being respectful of everyone in this process, opining that everyone was deserving of that: existing Roseville businesses who have earned their respect, which was well-deserved, well-earned, and well-regarded in the community; the applicant's reputation as well and their entitlement to that same respect throughout this process.

Mayor Roe further opined that regarding allegations made of practices or legal or business issues in other states, this was not necessarily, from his point of view, part of his consideration when the litigation often was brought by the applicant or a settlement was forthcoming with no finding of wrongdoing necessarily; expressing his concern in the difficulty in holding that against the applicant.  Mayor Roe opined that the applicant was deserving of the privilege to do business and do so successfully in the community until proven otherwise.  Mayor Roe referenced compliance violations against existing off-sale license holders in Roseville, with those violations disclosed and addressed accordingly, but not held against those local businesses.  Mayor Roe noted that a similar situation could be found with this applicant and their violations, which had also been disclosed; however, he noted that the efforts of the City Council are not defined to allow it to use moral turpitude, or for the purpose of interfering in their business model or protect other businesses.  Mayor Roe opined that everyone had the ability to succeed or fail on their own merits; unless it was found that the applicant subsequently undertook inappropriate or illegal activities in Roseville, until such time it was proven, it was irrelevant.  Mayor Roe noted that the information provided by the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and the applicant had been voluminous; however, he had not found it persuasive enough to not grant the applicant a license in Roseville.  Mayor Roe, therefore, spoke in support of the motion to transfer this off-sale liquor license.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee.

                   Motion carried.

b.            Total Wine Liquor License Renewal

Mayor Roe advised that, at the November 18, 2013 City Council meeting, consideration of the renewal of this license had not been under the consideration of the Public Hearing.  Therefore, at approximately 8:55 p.m., Mayor Roe ruled that the Public Hearing specific to renewal of this Off-Sale Liquor license for Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, d/b/a Total Wine & More, would now be opened to specific to that 2014 renewal.

Public Comment

Bill Griffith, Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association

In the interest of fair play and application of rules for all applicants; Mr. Griffith expressed the Association's great concern with information provided to the City by the applicant; opining that there should be a full investigation.  Mr. Griffith advised that the most recent relevant information was from the New Jersey Attorney General, where a total of $1 million in fines, from four (4) separate violations by this applicant had been found in the Association's public information request.  Mr. Griffith alleged that this information had not been previously disclosed to the City of Roseville; and noted that the City of Bloomington, MN had delayed their approval to fully investigate that history of violations, considered by the State of New Jersey to be open record reporting violations.  If this is found to be legitimate, Mr. Griffith opined that this should be treated as false information provided in the Roseville liquor license application; and if the information had not been  fully disclosed in the application, should be treated as such and the application denied.  Mr. Griffith advised that the Association still had a number of open public information requests; and disputed the comment made by the applicant, Mr. Robert Lee Trone, at the November 18, 2013 meeting that his firm had never been denied a license.  Based on his review of newspaper accounts, which he was seeking to more formally document, Mr. Griffith opined that they had actually been denied licensure.  Mr. Griffith stated that the members in the Association were held to high standards in a heavily-regulated industry at the state and local levels.  Mr. Griffith stated that the Association felt it was incumbent upon the City Council to consent to a degree similar to that of the City of Bloomington, MN and treat this with similar seriousness.

Steve Burwell, 2482 Albert Street

Mr. Burwell stated that he was speaking tonight as a Roseville resident, not as a business person.  Mr. Burwell referenced and displayed the Imagine Roseville 2025 Final Report.  Mr. Burwell noted his participation, that of the majority of current Councilmembers, as well as staff, and reviewed what had been discussed and included as community goals.  Mr. Burwell noted that that included encouraging small businesses to come to Roseville and the negative manner of big businesses coming to Roseville that would wipe out small independents.  Mr. Burwell noted that since that report, a big box retailer had located on County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, which was not in the spirit of those goals.  Mr. Burwell opined that this big box liquor business was also not in the spirit of those goals and community aspirations, or what the community wanted.  Mr. Burwell further opined that the City of Roseville was going to become known as the "big box city of MN;" and see more traffic and congestion in the community.  If the City Council votes in favor of this, Mr. Burwell opined that they should be ashamed; and opined that they did not have their finger on the pulse of the community.  Mr. Burwell questioned how many residents and businesses in the community had actually been spoken to by the City Council; and suggested they set up a chair in the lobby of his liquor store to gauge that community pulse, especially on a Saturday or during the holidays.  With all the information brought before the City Council, Mr. Burwell expressed his lack of understanding in the motivation; and expressed his disappointment in past and current performance of the City Attorney.  Mr. Burwell referenced a statement by Interim City Manager Trudgeon earlier in tonight's meeting, with concurrence by Councilmember Etten, that the best form of economic development was to grow existing businesses, and questioned how that compared with consideration of this action.

Stacy Bordner, 1989 N Lexington Avenue

Ms. Bordner thanked Councilmember McGehee for looking into this and representing residents of Roseville, opining that she didn't feel the voices of the community had been listened to otherwise.  Ms. Bordner opined that it was the City Council's job to listen to its residents and taxpayers and hear the kind of businesses they wanted in Roseville.  Ms. Bordner noted the number of existing liquor stores in MN who typically competed against each other but were now working together and united against this applicant.  Ms. Bordner opined that this applicant was like the "Wal Mart of liquor stores;" and nobody wants them in Roseville, given their business practices that eliminate competition of smaller businesses that did not have their owner wineries.  Ms. Bordner further opined that the business practices of this applicant are not acceptable, and that the City Council had not looked into this issue well enough.  In not allowing additional public comment prior to this from the fair number of people who showed up to do so, Ms. Bordner opined that this was not acceptable either, and expressed her wish that the City Council did a better job of listening to business owners who have something to say about this.

Frank Ball, Woodbury, MN, Past Director of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association; Past Director of Public Safety and retired Chief of Police from Brainer, MN; now representing small liquor licenses in the State of MN

Mr. Ball advised that he was speaking on behalf of those not wanting to come forward to speak, locally-owned business owners.  Mr. Ball noted that this discussion centered on a controlled substance; and business practices in MN were very precise, with the City Council given authority to grant liquor licenses in their local community.  Of the City's 10 off-sale liquor licenses, Mr. Ball noted that 8 of those were family owned businesses, who will not be able to remain in business if this entity opens in Roseville.  Mr. Ball noted his comment was based on the realities of his research of sixteen other states and small stores that no longer exist in that environment.  Mr. Ball reviewed the business model of the applicant, manufacturing product (private label) which other liquor stores could not do, creating a very unfair playing field for those small, "mom and pop" retailers, currently local citizens and taxpayers, who will simply cease to exist.  Mr. Ball noted the need to weigh in what this applicant had done in other jurisdictions; and on behalf of those existing 8 family owned stores in Roseville, asked that the City Council reconsider.  Mr. Ball opined that there was no rush to approve this renewal; and further opined that he found it presumptuous of the applicant to build out the store before the license is issued.  Mr. Ball further questioned the location of the alcohol previously held by Network Liquors, which was being investigated by the Association at this time.

With no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing on this liquor license renewal at approximately 9:10 p.m.

Councilmember Willmus spoke to the comments of Mr. Ball, since part of his testimony related to the nature of competition against smaller stores. Mr. Willmus advised that he had researched operations of other liquor stores and their proximity to other nation-wide Total Wines & More locations, based on a zip code search, with his resulting observations that it was not the same scenario with all independents being out-of-business, with those smaller liquor establishments located next to Total Wines & more operations.  Councilmember Willmus noted that admittedly this will be a larger store, and it may bring traffic in from outside Roseville; however, he questioned the validity of any statements asserting that the new store will prevent any well-respected and established off-sale liquor store operation from maintaining their long-established client base, as previously referred to by Councilmember Etten.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it became very difficult for a body such as the City Council to be put in a position of deciding it was only going to license Roseville residents and not license those from outside Roseville; opining that this would be a slippery slope to start down, which he interpreted Mr. Burwell's comments to suggest; and stated that he personally found that troubling.

At the prompting of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus directed a question to Mr. Ball on what he based his information that this entity will drive all other establishments from Roseville.

Mr. Ball responded that his background was liquor, and in the 99 stores operated by this applicant in 16 other states, he made contact with small retail stores or their state associations, and questioned why or how they were forced out of operation.  While some of this information may be based on hearsay, Mr. Ball advised that the typical "bait and switch" method was used, with the applicant initially selling below their cost, using predatory pricing to lure people in, then showing their private label brands, which could not be sold in other retail locations as it was private label.  Mr. Ball noted that small mom and pop retailers typically live on small profit margins.  Once the applicant was licensed in a state, Mr. Ball alleged that they then brought their plight to the state legislature to lobby for Sunday liquor sales which most small retailers opposed, and if the regulator, 3-tier system for separation of manufacture, distribution and retail sale of alcohol was also eroded, the result was over-consumption of alcohol when a more youthful and inexperienced legislature without the history of this regulatory system responded.  Mr. Ball questioned why this behemoth entity would otherwise come to MN, if not to pursue elimination of that 3-tiered regulatory system in yet another state.  Mr. Ball opined that Minnesota was proud of its rigid, 3-tiered regulator system; and questioned how much more information could possibly be brought to the City Council's attention other than the actual people who will not be in business next year if this license renewal is approved. 

Councilmember McGehee requested the date of the violations referenced by Mr. Griffith.

Mr. Griffith responded that the violations were all in 2002, and after many years, settled as part of a consent decree in 2009; reiterating the main point of his testimony that the State of New Jersey considered those violations with a penalty imposed.

Mayor Roe recognized the applicant in the audience and apologized for not allowing them time to speak previously; and asked them to come forward to respond to several questions he had.

Applicant Robert Lee Trone, co-owner of Total Wine & More; and Mark Jacobson, Attorney for Total Wine & More

Mayor Roe asked the applicant to speak to the question of the location and disposition of the liquor inventory of the former Network Liquors.

Mr. Trone responded that the inventory had been sent back to liquor wholesalers, and credit had been given toward future purchases; however, he could not clearly respond at this time without further research as to which entity had received that credit as part of the sale of the business from Network Liquors to Total Wine & More.  Since it occurred right at the end of negotiations, Mr. Trone advised that he was not sure who would be considered the controlling party; but reiterated that liquor wholesalers had picked up the product and taken it back to their warehouse.

Mr. Jacobson further clarified that, since the Network Liquors lease was up with its landlord, the property could not be turned over with any liquor inventory still on the premises.

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the applicant had received written permission from the Commissioner to transport that liquor.

Mr. Trone advised that a response was beyond his legal knowledge of the process.

In conclusion, Mr. Trone noted that theirs was also a family-owned business, started with one small store over thirty years ago; and had been fortunate with its successful growth to-date.

Mr. Burwell sought to make additional comment; however, Mayor Roe, in fairness to the process and respectful of all involved in the process, declined to re-open the Public Hearing.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:22 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:24 p.m.

Councilmember McGehee moved to DENY approval of the 2014 Off-Sale liquor license renewal for Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC.

Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second.

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, APPROVAL of the renewal of the 2014 Off-Sale Liquor License for Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC.

Councilmember McGehee questioned how the City could renew a license since it hadn't been given to them previously; and questioned how any retailer could transfer or liquidate liquor inventory without following regulations that written notice to the Commissioner was needed, under Minnesota State Administrative Rules, which she read from; reiterating her previous concerns.

Councilmember Laliberte spoke to the inference expressed during public comment that the City Council did not listen to its residents. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she personally took residential input seriously; including previous discussions when a great deal of interest was given to possibly expanding beyond the current ten off-sale liquor licenses; with a similar result in protecting the current license holders by not expanding that number.  Councilmember Laliberte assured the public that she listened to all side and made her decisions accordingly.

                                    Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee.

                   Motion carried.

c.            Met Council Grant Program Private Sewer Utilities

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided background information and an overview of this grant program as detailed in the RCA dated November 25, 2013.  Mr. Schwartz noted that a response to the Met Council was needed by December 3, 2013 if the City Council chose to approve this participation request; with staff having already fielded a number of citizen inquiries about this program, based on recent newspaper articles.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the program could be pro-rated back to July of 2013 for private sewer lateral replacements to be eligible.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that this program was very competitive, and would be based on a first come, first served process.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz recognized significant infiltration issues throughout the community; however, he was unable to provide an actual number although approximately 10% were identified when sewers were televised, but during wet periods that number could be significantly higher.  Mr. Schwartz noted that a number of homes in Roseville also faced root intrusion issues in their lines.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz estimated the cost of rehabilitation to be between $3,000 to $5,000 for lining; or as high as $7,000; with the City able to assemble projects into larger contracts to achieve economies of scale.

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11110 entitled, "Resolution Supporting Application for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 2013 Clean Water Fund Inflow & Infiltration (I & I) Grant Program."

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff wanted to get this information on this program out as quickly as possible to Roseville residents to make sure they were in line to receive dollars when they became available.  Given that interest, Mr. Schwartz asked if the City Council was interested in any additional financial contribution to residents beyond the current $500 allowed for replacement of the wye connection between the private lateral and the main.

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was content with that current allotment.

There was apparent consensus of other Councilmembers on no additional financial contribution at this time.

d.            Perform Abatement of Unresolved Violation, 1841 Draper

As previously noted, this item was resolved.

e.            Request to Issue Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violation, 175 McCarrons

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this duplex rental property, with current owner Mr. Luke Lam, residing in North Oaks, MN.  Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of current violations, including a storage container located in the front driveway for over 30 days (since June of 2013) outside storage of household items, debris and brush (violation of City Code, Section 1011.12.G.2.C).

Mr. Munson provided updated pictures; and advised that a notice had been sent to the property owner eleven (11) weeks ago to have the container removed by October; at which time the property owner claimed the tenant was responsible for removal; with the tenant subsequently claiming that there was no money to remove it.  At that point, Mr. Munson advised that the property owner was again notified that he would be responsible for its removal, and if not done so by December 3, 2013, the City would issue a Ramsey County Court Citation.

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation to Mr. Luke Lam for violation of Roseville's Zoning Ordinance at 175-177 McCarrons Street; if the storage container is not removed by December 3, 2013.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

f.             Review Park Building Systems and Update on Building Design

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson, Lead Designer Michael Schroeder, and Architect Tim McIlwain of Hagen, Christiensen & McIlwain were present for review.

Mr. Brokke briefly summarized the evolution of this project from concept final design; with plans currently at 50% or more, and after tonight, anticipated moving to 100% final design and move toward seeking proposals.

For the benefit of the public, Mr. Schroeder reviewed the building specific designs for buildings and amenities at the following parks, with discussion noted as applicable.

Autumn Grove Park Building and Site Plans

Discussion included the proposed board and batten finish appearance of the proposed cement siding, with multiple types of materials proposed for each building to add visual interest; McGehee - Board and batten finish; maintenance longevity of that material; and consistency of the materials with discussions of the Master Plan and Implementation groups.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment in the proposed final designs not incorporating those items clearly defined by the City Council in previous meetings with the design team; and now listed as too expensive.

Lexington Park Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Oasis Park Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Sandcastle Park Building and Site Plans

Discussion included lack of initial funding for moving the parking lot at this park, and current plans to construct it to immediately serve the proposed building during the initial phase.

At 9:59 p.m., Etten moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting to 10:15 p.m.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Villa Park Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Central Park Victoria West Shelter Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Central Park Victoria East Shelter Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Central Park Dale West Shelter Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

Central Park Lexington Restroom Building and Site Plans

No discussion.

                   General Discussion

Mr. Schroeder reviewed the organization of the request for proposals (RFP's) into and series of bid packages, depending on types of construction, similar trade groups, magnitude of construction, and the overall allotment of $6 million for buildings, as well as site improvements, and requesting a sequence of years for build-out to avoid curtailing existing activities in those parks. 

Mr. Schroeder further addressed previous responses to City Council comments and questions from those discussions, addressing many of the features and applications as alternates to the main bid.

Councilmember McGehee reiterated her disappointment for residents in not being able to provide more quality versus quantity; further noting that the priorities given by the community in various surveys was the need for pathways and natural spaces.  Councilmember McGehee opined that in each park, they seemed to be taken over by impervious versus permeable surfaces, with more plantings that would require more maintenance, with no maintenance figure provided yet.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it made more sense to do several projects early on and do them well to determine if they were going to be used.  Councilmember McGehee further noted that those things she considered reasonable requests, like wi-fi, heating, easier to maintain exterior materials, and other options were not given serious consideration to those residents completing community surveys, who instead were faced with a giant expansion of buildings that would prove difficult to maintain.

Councilmember Willmus opined that Councilmember McGehee was correct with reference to pathways; and clarified that when reviewing the revitalization plan for parks, that was a top response for pathways within parks; which would be part of this renewal effort along with the buildings.

Councilmember Etten clarified some issues related to the buildings themselves.  Councilmember Etten noted that one goal was to have the buildings more open, and therefore he felt that the locking components were critical to make that happen and to provide buildings where people were interested in accessing.  While expressing his appreciation of the general direction, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of an entry system through remote or timer for bathroom access at a minimum, with others optional for being prepped for a future control method; to allow a starting point to allow maximum control of the buildings with minimal staff time.  If that was a given, Councilmember Etten opined that more groups would be interested in using the buildings versus the existing bunkers; and they would provide a more welcoming community space that could be open to the public.

Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was money to be found for other things by not installing exotic heating systems, since she was not sure residents were expecting that level of comfort; and suggested that it could be a trade-off.  With technology at its current level and only increasing in the future, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City needed to be prepared now to provide those amenities for community groups, rather than in the future; and expressed her strong support for immediately installation of those technologies (e.g. wi-fi).  Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with the height of the proposed buildings, opining that they were quite dominant in the park versus emphasizing green space; in addition to the additional costs in heating and/or cooling that additional height, even while recognizing the desire for natural lighting.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this was the fun part of the project; but also noted the need to consider the realities of maintaining, cleaning and accessing the buildings; and suggested more time be spent on that reality.

At 10:16 p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded, extending the meeting to complete Items 13.f and 13.g as previously noted.

Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in completing tonight's agenda rather than deferring items to the next meeting.

Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in extending the meeting to a time certain: 10:30 p.m.

The makers of the motion agreed to an extension of 10:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Mayor Roe stated that he was comfortable with the proposed exterior materials; however, he noted that he was interested in more detail about their life-cycle costs.  Mayor Roe noted that the proposed materials were not out of character with residential homes in Roseville.  Mayor Roe advised that he would like to initially get wi-fi in the larger shelters at a minimum; but was amenable to the doors being prepped for future remote or control potential, opining that the City could grow into that in the future, since the program had yet to be developed.  Mayor Roe opined that the height of the buildings enhanced their character and signified them as community gathering points.  Mayor Roe advised that he would leave the HVAC system to the experts in that field.

In response to Councilmember McGehee's concerns related to pathways, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council would need to make those calls for individual parks related to the amount of impervious surfaces; also noting the need to deal with stormwater management and mitigation issues as well.

Mayor Roe clarified that there was a subcommittee already working on those issues (Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee).

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing staff to seek proposals for the Parks & Recreation Renewal Program as presented and as detailed in the RCA dated November 25, 2013.

Councilmember McGehee stated that the immediate door access was essential to her; especially when asking residents to pay for a building that they couldn't access.

Councilmember Willmus concurred with that statement; opining that the ability for residents to access those buildings had been heard over and over again.

Councilmember Laliberte spoke in opposition to the motion at tonight's meeting; opining that there were things asked of the design team by the City Council before, which had come back with a negative response or not recommended as the final direction.  For example, Councilmember Laliberte noted that immediate access to the doors was important, but she was not guaranteed that the design team would consider that or provide a different response.

Mayor Roe clarified that this would be part of the final design process and determining what could be achieved for the available dollar allotment.

Mr. Brokke concurred with Mayor Roe, advising that many of those requests would be incorporated into the RFP, then based on available dollars, those discussions and refinements could be held with the City Council upon receipt of the RFPs.  Mr. Brokke noted that, without the benefit of how those costs or proposals will come in, there was a need to remain flexible.  Given the trial run with the Lexington building RFP, Mr. Brokke noted that initial indications were that now that contractors were busier, prices were escalating and numerous adjustments may be needed.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Laliberte that a number of things directly requested by the City Council had not been included.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't see how it was going to work, with a lot of money being spent on a city-wide project; further opining that the City Council shouldn't be pushed, and decision-making should be broken down more.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it may take all the resources allotted for one park for distribution into multiple other buildings; however, at this point she was unable to evaluate it and questioned at what point it would return to the City Council and incorporate their preferences.

Councilmember Willmus opined that staff could continue to estimate costs for months; however, no definitive action could be found until the RFPs were solicited to provide tangible information for everyone, including the City Council.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that this was the point at which the City was now at; and spoke in support of the motion.

Councilmember McGehee questioned what aspects would be included in the bids to determine alternatives or options; and questioned whether the City Council would find themselves back in this same spot again.

Mr. Schroeder responded that each bid package would have several alternates, including those things requested by the City Council; as add-ons to a basic park building.  As suggested by Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schroeder noted that staff could continue to make guesses, but they were only guesses; and the need remained to get the buildings built for the public benefit, and as dollars become available, additional features could be incorporated; and if dollars are not available, they may be available through future capital improvement programs.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her lack of interest in another big capital bond, especially if there is the potential for taking the cost of one building and spreading it around.

Mayor Roe noted that the answer was that, once pricing was received through the RFP, everyone would be part of that process.

Etten moved, Willmus seconded a motion to call the question.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus and Etten. 

Nays: McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.

Motion failed.

Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concern with the building heights.

Councilmember Etten opined that the needed height was needed to create bulk; and provide a warm and welcoming impression for the public, all part of the philosophy and intention throughout the Master Plan process, rather than some of the single level, flat roofed existing buildings.

Roll Call (Original Motion)

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

                   Abstentions: McGehee.

                   Motion carried.

At 10:29 p.m., Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting an additional five minutes to consider the 2014 Street & Utility Preliminary Work Plan.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

13.          Business Items (Action Items)

 f.        Approve 2014 Street & Utility Preliminary Work Plan

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz noted that staff was already working preliminarily on some 2014 projects; and briefly highlighted several, including some city-wide ongoing drainage issues repeatedly observed during extreme rain events.  Mr. Schwartz advised that a 2014 Drainage Project was proposed to address those various areas, as displayed on the map to attempt resolution while continuing to developer other underground infrastructure.

Mr. Schwartz clarified that staff would return to the City Council for approval of any final projects, with bids anticipated later in March of 2014.

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the 2014 Preliminary Work Plan for street and utility improvements, as presented and detailed in the RCA dated November 25, 2013.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

16.         Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings

17.         Adjourn

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:33 p.m.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.