City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

December 9, 2013

Roll Call

Mayor Roe convened and called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:10 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Closed Executive Session

Mayor Roe introduced consideration of a Closed Executive Session of the Roseville City Council for the purpose of considering property acquisition at 2169 St. Stephens Street, and 2168 St. Croix Street, and 2650 Fry Street.  Mayor Roe referenced State Statutes, Section 13d.05 permitting City Council meetings to be closed in order to discuss certain matters relating to prospective land purchases or sales; and advised that the City was considering potential acquisition of properties located at the above-referenced locations.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning to Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:06 p.m.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:10 p.m.  Also present were: Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, City Attorney Mark Gaughan, and City Attorney Charles Bartholdi.

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session to convene in Open Session at approximately 6:39 p.m.

                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

1.         Introductions

Mayor Roe reconvened and called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:44 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Etten requested moving item 14a (Consideration of Merit Pay Policy) to occur before item 12a (Consider Final 2014 Budget and Tax Levy).

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, "Contract with North Suburban Access Corporation for Video Services" from the Consent Agenda for a comment or question.

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Items 7.f and 7.h respectively entitled, "Preliminary Plat - Meritex Property on Walnut Street;" and "Ramsey County CAD Agreement" from the Consent Agenda for comments or questions.

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.i and 7.k respectively entitled, "Lease Agreement Cingular Wireless;" and "Joint Powers Agreement for IT Services - City of Blaine" from the Consent Agenda for comments or questions.  Councilmember Etten also requested removal of Consent Item 7.k.

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; 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

Councilmember Willmus corrected any misperception via an e-mail he'd received earlier today from a resident indicating that this meeting would be the last for Interim City Manager Trudgeon, with this being his last day.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that this information was incorrect and that Mr. Trudgeon continued to serve in the capacity of Interim City Manager.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

a.            Recognize Police Explorers

Chief Mathwig recognized the Roseville Law Enforcement Explorer Post, as part of the Boy Scouts of America, for their accomplishments on behalf of the community of Roseville; and introduced those present and their advisors. Those present were: Jake Uhl, Ann Dion, Al Baglio, Michael Chervenak, Denny Cook, Nedra Sarro, Dan Ehnstrom, Officer Erin Reski, Officer Kyle Eckert, and Officer Travis Steinberg. Not present were: Brandon Erickson and Officer Grant Dattilo.

b.            Public Works Director Duane Schwartz introduced the City of Roseville's new Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Mark Culver.  Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed Mr. Culver's previous employment over the last twelve years with the City of Maple Grove, MN, and prior to that with S.R.F. Consulting Engineers and at a private traffic signal company.  Mr. Schwartz opined that the City was fortunate to have Mr. Culver as a member of the Roseville team.

On behalf of the City Council and community, Mayor Roe and Councilmembers welcomed Mr. Culver.

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.  Mayor Roe noted that a copy of the November 25, 2013 meeting minutes had been provided by staff as a bench handout with the only change being insertion of resolution numbers since the copy provided in meeting packets.

a.            Approve Minutes of November 25, 2013 Meeting and December 2, 2013

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the November 25, 2013 Meeting Minutes as amended; and approval of the December 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes as presented.

Corrections (November 25):

·                     Page 26, Line 40 (McGehee)

Typographical correction from "was" to "saw"

·                     Page 34, Line 21 (Laliberte)

Typographical correction - remove "no"

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.            Approve Payments

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

Roll Call

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

               Nays: None.

b.                Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

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

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

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

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

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

d.                            Police 2014 - 2015 LELS Contract

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions for the 2014 - 2015 collective bargaining agreement with the LELS as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013; and directing staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

g.            Vacation of Terminal Road R-O-W

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11111___ (Attachment F) entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Terminal Road (PF11-024)."

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

j.             Delegate Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District as Local Government Unit administering Wetland Conservation Act in Roseville

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11112 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Regarding the Administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act;" delegating Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District as the Local Government Unit (LGU) to administer the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) within its legal boundaries in the City of Roseville, in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

e.            Contract with North Suburban Access Corporation for Video Services

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.  Mr. Trudgeon noted a bench handout consisting of a revised page to Exhibit A of Attachment A to the RCA (lines 357 - 368) further defining "Explanation of Services to be Provided," from NSAC to the City.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the annual cost for City staff and part-time video producers was currently estimated at $19,000; and the cost for NSAC was $17,028, with incremental 1% cost increases for year 2015 and 2016 of the three (3) year contract.

Councilmember Etten noted that Mr. Trudgeon had covered most of his questions regarding this item; and expressed appreciation for the revisions made over the weekend following his initial concerns to staff.

With this request, as well as similar requests in the future, Councilmember Etten asked that staff include budget and financial implications from current to projected cost savings or additional costs to allow Councilmembers to make better decisions.

Councilmember Willmus expressed one ongoing concern with the proposed agreement, the Termination Clause, and noted it appeared to be one-sided, and suggested that a provision also be added for the other party; and to consider a longer, 30-60 day termination period for the benefit of both parties.

In response to Mayor Roe's request, City Attorney Gaughan, while comfortable with the current language in the agreement, with impacts for two corporate entities, offered to seek such revised language when an agreement is with an individual versus a corporate entity.

Mayor Roe expressed his concern in moving beyond a 30-day termination clause; and noted that he would not be supportive of a 60-day termination clause.

Councilmember Laliberte questioned the other services provided by NCAS (e.g. changing messaging for City services) and who would be crafting those notices in the future.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that the Communications Manager would oversee those notices, but that they would be physically accomplished at the NSAC studio, allowing the City to control the messages and their rotation.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon advised that any typographical errors of those messages or other areas of interest or concern should be addressed directly to the Communications Manager to handle.

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing the City Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement (Attachment A dated 12/04/13)) with the North Suburban Access Corporation (NSAC) for video production services and broadcasting of City meetings; amended as revised on the bench handout for lines 357 - 370, with the Termination Clause left as is in accordance with the legal opinion provided by the City Attorney.

Mayor Roe and Councilmembers thanked current part-time staff for their services to the City of Roseville in having provided video services to-date.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

f.             Preliminary Plat - Meritex Property on Walnut Street

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.

Councilmember McGehee referenced page 1, line 25 of Attachment D to the RCA, meeting minutes of the Planning Commission dated November 6, 2013; and the language regarding "finessing" the holding pond size and location.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon noted that there could have been a better choice of words, but that this was process was typical for a Preliminary plat and subsequent refining of a site plan.

Councilmember Etten sought clarification from staff regarding Planning Commission discussions about reconfiguring the land to hide the truck end of the building on the main street; however he noted that it appeared that the discussion could not be confirmed at this time until the proposal became more refined.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that there may be a variance request in the future, as current code did not allow garages facing Main Street; however, he noted that this involved a corner lot.

City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that, since November's Planning Commission meeting, Meritex had received a Variance allowing dock doors to face Walnut Street.  Mr. Paschke further noted that, as the project proceeded through the permitting process and working with staff, this preliminary grading plan and drainage issues would be solidified as elevations are determined.

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke confirmed that it was the intent that the final elevations which serve the goal to screen views, while allowing the applicant the best use of the property to bring a rail line to the building and allow for their efficient use of the site.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding this warehouse use, Mr. Paschke clarified that the business would receive materials by train, with trucks also used to distribute those materials.  Mr. Paschke advised that he could not address Councilmember McGehee's concern with the amount of that truck traffic; however, he noted that this type of permitted use would allow for both truck and other vehicular traffic as its business model.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that he did not have an accurate employee count for the proposed business at this time.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Outlot A of the Highcrest Park Second Addition as recommended; based on the comments and findings of Section 3 - 5 and the recommendation of Section 6 of detailed in the RCA dated December 9, 2013.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

h.       Ramsey County CAD Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were any budgetary implications, or if they were already included as part of the $60,000 allotted for dispatch services with Ramsey County.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon clarified that this contract would not start until 2015; and sought further comment from Police Chief Mathwig.

Chief Mathwig advised that this agreement was only for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) services to assist with emergency communications services in the entire Ramsey County with the exception of the City of White Bear Lake; and was not a contract with the County for any financial piece, but only an agreement detailing how the system will operate with multiple users.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief Mathwig confirmed that there would be no additional software requirements on the part of the City of Roseville.

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the City of Roseville to enter into an agreement (Attachment A) with Ramsey County for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System and Mobile Data services by Ramsey County.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

i.                             Lease Agreement Cingular Wireless

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that a Variance was previously approved by the City's Variance Board for this equipment shelter.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller advised that the applicant proposed to equate the color and materials of the equipment shelter with that of the existing and adjacent Public Works wall to blend in as much as possible.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that the maps had been provided by the applicant, and while indicating the proximity to Howard Johnson Park, the tower was on the City Hall Campus and identified as the North Communication Tower.  Mr. Miller noted that the staff report clarified the actual location.

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the lease agreement (Attachment A) with New Cingular Wireless PSC LLC for leased space at the City Hall Campus North Communication Tower, subject to final approval by the City Attorney.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

K.           Joint Powers Agreement for IT Service - City of Blaine

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, as requested by the City Council, this agreement offered more flexibility than previous JPA's, with the possibility of using City of Blaine employees in the future; with any of those decisions coming back to the City Council for consideration if eventually negotiated.

In those past discussions, Councilmember Willmus noted his expressed preference that the City of Roseville begin being more proactive in approaching potential partners to contribute to the consortium; and while future consideration was addressed in this draft JPA, he questioned if the City of Blain would be willing to step in at the onset of this agreement.

Finance Director Miller advised that neither city was ready for that type of partnership arrangement; and while the City of Blaine recognized and was willing to consider those opportunities in the future, there was no interest in expanding that relationship at this time.

Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in moving forward with such an expansion in the future, and his preference for sooner rather than later, serving as a key way to improve the flexibility of JPA's around IT and make it more useful to the City of Roseville in the short- and long-term.  Specific to financial impacts, Councilmember Etten advised that he had previously contacted Finance Director Miller for details of the estimated monthly revenue, which had not been included in the RCA.  Councilmember Etten reiterated his request for staff to include that detail in future RCA's, and to clearly define if the revenue offsets expenses, and that such added detail be provided as part of staff's analysis of financial impacts.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her satisfaction with Mr. Miller's previous presentation regarding IT services and the benefit to the City of Roseville overall in representing other communities and their cooperation with each other.  As the operator of the consortium and staffing, Councilmember McGehee noted the reasonable benefits to the City of Roseville to have access to IT staff as needed.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her happiness with the JPA's and continuing with them in their current format.

Councilmember Etten clarified that he was not unhappy with the current business model; however, he was simply seeking more detail and enhanced JPA's with more shared workload in the future, identifying new ways to use the consortium to everyone's advantage.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approving an Information Technology Shared Service Agreement (Attachment A) between the Cities of Blaine and Roseville, for the purposes of sharing Roseville's internet connection.

Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.

14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

a.            Merit Pay Policy Discussion

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 9, 2013.  As noted in the RCA dated December 9, 2013, and specific to Item 12.a entitled, "Consider Adopting a Final 2014 Tax Levy and Budget," Mr. Trudgeon noted that the proposed funding including a temporary suspension of $30,000 for the current merit pay system, and proposed to be funded from General Fund contingency funds for 2014.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this is usually a one-time bonus, and determined by Department Heads on a case-by-case basis. 

While this award policy is part of the employee compensation mix, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it should be a standalone program and was more of an organizational issue for Department Heads to recognize continued excellence of its star employees.  While the overall amount of dollars is small, Mr. Trudgeon recommended continuation of the program for the health of the organization in recognizing those who go the extra mile and perform beyond their regular job duties, as well as those who make services better and find more efficient, less costly ways to provide services or programs.  Regardless of what the City Council decided for the rest of the 2014 employee wage/benefit package, Mr. Trudgeon respectfully requested that they continue to fund this award program in 2014.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that, as indicated in the RCA, he had sought input from Department Heads, with their cumulative suggestion to call this program a "Merit Award Program"versus a "Merit Pay Program," with those discussions indicating that they felt it was important to keep the program organizationally, but look at performance measures in granting those awards, as indicated in the RCA.  Mr. Trudgeon gave credit to Finance Director Miller and his staff team for putting together the majority of the proposed program, specifically the "Merit Award Plan Performance Standards," as outlined in lines 38-56 of the RCA (page 2).  Mr. Trudgeon specifically highlighted lines 55 - 56 of the caution for Departments in refraining from setting employee work goals for the sole purpose of establishing eligibility for Merit Pay.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the use of the Award Program should be used judiciously and to provide for and encourage such stellar performance for the benefit of the whole organization and taxpayers/citizens.

From the context of the budget, Mr. Trudgeon recommended continued funding of the merit pay award program as indicated at a cost of $35,000, as already identified as part of the 2014 budget.  If the City Council preferred further discussion for continuing the program or its make-up beyond 2014, Mr. Trudgeon asked that future meetings address those issues.  Mr. Trudgeon asked Department Heads to come forward and offer their input on this program.

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the program was a good tool to recognize and hopefully show appreciation for employees who continue to put out day after day with ongoing excellence.  While having used the tool sparingly to-date, Mr. Schwartz advised that there are generally a few people in the department who consistently go above and beyond year after year, whether specific to a special project or an unusual event or storm that indicates an employee stepping above their typical duties and showing extra initiative outside their normal job.  Mr. Schwartz spoke in support of the program and continuing to have that tool available to recognize those exceptional employees.

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill concurred completely with the comments of Public Works Director Schwartz, advising that the Fire Department used the tool similarly.  While not based on department goals, Chief O'Neill advised that it allowed the department to recognize those employees saving budget dollars within their 24/7 operation.  As an example, Chief O'Neill noted one salaried employee who often came in on holidays or weekends of their own free will to address plumbing issues at one of the stations versus the department having to call an outside plumber.  Chief O'Neill noted that such a merit award system allowed for an extra tool in the employee tool box to award such extra work and recognize an employee's efforts to save City budget dollars.

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that his department also used the program sparingly, but did so for individuals or teams having gone above and beyond their duties, or putting in extra hours to finish a project, or for documented exception customer service.  Mr. Brokke also spoke in support of continuing to have this valuable tool available.

Police Chief Mathwig advised that, over the last three (3) years serving as Police Chief, he had use the merit award program to its fullest extent, and concurred with previous comments.  In the Police Department, Chief Mathwig noted that they were built for emergencies; and he used the program to provide some additional value to hold up lead and management staff and show appreciation to them.  Chief Mathwig noted that this tool allows the department to capitalize on that intrinsic motivation that is desirable in all employees; and allows the department to show that appreciation.

Finance Director Miller referenced the previous comments of Interim City Manager Trudgeon, and spoke in support of the values from an organizational standpoint.  Mr. Miller noted that, the merit pay program, in concert with the City's compensation plan policy at 98% of peer city averages, is complemented that for employees, and was important to the overall organization.  While noting that every employee and position was important or they would not continue to be present, Mr. Miller noted that not every position is vital and not every person in those positions is a stellar employee.  Mr. Miller advised that he had used the merit award system four times over the last seven years; and had done so for employees consistently working during their vacations, holidays or weekends.  If unable to acknowledge that type of additional work ethic and commitment, Mr. Miller advised that it was difficult to attract or retain those exceptional, committed employees; and spoke in support of this program as a valuable tool for those difference-makers.

City Planner Thomas Paschke spoke in support of those comments expressed tonight, and the summary provided by Interim City Manager Trudgeon.  Form a Community Development Department perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that use of the program had been used sparingly to-date, but for projects championed by employees that took an exorbitant amount of time (e.g. zoning ordinance update and comprehensive plan update); and provided those employees showing hard determination and effort, an award for doing so.  Mr. Paschke opined that it was imperative to have some type of merit or award system in place for "A" players.

Council Discussion

Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal support of a merit pay system; and referenced her appreciation for a Public Works employee coming before the City Council in the recent past as a candidate to service on a citizen advisory commission.  Councilmember McGehee recognized such efforts as above and beyond, and used that as an example of excellent employees tapped for such a program as this.

Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation in looking at the merit award program separate from what was being done for employee wages or COLA.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that ultimately the $30,000 request came from the same place, and that was his perspective in making a decision.

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Department Heads for sharing how the program had been used in the past.  However, unless she misunderstood previous comments from Department Heads, Councilmember Laliberte recalled that she was led to believe that the past merit pay program was not being used, and people did not believe in it.  While appreciating the perspective of past use, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was only in favor of a merit award system if it was a one-time consideration for 2014, and not budgeted annually as an ongoing commitment, making that scenario more problematic for her to consider.

Councilmember Etten advised that he had personally spoken with several Department Heads last week, as he was on the fence at that time, having recalled similar comments as those mentioned by Councilmember Laliberte, including hearing a lot of confusion about the program, lack of use, and lack of understanding on how or when to use the program.  Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation to Finance Director Miller for providing clear guidelines in the RCA (lines 38 - 56) for future use of the program. 

Specific to the cost for the program, Councilmember Etten sought clarification from staff on how the program was proposed for future funding.  Specific to the proposed policy and "policy guidelines," under current (Attachment A) and proposed (Attachment B) policies, Councilmember Etten noted that the proposed guidelines  for the administrative process referred to only one type in the first of two categories, and excluded any salary adjustment.  While agreeing that both categories fell under that one category, Councilmember Etten opined that if two were initially referenced, they should also be referenced further in the document, with the range from $100 to $4,000.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that the intent was to include all three categories, and thanked Councilmember Etten for catching that error.

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for staff's clarification of their intent.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the Policy Guidelines in Attachment B as addressed by Councilmember Etten; supporting the language change from "Merit Pay" to "Merit Award;" and questioned the rationale in lowest and highest award amounts, questioning if that impacted the value of the actual award, or if it was simply intended as an acknowledgment versus financial benefit.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that the amount of award was at the discretion of the Department Head within an established range, with most considerably less than the high of $4,000.  Recognizing that there was only a fixed amount of dollars available for Department Heads to consider, Mr. Trudgeon noted that those funds were very limited, and therefore, every time they considered such an award, it was under that due consideration.  When budget funds were tight in 2008 and 2009, Mr. Trudgeon advised that most departments did not use any merit pay program, as they were all cognizant of those tight situations and available funds.  While some may call the awards a "token," Mr. Trudgeon assured Councilmembers that, almost to a person, everyone greatly appreciated the amount and recognition received.

As noted by Interim City Manager Trudgeon, Police Chief Mathwig agreed that since there was a limited amount of money to begin with, the importance was the recognition itself; and while not everyone would receive a merit award, it required Department Heads to look at the value and determine their most valuable person.  Chief Mathwig advised that his use of awards ranged as high as $800 and as low as $200; but the ongoing relationship they provided were invaluable and provided a significant benefit; therefore they were not tokens when good relationship were achieved or retained with those valuable employees.

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she had not meant "token" as a derogatory term; but only recognizing that such a minimal dollar award was not going to change anyone's lifestyle.

Public Works Director Schwartz noted that he was unaware of any Departments having $4,000 to work with in any given year; and advised that the range used in his department was form $300 to $2,000 depending on the situation and circumstances.

Parks & Recreation Director Brokke concurred, noting that with the limited amount of dollars available to work with, their department ranged from a low of $200 to a high of $1,200.

From a logistical standpoint, Councilmember Laliberte questioned when nominations were done (e.g. year-end or at any time of the year as recognition is given); and whether those funds are allocated to departments evenly or how divided up.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that those logistics would provide tighter parameters on the program.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that the dollar amount was only budgeted on paper, with the amount allocated per department based on the number of employees in each of those departments; with additional dollars at the discretion of Department Heads and the City Manager for anyone recognized within the organization for any non-representative employee.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that each Department Head did their determinations differently; and could be awarded mid-year or year-end; however, it was typically done at the end of the year.

Fire Chief O'Neill concurred with Mr. Trudgeon, noting that the Fire Department makes a determination year-end as to the events of the year and levels of extra participation given by employees; and then puts their nominations in at that point.

Councilmember McGehee sought questioned how those nominations are compared and by whom.  Councilmember McGehee noted that she recalled having heard that there is unevenness among departments and their amount of use.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that the nominations are not jointly reviewed, and in the end the City Manager needs to approve them with justification from the Department Head; usually subsequent to many conversations prior to then.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that Department Heads were more knowledgeable of their employees and their performance; and while being open to a group method, he was unsure of whether it would provide any advantage and may prove more confusing.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that if left up to the Department Head and City Manger, use of the program should be more proper and justified; and his intent was to encourage everyone in the organization to make use of it, but in order to retain the validity of the program, he also preferred its use to be judicious rather than using it simply because it was there.

At the request of Mayor Roe on how to proceed; Councilmembers McGehee and Etten spoke in support of the proposed draft program (Attachment B), with revisions as duly noted by each of them. 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her preference to leave a decision open-ended until the budget discussion later tonight; with Councilmember Willmus also expressing his preference to discuss this as part of the overall budget.

Mayor Roe spoke in support of the direction proposed in Attachment B; noting the need to determine how to pay for the program.

Mr. Trudgeon respectfully requested that the City Council make a determination one way or the other at tonight's meeting, and if the program is to continue, that the City Council look at officially adopting a policy.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that the policy is part of the City Employee Policy Manual, and unless there is a consensus of Councilmembers objecting to do so, that the merit award system be retained. 

Mayor Roe noted that, if there was no funding included for the merit award program in the upcoming budget discussions, it would be obvious that there would then be no merit award system.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:06 p.m.

9.            General Ordinances for Adoption

10.         Presentations

11.         Public Hearings

12.         Budget Items

a.            Adopt Final 2014 Budget and Tax Levy

2014 Final Tax Levy

Interim City Manager Trudgeon introduced tonight's budget discussion and detailed information based on the Public Hearing testimony received at the December 2, 2013 meeting, and further refinement provided and detailed in the RCA dated December 9, 2013.   Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed the requested and statutory actions required in adopting three (3) resolutions for the General Fund levy and budget, debt service; as well as the HRA-specific levy as presented.

Mr. Trudgeon reviewed those items detailed in the RCA that were new tonight based on City Council direction and/or discussions (e.g. full-time Volunteer Coordinator position; and Code Compliance Officer revenue sources defined). 

Mr. Trudgeon referenced the previous discussion related to the Merit Award Program, and funding that program in 2014 at $35,000, utilizing the revised performance standards as detailed by staff.

Also, based on further refinement and more clarity on the approximate $50,000 unallocated in contingency funds, and finer understanding of the market adjustment by Ramsey County and impacts of the sales tax exemption for municipalities, as well as the fewer dollars needed for Fire Relief Association funding in 2014, Mr. Trudgeon advised that there were additional savings in the proposed budget and levy originally projected.

Mr. Trudgeon provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, providing several staff recommended options for the City Council's consideration as it proceeded with tonight's discussion; which allocated funds from either levy funds or reserves, depending on the preferred option.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller projected that, the actual dollars to be found in dropping General Fund reserves from 43% to 40% would generate approximately $433,000.

Councilmember McGehee reviewed her calculations of adjusting the levy, using a General Fund reserve of 40% to address contractual obligations, an additional $4,000 for the Roseville Area Senior Program (RASP), and full-time Volunteer Coordinator position, addressing the total 2014 cash reserve funded increases to $397,225; using $271,000 estimated dollars from that percentage reduction without having to go further into reserves. 

Councilmember Etten observed that  $393,000 had already been allotted from reserves, signifying a considerable amount.

Councilmember McGehee concurred; however, she opined that it was still well within the City Council's policy between 35% and 45%; and based on her research of other successful cities around the metro area at 35% to 50% reserve levels, as well as consultation with the League of Minnesota Cities, the City would not be jeopardizing its reserve position.

Mayor Roe reviewed staff's options and Option 2 in using $393,225 in reserves; opining that he would need to receive further confirmation from Finance Director Miller as to the accuracy of  the figures mentioned by Councilmember McGehee prior to making a final decision.

Councilmember Etten opined that there were also a number of policy issues for the body to discuss before such a decision should or could be made.

Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal appreciation for Councilmember McGehee's approach regarding the General Fund, opining that within the City's 20-some cash reserve accounts he wanted to focus on the License Center.  In his request earlier today for additional information from Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus reviewed the considerable amount of available reserves for 2012 and projected for 2013, far in excess of the targeted 20% level.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he would certainly advocate for using those excess reserves from the License Center to address the additional 2014 obligations, and further reduce the General Fund Levy.  Councilmember Willmus likened the License Center as similar to communities having municipal liquor stores, opining that it was a revenue generator.  Councilmember Willmus noted that Mr. Miller had indicated one reason for such high reserves in that fund had to address the future possibility of constructing a standalone license center on the City Hall campus, rather than leasing space as is currently done. Councilmember Willmus questioned if that discussion had ever been held by the City Council; and suggested using the City Hall building as a potential location for moving the License Center back to the campus.  Regarding Councilmember Etten's comments regarding finding a potential source to offset future years, Councilmember Willmus opined that this called for a discussion in the very near future.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller confirmed that there had been an annual transfer from the License Center Fund to support other City functions, ranging from $50,000 as high as a one-time $200,000.

At the request of Mayor Roe as to how this annual transfer amount is calculated, Mr. Miller reviewed various situations in any given year, using 2006 and 2007 as examples when as much as possible was transferred for other City functions from the License Center Fund.  However, Mr. Miller noted that things changed, and with the most recent economic crunch and a reduction in new car sales and passport fees for those traveling abroad, the License Center's revenue had also been reduced, causing a new staffing model to be developed.  Mr. Miller advised that an adjustment had therefore been made on what was needed to sustain or fund City functions while also achieving other objectives for the License Center.  Mr. Miller clarified that prior City Council's had discussed this at length during his tenure, and their conclusion questioned whether it made sense to continue paying in excess of $65,000 to a private landlord rather than to the City itself to house the License Center.  Mr. Miller opined that a standalone facility was not favored so much as a multi-purpose building to make the most long-term economic sense for the City.  As a result of those past discussions, Mr. Miller advised that staff was challenged in 2007 to adjust the License Center business model, and through attrition, they downsized their staff by two (2) employees; and voluntarily did not fill those positions even though they were authorized to do so by the City Council.  Mr. Miller noted that this required existing staff to change their business dynamic for the salaried supervisory to work longer and harder, and to look for opportunities to create as much savings from those vacancies as possible.  Mr. Miller noted that the resulting surplus in the License Center Reserve Fund was a direct result of their hard work.

Councilmember Willmus continued to advocate for use of those unrestricted funds from the License Center,  at roughly 48% over their target level, to address the 2014 budget needs, and further reduce the tax levy.  Councilmember Willmus noted that there were other adjustments he would consider, including some changes he would propose to make those reductions, including some of the suggestions made by Councilmember McGehee, in addition to License Center reserves.

Councilmember Etten reviewed his personal calculations in response to Councilmember Willmus' 2012 and 2013 License Center reserve dollars; and questioned whether a use of a portion of those reserves would negatively affect the future plans for the License Center.

Mr. Miller reiterated that the surplus had been made possible due to not filling two (2) positions at the License Center, and if those positions had been filled, the result would be considerably less and actually result in a negative number.

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller reviewed the annual results realized by the License Center over the last 5 years, with a yearly profit going back to 2005, and during the good years, an annual profit of $200,000 being realized, of which approximately $100,000 was transferred to the City's General Fund, leaving an average of $100,000 to accumulate in the License Center reserves, resulting in the amassed $800,000 projected at this time.  Mr. Miller clarified that this was done by design to accomplish the proposed scenario of prior City Councils for the long-term future of the Center. 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller further detailed those operating surpluses, closer to $300,000 annually in 2005, 2006 and 2007; while taking a hit in 2009 of $59,000 due to the economy, until the economic rebound in 2012 with gross operating revenues estimated a $240,000.  Again, Mr. Miller noted that this was in part due to not filling two (2) staff positions at the License Center.  At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller further noted that the reason operating revenues had increased significantly in 2012 was due to additional net vacant positions for a major portion of the year due to staff turnover, otherwise it would not have been that high.

Councilmember Etten stated that he was advocating that an additional $25,000 in License Center profits be added annually for 2014 and future budgets to offset levies moving forward and not significantly affecting the Reserve Funds to a great extent.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten confirmed that he was advocating an additional $25,000 annual transfer from the License Center profits.

Councilmember McGehee questioned why, if the intent was for saving rent money, why the License Center was not moved into the space vacated by the Fire Department, even though it wasn't very convenient for that purpose, but available funds should be sufficient for remodeling versus a standalone facility.  Councilmember McGehee further suggested that the License Center could be incorporated with one of the proposed park buildings.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Etten noted his consistency in preferring to not use budget reserves for ongoing expenses; and opined that employee wages or benefits were not going to decrease, and perhaps in lieu of using some reserves, which he may be amenable to some extent, he thought it made more sense to borrow from one spot toward another (e.g. License Center profits transferred to the General Fund), and to not make things even further out of balance in the future by only using reserves.

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her  concerns in what reserves were proposed to be used for; while recognizing that 43% reserves were healthy, she opined that those reserves should be used for one-time emergencies, like the recent summer storm.  While recognizing that there was some built in contingency, Councilmember Laliberte questioned why staff was quick to recommend reserves when in the past they had expressed caution to the City Council in them doing so.

In defense of staff, Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council directed staff to use $430,000 in reserves at their September 2013 meeting.

Councilmember Laliberte recognized that, noting that she was also not supportive of that majority action at that time.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that reserves should not be used for ongoing expenses, such as the Volunteer Coordinator position as an example, even though she believed in the value of the position.  When providing direction to the Interim City Manager at past meetings seeking to make sure all Department Heads were on board with the position, and whether or not they would be willing to put some skin in the game to fund this position, when it was brought back by staff, they didn't indicate any such financial involvement in funding the position.  While this was an addition to the budget and something everyone believed in, Councilmember Laliberte expressed disappointment that there wasn't enough of an attempt for staff to cut spending or find other ways to fund the position or other things beyond going into reserves; and questioned if that should be an option simply because the reserves were available.

Councilmember McGehee admitted that she was not a big fan of using reserves; however, on the other hand, she was also not a big fan of being understaffed, opining that this had been the case.  Having done her own research on personnel costs and operating budgets of other communities, Councilmember McGehee noted that she found other communities well above the City of Roseville's General Fund personnel costs.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she found other cities at 75%, with St. Louis Park as an example at 76.2% of their General Fund; and further referenced news articles in the weekend paper related to taxes in general and Roseville specifically.

Mayor Roe clarified that total expenditures for 2014 from tax-supported funds were $23 million, of which $12.6 million was for personnel costs, or roughly 54%.

Councilmember Etten noted those percentages quoted in weekend news articles also depended on which School District was represented in Roseville, with two (2) districts incorporated in the city.

Councilmember McGehee provided her calculations for both School Districts 623 and 621; and expressed her difficulty in reconciling the fact that, unlike many communities, the City's personnel costs were not very high based on the population and size of the City, especially when comparing it to the Cities of Edina or St. Louis Park and their employee counts based on their square footage and population.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City of Roseville had more things, more equipment and more buildings in its asset inventory than it did people; and expressed one of her concerns going forward is not adding personnel to address ongoing maintenance or a plan for those things being added (e.g. fire station or park renewal program buildings).  Councilmember McGehee noted that, in spite of asking for that information several years ago, she had yet to receive it; and opined that a bigger policy discussion was needed whether to take money from reserves now or look at the bigger Roseville picture and address the values of citizens and what they wanted to pay for.

Councilmember Willmus clarified with staff that the License Center was not an Enterprise Fund, and therefore the comparisons being made by Councilmember McGehee were not an "apples to apples" comparison, since the City of Roseville had twenty-two (22) different funds.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this did not provide for a fair comparison when the City and its citizens were looking to find a way to offset the levy somewhat in areas that were available, his main focus tonight through this discussion.  If the City of Roseville was going to be compared to other cities on a fund level, Councilmember Willmus opined that there was a need to know what those funds were.

Councilmember McGehee recognized that aspect of comparison.

With the framework laid out, Mayor Roe refocused the body on moving forward for how much of a levy increase was going to be supported by the majority, as well as how much of a reserve level.

2014 Levy Motion - Resolution A

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11113 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2014;" amended as follows:

·                     Applying the City Manager-recommended Option 1 using remaining levy funds of $72,700 and use of reserves in the amount of $8,300 for a total of $81,000 to fund the Volunteer Coordinator position;

·                     To confirm funding an additional $4,000 toward the Roseville Area Senior Program (RASP)for a total of $10,000 in 2014 funding;

·                     Approval of the Employee Merit Award Policy Guidelines, as revised and adopted previously tonight, as part of the 2014 budget in the amount of $35,000; thereby

·                     Reducing use of the Reserve Fund from $390,000 to $320,000; and

·                     Using an additional $25,000 from the License Center budget or reserve fund, whichever is applicable, to further reduce the 2014 levy accordingly; and

·                     To designate the ongoing annual use of $25,000 from the License Center budget or reserves ongoing in future budget and levy allocations.

Mayor Roe noted that this would reduce the proposed tax levy from $18,028,721 to $18,003,721 accordingly, fully funding those items outlined by staff as outlined in the RCA.

At the request of Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus, Councilmember Etten reviewed the specific intent of the motion; noting that a separate intent included was an annual reduction by $25,000 in the levy by using License Center profit or reserve funds.  Councilmember Etten clarified that this was a different way to achieve those same goals as presented by Councilmember McGehee in reducing the General Fund Reserve Policy to 40%.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was not typically comfortable taking anything from reserves.

Mayor Roe suggested Councilmembers Etten and McGehee work out the details among themselves; but clarified that the proposed motion made no changes to spending other than including the employee merit award program and additional funding for the RASP; and questioned if Councilmembers were open to making amendments to the motion as offered by Councilmember Etten.

Proposed Amendment #1

Roe moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT fund the Volunteer Coordinator in full for 2014, but to fund the position at ¾ of the total cost, thereby reducing the 2014 budget and levy by approximately $20,000 in 2014.

At the request of Interim City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe clarified that this was based on filling of the position not actually funded until the 2^nd quarter of 2014, but still intended as a full-time, not a ¾ time position.

Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and staff regarding the actually funding of the Volunteer Coordinator position as outlined in the options provided by staff; and assumptions that the position would not be filled immediately in 2014; with staff clarifying that the $81,000 projected cost for the position would be the full cost in future years and carry forward from 2014.

Clarification by the makers to Amendment #1

Roe moved, Willmus seconded, clarification of Amendment #1 that proportional amounts to fund the Volunteer Coordinator position in 2014 would come out of reserves and the levy based on the total dollar amount needed.

Friendly Amendment to Amendment #1

Councilmember Etten suggested a friendly amendment to Amendment #1, based on this clarification, reduce the funding for the Volunteer Coordinator position to ¾ or the recommended total, with all of the funding from reserves eliminated, and the balance of the reduction coming from the levy supported portion of the position cost.  The maker of the motion (Roe) accepted a friendly amendment, not accepted by the seconder (Willmus.

Amendment to Amendment #1

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, an amendment to the motion to fund ¾ of the position in 2014 to reduce the funding for the Volunteer Coordinator position to ¾ of the recommended total, with all of the funding from reserves eliminated, and the balance of the reduction coming from the levy supported portion of the position cost.

Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that it was going the wrong direction; and he preferred more use of reserves.

Roll Call (Amendment to Amendment #1)

Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

Motion carried.

Roll Call (Original Motion to Amend)

Ayes: Willmus and Roe. 

Nays: Laliberte and Etten.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion failed due to the lack of a majority.

Mayor Roe refocused discussion back to the original motion proposed by Councilmember Etten, without further amendment, to reduce the levy in 2014 and years forward by $25,000, using License Center profits or reserves.

Amendment #2

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, reinstating $50,000 in funding to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) without designating from where those funds would be allocated.

Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to the motion, questioning the rationale in essentially funding things from reserves to fund reserves.

Councilmember McGehee defended the goal of supporting the City's own CIP plan.  Councilmember McGehee further noted that, if everyone wanted to do everything listed, it could be accomplished by reducing reserves, and even though it was a terrible idea, it needed to be carried forward since the City had already set a ceiling and also needed to address its debt service obligations.  Unless the City Council chose to forget about the Volunteer Coordinator position or Parks Supervisor, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would require ongoing expenses from the General Fund levy; and if those items were crucial to everyone to not fund them from reserves, they would remain ongoing expenses.

Roll Call (Amendment #2)

Ayes: McGehee.

Nays: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. 

Motion failed.

Roll Call (Original Motion)

Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

Motion carried.

2014 Final Budget (Resolution C)

Etten moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11115 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution Adopting the Final 2014 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;" as amended in the RCA; adding $25,000 (Etten) for a total of $50,694,560.

Roll Call

Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

Motion carried.

2014 Final Debt Levy (Resolution B)

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11114___ (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2014 Bonded Debt;" established in the amount of $85,330.67

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 As an internal housekeeping matter, Mayor Roe sought clarification from staff that the budgeted expenditures in the capital replacement funds were set equal to the tax levy revenue on purpose or at the actual 2014 CIP spending amounts.

Finance Director Miller responded that historically, staff did expenditures to funding sources on an annual basis, and as capital fluctuated, with vehicle and equipment needs, or Enterprise Funds also fluctuated annually, Generally Accepted Accounting Practices were used for the internal CIP, with the budget kept equal to revenues.

From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe opined that it would be more transparent for the public to show those figures as expenditures fluctuated.

Roe moved, Etten seconded, to direct staff to indicate those figures in the budget, the actual anticipated 2014 costs for vehicles, buildings and capital replacement funds.

Councilmember Etten recognized that staff concerns from a budgeting platform, with their desire to show things in a more orderly fashion, but opined that this requirement would show things more accurately or easier for the public to ascertain.

Finance Director Miller noted that, at year-end, staff provided an actual, but for the CIP, there was no budget to actual; and from a staff perspective, they had not seen the value of having the budget fluctuate with the spending plan; when the financial reporting statements did not show it that way anyway.

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller reviewed the rationale in not providing a spending plan, as it was always subject to revisions until finalized at the beginning of the next fiscal year.  If the purpose of adopting the budget is to state, "Here is our spending plan," Mr. Miller questioned the relevancy of showing an amortized amount or actual amount.  While indifferent to either way, Mr. Miller noted that in financial statement preparation, actual are shown, but there was no requirement to show spending without budget amounts.  However, Mr. Miller advised that he was open either way to report it at the City Council's directive.

Mayor Roe concurred with Mr. Miller specific to the capital side, opining that there was benefit for the public to see how much was budgeted annually to show what was being spent if greater than tax money taken in or taken from reserves in some years.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.            Adopt Final 2014 HRA Budget and Tax Levy

Interim City Manager Trudgeon noted that the HRA Tax Levy represented a modest increase over that of 2013.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11116___ (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2014;" setting the 2014 HRA levy at $703,579.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

13.         Business Items (Action Items)

a.            Consider Suspension of New Registrations for Utility Rate Discount Program

On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to staff for their quick turnaround of this item as directed at the December 2, 2013 meeting.

Per City Council direction, Finance Director Miller briefly summarized the draft resolution (Attachment A) and detail from the RCA dated December 9, 2013; to consider suspending all new entrants to the Senior Discount program as of a certain date at the discretion of the City Council. 

For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe clarified that the purpose of this action was to close this discount program to new participants as the City Council revamped its discount program over the next six (6) months to transition into a means-tested discount program versus the current senior discount program.

Councilmember Willmus expressed his support of the proposed resolution and effective date of December 10, 2013.

Mayor Roe called for public comment, with no one appearing for or against the proposal.

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11117 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Suspending New Registrations for the Utility Discount Program effective December 10, 2013."

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.            Adopt 2014 Utility Rates

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller briefly summarized the proposed 2014 Utility Rate Adjustments detailed in the RCA dated December 9, 2013; and discussed at several prior meetings.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller reviewed the proposed water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and recycling rates; including those increasing, those staying the same as 2013, and those actually reduced for 2014.  Mr. Miller also noted the impacts for a typical single-family home by quarter, month and annually; with a net increase of $2.55 per month from 2013 rates.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller confirmed that, essentially, the percentages applied uniformly across commercial and industrial users.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11118 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Establishing the 2014 Utility Rates."

McGehee offered a friendly amendment that in the first quarter of 2014, this issue be revisited in terms of other funding options to support the City's goal for water conservation. 

With Mayor Roe clarifying that this was more of an overall policy discussion, and not part of the motion before the body, but part of the City Council's work plan, Councilmember McGehee withdrew her motion.

Councilmember Laliberte also expressed her interest in revisiting the conservation rate structure going forward.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

b.            Twin Lakes

Interim City Manager Trudgeon introduced this topic, noting that it was only the first step in additional discussions with no intended resolution tonight; and as detailed in the RCA dated December 9, 2013.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the main points that would be addressed by City Planner Thomas Paschke, seeking a sense of direction from the City Council for staff to continue working toward.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to field inquiries and interest in property development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; however, it was difficult to provide answers on what is allowed or not allowed until these bigger issues are addressed.

City Planner Paschke provided a project overview and timeline to-date with the Roseville 2013 Comprehensive Plan adopted in October of 2009, and subsequent adoption of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance in December of 2013; and Community Mixed Use (CMU) Regulating Plan adoption in October of 2011.

Mr. Paschke noted that initial concerns arose regarding CMU land use designations and zoning classifications when the Wal-Mart development platting process was proposed, and questions on the specific type of retail uses allowed.  Mr. Paschke advised that the City Attorney responded to those questions and related those findings in 2012; however, Mr. Paschke noted that some items remained unresolved. 

Mr. Paschke advised that Planning Division staff and the City Attorney were cognizant and had determined that there were inconsistencies between the CMU definitions in the Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Ordinance that served to create ambiguities and challenges in interpreting those documents.  Additionally, Mr. Paschke advised that Planning Division staff had encountered similar ambiguities and interpretation issues in the Regional, Community, and Neighborhood Business Plan designations in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance definitions and/or language.

Mr. Paschke reviewed three specific areas for attention or needing clear direction from the City Council to staff included: Community Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan definition; specific classifications for Regional Business, Community Business, and Neighborhood Business Comprehensive Plan categories and Zoning Ordinance; and future preferred uses and regulations for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.

Mr. Paschke noted those issues as detailed in the RCA, lines 18 - 30 indicating the issues and factors to consider; and lines 41 - 55 offering staff's proposed and revised definition for CMU designation.

City Council Discussion

Councilmember McGehee opined that this whole topic needs more work; further opining that one of the more pressing issues in the discussion was clarification and removal of ambiguities and the exact definitions for the three business types: Regional, Community and Neighborhood.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, at this time, there is little difference among them, creating one of the biggest problems when the Wal-Mart development came in.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that the entire area needed revisited in particular for a Master Plan or Planned Unit Development (PUD), opining that a PUD was consistent with the CMU and with the housing desired for this area.  Since this requires a bigger fix, Councilmember McGehee opined that staff was really saying that the Zoning Code did not match the Comprehensive Plan, but with the Comprehensive Plan the guiding document for Zoning to comply with, the Zoning Code had been created that couldn't fulfill that Comprehensive Plan.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference for this discussion at a subsequent meeting and not at this later hour.

Mayor Roe, from his perspective, saw no immediate problem with staff's proposed language revision (lines 41 - 55, page 2) of the RCA.  However, Mayor Roe noted one area where institutional language had been provided to ensure those types of opportunities and uses, beyond civic; and while that sentence could be removed as proposed by staff, he wasn't sure if "civic" was broad enough to cover that whole area; and he would be concerned about removing something added for a specific purpose.  Also, Mayor Roe expressed concerns that the proposed language may not sufficiently address ambiguities; and discussion of different definitions may better address that in the future.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon addressed both points, noting that this was part of a package deal, and looking at the Zoning Code, Zoning Districts and Comprehensive Plan, staff was attempting to tee that up for discussion.  While not attempting to say the proposed language revisions were the complete solution, Mr. Trudgeon noted that changes were indicated and quite dramatic affecting the entire community and specifically the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  While the proposed language may not be perfect, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was intended to introduce the subject tonight; and asked that the City Council provide at least minimal direction to staff on how to move forward in formally considering some options.

Councilmember Willmus opined that this was a very important discussion; and while appreciating staff's attempt to bring it forward, he echoed Councilmember McGehee's comments that it couldn't be done justice this evening.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke addressed different business classifications, and land use definitions intentionally not specific or detailed by nature in a Comprehensive Plan, especially in the area of uses; but typically broad and nondescript, providing guidance for the desired future rather than specifically dictating issues. 

Mr. Paschke reviewed some of the issues found by staff included a lack of certainty in what the definitions actually mean based on their specific titles; and pointed out several examples on maps identifying areas in the Comprehensive Plan that in reality couldn't be further from the truth of what uses are actually occurring and the theoretic uses permitted (e.g. lines 63-72 in the Rosedale Center Area; lines 80-93 of the Community Business Area; and lines 94 - 129 in the Neighborhood Area).  Mr. Paschke noted that these uses create ambiguity and confusion; and made it difficult for staff to enforce or reinforce from a zoning and land use perspective; or allow them to correct existing problems.

Councilmember Willmus questioned staff's comment related to service areas drawn from Regional and Neighborhood Business Districts; with Mr. Paschke responding that it was considered from a broader based customer draw.

Discussion ensued regarding examples, including a specific auto parts dealership or a bank versus multiple brands of auto parts stores or banks and their larger geographical draw and whether or not Roseville could support some of those on their own without that regional customer draw; how to define those parameters and from how far they need to draw; density and types of business and retail specific to Roseville or drawn from a larger area; impacts of a specific zoning designation to the immediate area and neighborhood. Examples included the impact of Rosedale on the neighborhood (e.g. traffic, parking lots, etc.) and need to define service area versus impact versus a Neighborhood designation having little impact to the area or traffic, and better fitting a specific location.

While disagreeing with the premise that everything needed to be broad and open, Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comments; however, she opined that the broad and open premise had served to create those ambiguities (e.g. asphalt plant).  Councilmember McGehee stated that she had been told by the League of Minnesota Cities and attorneys, that if there is something you don't want as a use, you had to be specific about wants and things not wanted, and not leave things open to interpretation.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she did not see any benefit to being wonderfully broad; nor did she believe there was a single person in Roseville who could not provide a reasonable definition on their own, based on size, impact and scale.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this had been clearly laid out when first put forward as part of zoning, with the impact, size and scale included as part of that through square footage designations, even though that had somehow disappeared, and now the differences in RB, NB and CB could no longer be determined, creating a big issue within the community.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the vagueness and lack of clarity in definitions had put the City in the predicament it now found itself in.

Mayor Roe opined that there may be a disconnect between individual types of operations like a store and the idea of scale and impact; and contrary to the statement of Councilmember McGehee, further opined that the current definitions provided a good basis of language  that gets to that scale and impact.  If there remained any ambiguities, Mayor Roe opined that they needed better refinement, with the Regional Business designation serving as a good example.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of building on what was there versus scrapping it; and  as an example, opined that there was always going to be the possibility of a grocery store use, and whether big or small  would determine whether it could be built in a particular district.

Councilmember Laliberte sought to clarify staff's request for a broader definition and zoning documents that would providing more detail.

Mr. Paschke concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's perception of the request; noting that the Comprehensive Plan provided the broad definition and the Zoning Ordinance provided the detail.  Mr. Paschke advised that this was what staff was advocating; with options to create two separate designations, or leave them as they are, depending on how the City Council directed staff.  Mr. Paschke noted that most communities have "business" as their land use designation, then create their zoning districts around that designation.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke opined that these categories are unique to the City of Roseville, in having commercial districts set up in four (4) distinct districts in the Comprehensive Plan designation.

Mayor Roe opined that it may be a worthwhile exercise to identify those ambiguities and address them for each definition: CB, RB and NB, noting the difficulty in going through them without a Comprehensive Plan reference at hand.

As a next step, Mayor Roe suggested a look at each proposed area needing changing from staff's perspective, to receive City Council input.

Councilmember Etten further suggested, if there was a more common way that other cities accomplished this, to look at that common methodology, and where the City of Roseville was found to be outside those parameters, to consider a less wordy way to address the goal.  Councilmember Etten admitted that this had been a real struggle to work through and only left him with more questions.  Councilmember Etten stated that he would like some concrete examples from other communities.

Councilmember Willmus also noted the need for feedback from commercial property owners on this path.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that notice had not been given citywide, but those in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, who were currently on the e-mail notification list, had been and would continue to be alerted; and seeking their feedback about this direction would be part of the next step.

In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon summarized the direction to staff from City Council, including looking and recognizing more talk about uses - what was and was not wanted; limitations on those uses (e.g. size or massing); and a distinction between the east and west side of Fairview Avenue, with possible subdistricts for different standards on both sides.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would take an initial stab at those items, and recognized the comments providing some initial ideas of what was or was not important to the City Council.

Councilmember Willmus opined that it was important to him that everything wasn't rewritten every 5-10 years and screwed up; but that it would be nice to develop some consistency over time.

Councilmember McGehee seconded the comments of Councilmember Willmus; and also asked that she would like to look at these areas seriously from the perspective of the tax base and best use of this good space.

Mayor Roe suggested that it may be a sensible exercise to look at the east and west sides of Fairview Avenue, what uses were not desired in some of those areas; and then determine subdistricts, using a subtraction versus building the entire area; but to definitely look at both sides of the street.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Mayor Roe, opining that it was known what wasn't wanted; and then it should be opened up for owners or the community to come forward with their suggestions on what they wanted.

Mayor Roe clarified that in his proposed scenario anything that was not identified as undesirable would be an acceptable use in a particular subdistrict.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that, with the budget process now behind them, there should be sufficient time at a January or February 2014 City Council work session meeting to get at these topics and focus solely on them; advising that he would incorporate them into future agendas as appropriate.

Mayor Roe suggested that this discussion be the only focus beyond a Consent Agenda for those meetings around the table rather than at the dais, when all Councilmembers were available to attend.

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with having it work session format.

Councilmember McGehee requested any materials in advance of the packet to allow time for questions directed to staff.

Mayor Roe suggested that information could be provided to the council prior to the meeting packet as well.

15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

16.         Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings

17.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:54 p.m.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

                                                                   ________________________________

                                                                             Daniel J. Roe, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________

Patrick J. Trudgeon, Interim City Manager

1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m., welcomed everyone and made introductions.  Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe.  Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe announced that the "Organized Trash Collection" previously publicized as an agenda item for tonight's meeting had been rescheduled to November 18, 2013.  If there were members of the audience in attendance at tonight's meeting to speak to that item , Mayor Roe invited them to do so during "Public Comment" when he recognized that portion of the agenda in a few minutes.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.

                                                Roll Call

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

               Nays: None.

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak.

4.         Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

RV Mayor Roe announced two upcoming Roseville Community Education sponsored discussions "Creating Community for a Lifetime." The first scheduled on October 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Little Canada City Hall; and the second on November 16, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. at the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library.  While the events are free, Mayor Roe noted that R.S.V.P. were necessary to ensure adequate space; with additional information on free transportation to the event available by calling 651/604-3535 (Library) and R.S.V.P.s directed to 651/297-2704; with additional information also available on the Community Education website.

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming annual Roseville Area Schools Walk/Run in support of the Roseville Area Youth Scholarship Fund, scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. from the Emmett D. Williams School to the Roseville Area High School on November 9, 2013.  Additional information is available, along with registration information, available online at isd623.org or by phone at 651/604-3511.

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming fundraiser for Hit and Run victim Sgt. Travis Torgerson, scheduled for November 3, 2013 from 12:30 - 4:00 p.m. at Calvary Baptist Church on Lexington Avenue in Roseville.  The fundraiser to help with medical expenses will include a lunch buffet, and silent and live auctions; with donations also accepted at local TCF banks in his name.

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; as well as additional corrections from Councilmembers McGehee and Etten provided as a bench handout,.

b.                                Approve Minutes of September 23, 2013 Meeting

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the October 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes as presented.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

e.            Approve Payments

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.    

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

f.                 Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

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

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

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

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

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

h.                            Consider Joint Powers Agreement Ramsey County Violent Crime Enforcement Team

Mayor Roe noted that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) included financial procedures adopted in June of 2013 as a response to items identified previously in task force situations.

Police Chief Rick Mathwig thanked the City Attorney for excellent work in looking out for city interests in development of the JPA.

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the terms of the Agreement (Attachment A) and authorize the Mayor and Interim City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director and Chief of Police to execute the document.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

i.                             Consider Resolution to Accept Work Completed, Authorize Payment and Commence 2012 Storm Sewer Line Warranty Work

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11099 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - Storm Sewer Main Lining Project;" initiating the one-year warranty period and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $96,153.00.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

With additional audience members arriving, Mayor Roe reiterated his announcement regarding the rescheduling of the organized trash collection item to the November 18, 2013 meeting to allow staff to prepare additional background information; and offered another opportunity for public comment, with no one coming forward.

15.         General Ordinances for Adoption

a.            Consider an Ordinance Amending Title Five, Chapter 501 of the City Code Specific to Rabies Vaccinations

Police Chief Rick Mathwig briefly summarized this requested ordinance amendment, basically a procedural change, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 21, 2013.  Chief Mathwig advised that this recommendation was based on best practices used by area veterinarians, putting the monitoring process back in their hands; and also allowing City Police Reserve Officers to handle animal control.  Chief Mathwig highlighted those recommended amendments on lines 102, 105, 121, and 178 of Attachment A, and a typographical correction on line 259 of the draft. 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his concerns in striking language on line 121 removing the provision for submission by a lifetime license holder to the City every two years proof of animal rabies vaccinations, and proposing to only provide that the owner maintain that proof.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if this led to people purchasing lifetime licenses without pursuing annual vaccinations and the City's lack of ability to determine that.  Given the amount of wildlife frequenting suburbia today, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was important to make sure animals were up-to-date with vaccinations, and reiterated his concerns in striking that specific language.

Chief Mathwig advised that the recommendation language was based on changes in the veterinarian industry, with over-vaccination recently determined to be not healthy for dogs.  Based on his experience in the City of Roseville, Chief Mathwig noted that, if a dog is licensed in the City, a vast majority of the time it was also vaccinated and updated as recommended by veterinarians.  Chief Mathwig advised that the majority of issues were with animals that were not licensed.

Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with the type of activity engaged in by a dog, and whether they were indoor or outdoor pets, with frequency of vaccinations determined by their outdoor exposure to rabies and potential for harm.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was advantageous to keep that submission of proof requirement for lifetime licenses intact, or to somehow have City staff verify that documentation.

Chief Mathwig advised that it would be problematic for current staff to review that documentation and contact individual license holders every two years, opining that good pet owners would continue to vaccinate their pets.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Chief Mathwig, opining that a pet owner would do whatever was necessary to protect their family and pets; and expressed her happiness to see this return to veterinarians to establish that guideline.  From personal experience, Councilmember McGehee noted that, even if an animal was vaccinated, it did not necessarily preclude an issue with rabies under all circumstances.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with the proposed changes.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Mathwig confirmed that the guidelines established by the Minnesota Veterinarian Board had been referenced and consulted in making these recommended changes, and followed parallel to their conclusions.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1453 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title Five, Chapter 501, Animal Control of the Roseville City Code."

Councilmember Willmus questioned the accuracy of portraying animals as being "over vaccinated;" as the rabies vaccine diminished over time; and reiterated his request to require those holding lifetime licenses to keep those records up-to-date.  Councilmember Willmus further disagreed with the statement that the issue was related to "over vaccination;: and opined that the City was doing a disservice to its residents if not keeping tabs on lifetime license holders.

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Willmus, opining that with lifetime licenses, there should be some onus or expectation that they be held responsible to keep up-to-date; with this recommended language removing that requirement and making monitoring difficult.

Amendment

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, retaining the original code language of line 121 to require submission by lifetime license holders every two (2) years, proof of the animal's current rabies vaccination.

Councilmember McGehee stated that, being familiar with veterinarian practices, she could not support the amendment, opining that a veterinarian had the best view on that, especially concerns with older pets and autoimmune diseases.

Staff did not have available the percentage or a count of lifetime license holders in the City.

Mayor Roe stated that in general, he could support either approach; opining that the proposed amendment added strength to the additional language to demonstrate proof of vaccination every two years; also speaking in support of the amendment.

Roll Call (Amendment)

                        Ayes: Laliberte; Willmus; Etten; and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee.

Motion Carried.

Roll Call (Motion as Amended)

                        Ayes: Laliberte; Willmus; Etten; and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee.

Motion Carried.

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1453 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Summary Amending Selected Text of Title Five, Chapter 501, Animal Control of the Roseville City Code."

Roll Call (Super Majority)

                        Ayes: Laliberte; Willmus; Etten; and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

                   Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion Carried.

b.            Consider Ordinance Repealing City Code, Chapter 305 Regulating the Sale of Christmas Trees

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the recommendation for repealing this ordinance, as detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013.  Mr. Miller noted that this action (Attachment A) would repeal an ordinance enacted in 1952 seeking regulatory response at that time, with the issue now governed in the City Code, Chapter 1011, providing a broader and all-encompassing regulation, negating the need for a code specific to Christmas tree sales.

Councilmember Willmus thanked staff for bringing this forward, referencing it being brought to the City Council's attention during discussions last fall.

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enacting Ordinance No. 1454 entitled, "An Ordinance Repealing City Code Chapter 305, Sale of Christmas Trees."

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

c.            Consider Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 306, Tobacco Products

Mayor Roe noted that staff had made further amendments at the direction of the City Council since discussion at the previous City Council meeting, as detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013, and Attachment A.

Finance Director Miller concurred, advising that language had been tweaked with the RCA including a brief synopsis of staff's research with other cities and their regulatory efforts for e-cigarettes.  Mr. Miller noted that this presented a regulatory challenge, since enactment of an amendment to the City's Tobacco Product Ordinance amended in 2012 to include e-cigarettes, but relying on the nature of those e-cigarettes and them containing nicotine in the devices.  Since the evolution of other substances and flavorings being added to them, Mr. Miller advised that it had been necessary to develop broader provisions to cover all cigarettes, regardless of what they contained; and treat all the same, as presented in the draft ordinance included in tonight's packet (Attachment A).  Mr. Miller advised that the City had the authority to regulate tobacco and products especially as allowed under State Statute, but noted that it also contained an arena where the City did not have authority to regulate, creating a definite challenge for Roseville and other cities.

Public Comment

Dan Bertuleit, ________ (Shoreview resident and former Roseville resident)

Mr. Burlight sought to make the City Council aware of upcoming FDA studies and conclusions regarding electronic cigarettes.  As a user of them to facilitate smoking cessation, Mr. Burlight displayed the vapor products he made himself; and opined that this was a free speech issue with the City attempting to regulate something with no harm.  While recognizing the regulatory problems that could be created with their sale and use, Mr. Burlight asked that the City Council make sure that its concerns for public health were based on science and on results of those FDA studies, not just public opinion.  Mr. Burlight referenced his submission via e-mail prior to tonight's meeting of links for other studies done to-date; with the products continuing to evolve.  By forcing electronic cigarette users into public smoking areas, Mr. Burlight noted that they were being subjected to second hand smoke that had already been determined to be harmful.  Mr. Burlight opined that the City Council should consider legislation that would separate these devices and products from tobacco products.

Timothy Kester, 4901 12^th Avenue S, Mpls., MN

As the co-owner of smokeless smoking retail establishments throughout the metropolitan area, as well as their kiosk at Rosedale Center, Mr. Kester opined that treating e-cigarettes like traditional cigarettes was not appropriate when considering their use and potential harm.  Mr. Kester further opined that those advocating against e-cigarettes could not verify whether or not the product was harmful as there wasn't enough science to support that claim.  Mr. Kester referenced a Drexler University study, which he had forward to the City Council, and quoted portions of that study, and quoted from the American Council of Science and Health Institute that any contaminants, as well as a recent Forbes article, indicating that health risks were insignificant and presented no health issue to bystanders. 

Mr. Kester opined that this substantiated his assertion that there was no reason to ban public use of e-cigarettes indoors from a public health standpoint; and further opined that it wasn't good to have laws dictating what people could do on their own property just because some people didn't like it, and further opined that this should be left to their discretion.  If, for instance, Rosedale Center received a significant number of complaints, they could take it upon themselves to address the issue on their own private property.  As a seller of e-cigarettes since early 2011, Mr. Kester advised that they had received no complaints from Rosedale Center management on those products or their use on-site.  Mr. Kester noted that banning e-cigarettes had consequences, and any law stigmatizing electronic cigarettes would dissuade people from their use and move them back to tobacco products, proven unhealthy.

From a business standpoint, Mr. Kester noted the impacts on his business if this vital part of allowing customers to sample the products was no longer allowed; and if disallowed at Rosedale Center, he would likely have to close their kiosks and move elsewhere.  Mr. Kester noted that some cities had chosen to take drastic measures similar to this with no exemption for retail stores selling the product, but opined that those were only a minority.  Mr. Kester referenced a recently adopted ordinance by the City of Roseville requiring a license for sale of electronic cigarettes; and advised that he would support that type of ordinance to allow the City to regulate sales to minors.

Mr. Kester advised that his company did not even allow a minor (under the age of 18) into their facility, and definitely not any sampling, and had been their company policy and business practice even before it became State law.

Barry Shortell, speaking on behalf of another electronic cigarette store in Roseville

Mr. Shortell asked for more clarification on sampling, and despite their ultimate decision, asked that at the very least, the City Council abstain from disallowing sampling until other metropolitan cities have made similar decisions to avoid businesses in adjacent communities still able to offer sampling from continuing to operate that would result in a loss of customers to Roseville.  Mr. Shortell referenced studies saying the use of e-cigarettes provided a healthier and more effective tool for smoking cessation; with the FDA continuing to look into other products as well.  Mr. Shortell asked that the City Council delay any action until the FDA ruling came forward.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding verification of whether products were being sold to minors, Chief Mathwig advised that the compliance checks were performed by his department twice each year, for tobacco and alcohol license holders, but not specific to e-cigarettes to-date; with sale of e-cigarettes to minors outside current parameters of City license.

Councilmember McGehee advised that her intent was to determine disparities between state and local law; with Mayor Roe and Chief Mathwig responding that State law talked about age limits and how to enforce compliance.

 Jesse Griffith As another tobacco licensee in the City of Roseville, Mr. Griffith admitted confusion with Chief Mathwig's comments regarding compliance, as their firm had received a phone call from a person appearing to represent themselves as part of a city sting who had subsequently advised them that they had passed the check.  Mr. Griffith admitted that it may be specific to their holding that type of license, but upon receipt of the phone call, they were of the understanding that they were subject to compliance checks and had been found in compliance.

Mayor Roe, with concurrence by Chief Mathwig suggested that as the holder of a tobacco license, they probably were reviewed during that round of tobacco licensing compliance checks; and that they should assume that they were always going to be subject to such checks.

Councilmember Etten questioned Chief Mathwig on how to differentiate from one type of combustible cigarette, e-cigarette, or traditional cigarette in enforcing compliance.

Mr. Chief referred to Finance Director Miller's earlier comments regarding regulation of cigarettes versus vapors, and if sampling was done in store, then there were enforcement issues.  Chief Mathwig advised that enforcement was difficult, as they were required to have probable cause that a law was being violated before they could move to address a situation; but noted that his officers could not address one versus the other without a clear demarcation line in place as alluded to by Mr. Miller.

At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that he was not aware of a prohibition in State law for sale of e-cigarettes to minors, but that the Minnesota Clean Indoor Act for behavior in public and work places were what was being used.  Mr. Gaughan advised that current City Code applied to retail establishments and predominantly focused on Hookah lounges and this situation, with other public areas not yet applied to e-cigarettes or the Indoor Clean Air Act.  Mr. Gaughan advised that his concern was with products that didn't contain nicotine and where the City's authority lay regarding that. As stated by Chief Mathwig, Mr. Gaughan noted that if the City had one regulation for e-cigarettes containing nicotine and another for those not containing it, it didn't provide a clear answer for the City.  Mr. Gaughan opined that current technology was exceeding the ability to provide enforcement at this point, and created more questions than answers.

Councilmember McGehee stated that she would prefer erring on the side of public health and safety; and opined that the City Council should rely on staff's research rather than allowing something to go forward and creating difficulties in enforcement.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1455 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 3, Section 306.01; Relating to Tobacco Products" as presented by staff; revising the definition of tobacco products to include ALL e-cigarettes and similar devices.

City Attorney Gaughan stated that he was not making any value judgments or an endorsement for or against this ordinance amendment, but thought it important that the City Council kept in mind that authority for any municipal regulations of any cigarettes came under State law, with cities allowed to impose regulations to combat the danger of second-hand smoke, even though that was an outdated term of phrase given new technologies.  Mr. Gaughan stated that the concern he couldn't get past was that, in the absence of clear research and study regarding what is in that vapor, could the City say dangers of second-hand smoke were being emitted; an answer he could not provide at this time.  If the City Council considered regulating something that they had no actual basis for doing, indicating that the vapors were dangerous, Mr. Gaughan questioned on what the City Council was basing their enforcement; and without that basis, could be found arbitrary and capricious by a court of law.

Councilmember McGehee opined that since there was little to distinguish how to evaluate the substance contained in vapors, whether nicotine or not, and no current regulation of the product generated in that vapor due to so little regulation at this time, she found it to clearly be an imminent health risk.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City would therefore be remiss in not taking preventative action until they were provided firm, conclusive proof that there was no danger.

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she found the opposite to be true, questioning why the City would take action before that data was available; and since the State and FDA were currently working on it, she opined that it was premature for the City to act on this ordinance when enforcement would be difficult.  With her obvious concern being sales to minors, with that provision apparently being addressed by individual establishment owners, Councilmember Laliberte opined that if someone wanted to smoke something, they had the freedom to do so.

Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Attorney had done a good job representing the City in his opinion with this matter; opining that the City currently didn't know what it was attempting to regulate.  While not being a fan of e-cigarettes in public places, Councilmember Willmus opined that he was far from forming a position to regulate those products, since they were not yet known definitively if they were harmful or not.  Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Laliberte in waiting for FDA guidance on this before taking action.

Councilmember Etten sought clarification from Mr. Miller as to whether this simply banned retail sales but not the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

Finance Director Miller recognized that as an interesting question, referencing the City Council decision in February of 2012, and deliberate selection of language stated as "any retail establishment;" and if defining that as a tobacco shop, the ordinance was saying that it was not permitted to use them in retail, but permitted for use elsewhere (e.g. schools, churches, elsewhere) which would not make sense. Personally, Mr. Miller opined that he think the intent was "any indoor establishment."

Mayor Roe questioned if that was the actual intent.

Councilmember McGehee stated that it was certainly her intent at that time.

City Attorney Gaughan stated that his recollection was that amendments in 2012 to Section 306.05, "Indoor Smoking Prohibited" was in response to State law expressly allowing sampling of tobacco at retail shops, with the City of Roseville using its regulatory authority as other cities had done, to prohibit use in sampling and Hookah lounges.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the problem then became, if you were to expand the definition of tobacco in the City to e-cigarettes and the like, then disparity was found in where they could be used, since State law already applied to public and work places, therefore a City Code was not needed to cover them, but now there were new technologies that State law and definition had yet to catch up to.

Mayor Roe stated that his recollection of the 2012 amendment to City Code was in regulating sales in retail establishments licensed to sell tobacco-related products and/or devices; and the linkage was then based on sampling in that section related to the sale of products.

City Attorney Gaughan stated that this was his recollection of what was intended in 2012, and because of State law being in place (Minnesota Clean Air Act), the City didn't have to worry about regulating other places since they were already covered under State Law.

Councilmember Etten noted the need to focus on how to address the Chief's concerns in regulating and enforcing nicotine and non-nicotine products based on their definition.

At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether State law already regulates sale of e-cigarettes to minors, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he could not respond, but suggested that Ramsey County may have more information on that.

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be voting in opposition to the motion, for reasons previously stated, opining that there were clearly more questions yet to be vetted before taking this action.

Mayor Roe concurred that there wasn't a lot of regulatory information available, with the FDA still conducting their study and their conclusions eventually dictating how the State and local government moved forward.  However, Mayor Roe opined that he found this proposed amendment to be a relatively simple change, and while recognizing that business owners may disagree, it provided the City to continue compliance checks and enforce sales within the community.  Mayor Roe further opined that the consternation seemed to be with sampling and by definition without exception elsewhere in ordinance, all provisions in Chapter 306 would apply to this product as well.  Mayor Roe stated that he was supportive of making that amendment at this time, with the understanding that further amendments may be indicated in the future; but opined that he didn't think it was appropriate to wait for that. 

Mayor Roe referenced concerns brought up during public comment at last week's meeting, until a determination was made that non-nicotine vapors or product use were not dangerous, until that FDA conclusion was available, the City needed to take this action.  Mayor Roe noted that there may be some products that would be imported from overseas that were not FDA regulated, and with that and other unknown factors, it also caused him to err on the side of caution and provide the Police Department with the ability to not have to distinguish between one or the other.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified and confirmed that this amendment would apply only to sales, and provide a mechanism for enforcement, with current State law provisions allowing for the potential pathway for smoking for kids; making regulating this through the City's licensing scheme of vital importance to him.

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe's comments; however, he noted that he also struggled with the discussion and guidance of the City Attorney in how to defend this amendment.  While wanting to err on the side of caution as well, Councilmember Willmus noted his hesitation until there was firm guidance from the FDA.

Finance Director Miller sought clarified if the motion currently on the table accepted the definition of retail as anywhere that sold tobacco products as defined in City Code;  or just sampling in vaping and other lounges.

Mayor Roe confirmed that sampling would apply to any retail establishments involved in the sale of these products; based on its location in Chapter 3,  noting the broad framework of where this is in the Code.

Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Etten; and Roe. 

                        Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

                   Motion carried.

16.         Presentations

a.            Quarterly Joint Meeting with HRA

Mayor Roe welcomed HRA members presented who included Chair Dean Maschka, Bill Majerus, Vicki Lee, Susan Elkins, and Kelly Quam.

Dale Street Redevelopment

Interim City Manager Trudgeon recognized inclusion of a revised Attachment B,  entitled "Dale Street Redevelopment" Summary of Proposals dated October 16, 2013; noting that the difference was in the second column clarifying additional financial assistance and waiver of fees in response to questions regarding waiver of park dedication fees, with that line now removed; as well as changes to any city subsidy reflected accordingly.

Chair Maschka noted the main topic for tonight being the Dale Street Redevelopment and the three proposals recently received; with the HRA seeking feedback from the City Council before the HRA pursued any ideas.  Chair Maschka advised that the HRA's intent was to select someone by the November 2013 HRA meeting if feasible.

Having attended all neighborhood sessions, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found the Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation (GMHC) best represented the wishes expressed by the neighborhood and most closely matched the wishes of the community with a housing product not currently available, and provided a new enterprise or process for Roseville to try.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the other proposals and their many scenarios came back wanting more density and without adequate parking for an owner-occupied product.  Councilmember McGehee noted the good participation from the community for all three sessions, with interested engagement overall; and opined that she was very happy that the GMHC proposal so closely aligned itself with those fully-expressed interests from residents.

Having attended the HRA meeting where proposals were given, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the presentations were all great and very revealing of their proposed product.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the CommonBond proposal didn't understand the community well nor the location of the building, having expressed their surprise that there was no bus line at the property, and their proposal being very urban-based, and working well if the property was located on a bus line, but not at this particular location.  While finding the Sand Company's proposal fine, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with the financing challenges with their proposal.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that the GMHC proposal had a better feel for the process, residents and community long-term, and therefore favored their proposal when compared with the others.

Councilmember Etten concurred with his colleagues so far; opining that this addressed a current lack in housing products available in Roseville, and the CDI process engaged in and helping and supporting the community and its larger needs for a variety of housing products, price points, etc.  Councilmember Etten stated that he looked forward to discussions of the HRA with developers to make financing work, noting that this proposal does require a fair amount of city assistance, even though he understood there were ways to make it happen using various areas of expertise.  Councilmember Etten opined that this proposal fits the community and the neighborhood, as well as helping the broader community with its housing needs.

Councilmember Willmus, in attending three of the four housing sessions, and as a member of the HRA, noted that he was able to observe those neighbors participating and hear their clear direction desired for their neighborhood.  Stepping back and reviewing all three proposals, Councilmember Willmus noted that all of them would require significant city contributions to make any of them work.  As the HRA began discussions, Councilmember Willmus advised that the neighborhood was looking for owner-occupied housing and a lower level of density for the development to minimize its impact to their immediate neighborhood, both important aspects and of concern to them.  Councilmember Willmus noted that those were admirable goals to be met, and the City should try to attain them.  If the goal was to maximize dollars for Roseville, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City shouldn't be involved, but put it on the open market and zone it High Density Residential (HDR); however, the community voice is saying that isn't the way to go.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he was fine with continuing discussions with the GMHC; as they had obviously paid attention to those neighborhood discussions and submitted their proposal accordingly.

Mayor Roe stated that the key for any proposal was to reflect what neighbors were looking for, to fit the scale of the neighborhood and keep options owner-occupied.  Under that scenario, Mayor Roe opined that the only proposal meeting those criteria was that of the GMHC.  While having  considerable concerns along the City/HRA financing needs, including the $1 land sale and other waivers requested, Mayor Roe anticipated that the GMHC would be flexible during discussions and negotiations to address those issues.

Chair Maschka advised that he was in agreement with the City Council support of the GMHC proposal, but hadn't wanted to drive tonight's discussion, but agreed that they had found the appropriate developer in the GMHC.  While a considerable amount of refinement on the site was still needed, Chair Maschka opined that he was intrigued about the GMHC proposal, as well as their interest in rehabilitating existing single-family housing for seniors to make the move into this product and resell their current homes.  While being concerned that the initial GMHC proposal may be too vertical and intense, Chair Maschka expressed confidence that those details could be worked out; and opined that the GMHC proposal best fit the Roseville community's expectations for this site.

Chair Maschka opined that the CommonBond proposal provided for a beautiful building, it didn't connect with the community at this site.  Regarding the Sands Company proposal, Chair Maschka opined that it was a good development, but concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus that if that was the proposal, the property should be put on the open market.  Chair Maschka advised that the HRA was also very concerned with the financing aspects, with the market place able to meet those demands, but with City financing something may need to be significantly adjusted.

HRA Member Quam stated that, if simply addressing the neighborhood concerns, she really liked the GMHC proposal, but also had significant concerns with the financing.  Member Quam advised that financing options for any of the proposals should not be glossed over, but was confident that as the finer details were worked out in the final process it would become clear.  Member Quam concurred with the need to take advantage of this rare opportunity and not push the property into the market for development.  Member Quam advised that her two finalists of the three proposals were that of the GMHC and Sand Company, based on the overall RFP and not just the design component, opining that she needed more information on how much money the City would need to commit out-of-pocket- for either of those proposals.  With that additional information, and if one was found more significant than the other, Member Quam noted that this would be of concern to her as that cost would be borne by all Roseville residents.  However, without the benefit of that more detailed information, Member Quam advised that she had not yet made a clear determination between those two proposals.

Member Lee stated that she was in the GMHC camp, understanding that the financial gap was an issue for committing the City to a specific proposal, as mentioned by Councilmember Willmus.  Member Lee noted that the HRA and City had gone to great lengths to work with the community for what they wanted in their neighborhood, and in order to get that type of product at this location, it was not something the market could do on its own without financial assistance from the City.  Even though these are not affordable housing units, Member Lee noted that they are affordable in Roseville; and that was part of the bigger picture that needed to be vetted; and a determination of what the City was receiving for their investment for a product that would not otherwise happen in the community.

Chair Maschka noted that the return on investment (ROI) was very important, including getting homes updated that needed to be updated and relocate people into a new type of housing; as well as considering the impact on the property tax base aspect as well.

Member Elkins stated that, obviously the GMHC has a great reputation, and with her institutional knowledge of their organization, thought they would be very flexible in negotiating a final product and agreement.  Member Elkins noted that she was not familiar with the Sand Company; and opined that she found the CommonBond proposal way off base even though she had found them flexible in the past.  Member Elkins noted that the GMHC also had many avenues to pursue for federal and state money; and opined that with fine-tuning, they could come up with some creative financing options.

Councilmember Willmus echoed Chair Maschka's comment regarding ROI, since that had a major component of the proposals, with the rehabilitation of additional homes within the community being a major financial component not fully addressed in the revised Attachment B.  Councilmember Willmus noted that there was also intrinsic value in creating a much more stable neighborhood with lower density, of value to the City and immediate neighborhood.  While there remained substantial gaps in all three proposals as presented, at this point, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in working with and exploring how to make a project work with the GMHC.

Specific to rehabilitation of existing homes in Roseville as mentioned by Councilmember Willmus, Member Elkins advised that GMHC indicated that Ramsey County strongly encouraged the use of senior money to rehabilitate them, providing a great aspect not addressed in the other two proposals.  While such a program already exists in Roseville through the HRA, Member Elkins opined that this would be using Ramsey County money set aside for that purpose; and was encouraged if they were to invest in it at all.  Member Elkins advised that she would also ask GMHC to consider use of a Community Land Trust (CLT) option, where a homeowner would own the house, but not the property that would be on a 99 year lease; which she found to be a program that really worked well in places.

Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for Member Quam's comments; having her own concerns with the accuracy of the numbers and financial aspects.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that the GMHC proposal had twice the funding potential of the Sand Company, made very clear from their presentation.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that some areas included on the matrix (Attachment B-revised) were very interesting, such as the differences in demolishing the fire station between the GMHC and Sand Company proposals; and expressed her need to have those number based on reality as much as possible.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the substantial investment made by the City and HRA to-date on that property; and the need to make sure taxpayers are getting value for that investment, if not immediately with an outright sale, then a return in some other way.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that GMHC had paid more attention to parking and other amenities than other proposals; and as far as density was concerned, she didn't have much concern with the GMHC layout for senior housing, two-story, single-family homes, and townhomes; and found the gradation worked with the neighborhood.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that her only concern was in refining the numbers.

Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't have concerns with the density; however, he noted that if units were eliminated it would drive up the cost and financial gap contribution requirements for the City.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her confidence in the HRA, offering her positive impressions with their process to-date, and the good relationship they had developed with the neighborhood.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had heard very positive remarks from the immediate neighbors and their satisfaction with the overall process and the GMHC proposal.  Councilmember McGehee opined that fine-tuning was between the HRA, the GMHC, and the neighborhood; and expressed great confidence in their pursuit of that part of the process.

Councilmember Etten expressed some concern, beyond the general layout, with the parking for single-family homes and townhomes and allowances for two vehicles, with no room for a boat or other item; pushing some cars on to the street on Cope and Lovell.  Councilmember Etten suggested consideration may be necessary for community parking spaces outside driveways for this type of development.  Also, with proposals for single-family homes having double-depth garages, Councilmember Etten noted that this provided some concern to him as well with many seniors still driving two cars, making it cumbersome to continually move cars when parked front to back versus side by side.  Councilmember Etten questioned if this situation had any potential to limit who would purchase homes due to the limited amount of garage space available.

Councilmember Willmus clarified that, at this stage, the design was conceptual, and as it proceeded, opportunities would be available to bring those factors into the discussion.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he would be surprised if development looked exactly with the designs presented in the proposals.

Chair Maschka advised that additional questions would be directed to developers as appropriate.

If the final decision was to pursue the GMHC proposal, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the various components and criteria needed to be revamped (e.g. cost for fire station demolition) and figures refined.

Mayor Roe noted that another part of final discussions needed to include overall plusses and minuses of current waivers and non-waiver criteria.

Regarding the proposals other than that of the GMHC, Mayor Roe opined that there may be a place for those types of development outside of this parcel, but elsewhere in the community.  As he mentioned to a fellow attendee at the HRA meeting, Mayor Roe opined that the CommonBond proposal would be great for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as an example, if not in other areas within Roseville for multi-family housing.  Mayor Roe opined that those are opportunities we shouldn't throw out but keep in contact with those groups for other opportunities.  As evidenced in the HRA-commissioned market study, Mayor Roe noted that the demand for market rate and other types of multi-family rentals in Roseville was still there; and if a way could be found to make those types of development fit and make it happen, and put a positive spin on for those other developers, it would serve the community well.

From a density standpoint, Mayor Roe opined that he was fine with that proposed by the GMHC and with the two-story single-family homes; understanding the need for that density to achieve financing; and from his perspective found the transition from the higher to lower density worked well.

Chair Maschka thanked the City Council for their input, and concurred with Councilmember Willmus on the variables between design concept and reality; with opportunities for vetting already in evidence that were not seen when this was initiated.  Chair Maschka advised that the HRA would continue to keep the City Council in the loop; as well as putting together a realtor focus group to see if the HRA remained on track with current trends.

2654 Lexington Avenue

Chair Maschka advised that the HRA had an opportunity to purchase this parcel; with another parcel already under City ownership, acquired during his tenure on the City Council (directly across from City Hall).  In continuing to look at the Reiling property and future development in this area, Chair Maschka noted that acquisition of this parcel became part of the assembly process.  Chair Maschka stated that the HRA's question for the City Council was  should the City be in the business of assembling/holding properties, and if assembling, for what purpose should that be; and sought City Council direction on long-term use of those parcels.

Since the City wasn't in the development business and at the request of Councilmember Etten, Interim City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the large majority of property in this section of the City (across Lexington Avenue from City Hall) was owned by the Reiling family; with Councilmember Etten seeking where the City stood with the family and how the City fit into the larger concept for this area.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that he had held a broader discussion with Mr. Reiling, noting the City's interest in considering the potential purchase of the properties without any specific timetable; but if a need or interest became evident.  Mr. Trudgeon concurred that the question of "Toward what purpose" was valid.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that he didn't think there would be any barrier, assuming something could be worked out, further opining that he had found Mr. Reiling to be willing and open for discussions.

Chair Maschka noted that, with four parcels, a concept such as that presented by CommonBond would work well.

Councilmember Willmus opined that the City currently had a lot on its plate, and questioned if it should jump on this parcel, expressing concerns in looking at the context of the City being involved, not the HRA, whether the parcel should be acquired for a future City Center.  While already owning some properties, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in continuing to explore properties with the School District and other opportunities; but opined that he wasn't sure he was ready to acquire property for the purpose of a City Center at this time; and could provide no solid direction at this point.

Councilmember Laliberte noted her understanding with the concept of being aware of opportunities when they arise, and while timing isn't always the most desirable, she agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the City was not yet there, given the other projects (e.g. Park Renewal Program, Dale Street Project, etc.) and agreed that the timing wasn't right at this time to pursue purchase.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Maschka advised that the asking price for 2654 Lexington was $229,000; and if purchased now, the intent would be to continue to operate it as a rental.  While not having anything particular in mind, Councilmember McGehee opined that if she was on the HRA, she would purchase the parcel and keep it as a rental.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had a historical problem in not having property assembled and ready when things arise; and further noted that the City could always resell the property.

Mayor Roe opined that he was not prepared to acquire the property at this time; however, he noted that the HRA had some latitude with its funding, and the parcel could be pursued further if the HRA so desired.

Member Quam asked City Attorney Quam if the HRA was to acquire this or other properties for assembly and rented those properties out, would they be removed from the tax roll, with the City also needing to carry insurance.

City Attorney Gaughan advised that those were several issues needing further research.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that if they were still used for residential or business use, they would still be taxed, similar to the former Edina Realty building now owned by the University of Northwestern but being used for private use, as pointed out by Mayor Roe.

Chair Maschka opined that he was ambivalent whether to purchase it or not, but also wasn't sure how long the opportunity would present itself, and therefore sought the City Council's input.  Chair Maschka noted that he wasn't interested in being in the business of assembling property unless there was a clear, short-term use, opining that owning land was not cheap.

Councilmember McGehee, for the short term, agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the HRA had a lot on its plate; however, she expressed her respect of the HRA as an independent body; and expressed appreciation for their consulting with the City Council, even though it was ultimately the HRA's decision.

Chair Maschka thanked the City Council for their time and feedback; expressing his appreciation of this quarterly meeting process and his desire to see it continue.

17.         Public Hearings

a.            Rental License Ordinance

Acting HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey briefly reviewed changes made since the last City Council discussion of the draft multi-family rental license, as detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013.  She highlighted those changes in Attachment A, Section 908.04 "Licensing Term," page 5, Letter B (line 199) specific to type C or D licenses qualifying based on public testimony at the last reading; and Section 908.07 "Licensing Suspensions, Revocation, Denial, and Non-Renewal," Letter C.5 (line 254) at the request of the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association, providing more flexibility in recognizing landlord options to terminate tenancy other than through eviction.

Based on previous public testimony and concerns with recent immigrant populations about the number of people living in a well-maintained unit, Councilmember McGehee clarified with Ms. Kelsey who confirmed that this proposed ordinance did not limit that beyond current code.

Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to talk about cost implications associated with this ordinance and the apparent potential for at least three additional hires in some form or another as addressed on Attachment C.

Ms. Kelsey clarified that the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) was performed on a seasonal basis for six months and funded by the HRA.  However, Ms. Kelsey advised that the intention for next year was not to have that position and allot funds to this position to gauge A, B, C, and D property ratios.  At that time, Ms. Kelsey advised that it would be determined if another seasonal employee was needed, or if the two positions could be melded into one position under the NEP umbrella.  Ms. Kelsey advised that, at this point, there had been no determination other than that the seasonal NEP would not be done next year.

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kelsey addressed the Minnesota Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and decision-making process with the Police Department.  Ms. Kelsey advised that instead of putting that program together for Roseville at this time, and three different phases making it a requirement in the ordinance, that specific license type (Class C and potentially Class D) would be required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing their commitment/engagement and educational outreach, since those two categories are the most problematic, and would then allow focus on helping them get out of that category if crime activity is a prime problem for them.

Councilmember Etten and Mayor Roe spoke in support of a more targeted approach and not expending resources unnecessarily.

Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:56 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on proposed Multi-Family Rental License Chapter 908.

Public Comment

Lisa Peilen, MN Multi Family Housing Association, 1600 W 82^nd Street, Bloomington, MN

Ms. Peilen noted the shared goals of members of the Association and the City to ensure quality rental housing to meet the needs of the community without becoming overly cumbersome for property owners of those types of properties.  While the Association almost never supported any new local regulations due to over-regulation, Ms. Peilen advised that the Association did not oppose this.  Ms. Peilen thanked the entire Roseville HRA for the time they spent in receiving public testimony; and Mr. Trudgeon and Ms. Kelsey for being receptive and responsive to the Association and its members in addressing their concerns and suggestions.  Ms. Peilen opined that the draft ordinance, as proposed, met the needs of all parties; and thanked the City Council for their receptiveness.

Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Peilen for her participation and invaluable input throughout the process of developing the proposed ordinance.

With no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:58 p.m.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1456 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 9, to Add Chapter 908 to Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units;" with amendments as noted by Ms. Kelsey to Section 908.04 "Licensing Term," page 5, Letter B (line 199) specific to type C or D licenses qualifying based on public testimony at the last reading; and Section 908.07 "Licensing Suspensions, Revocation, Denial, and Non-Renewal," Letter C.5 (line 254).

Councilmember McGehee thanked all involved for their work in bringing this forward.

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion, and opined that the ordinance would be beneficial for the City going forward, and thanked Ms. Peilen for her contributions to the end result and helping the HRA understand implementation and impact issues, resulting in a stronger tool for the City of Roseville.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1456 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Summary Adding Chapter 908: Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Properties of 5 or more units to Title 9, Building Regulations, of the Roseville City Code."

Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

                        Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:14 p.m.

18.         Budget Items

a.            Continue Budget Discussion

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized discussions to-date, as detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013; noting four specific key assumptions and seeking City Council direction on those items embedded in the preliminary Budget adopted in September of 2013.  Mr. Miller noted that those represented big ticket items requiring advance planning for 2014, and primarily affecting the tax levy, as well as for the Budget Public Hearing scheduled in December to received final public comment.  Mr. Miller noted that there would be additional items yet to come before the City Council, including 2014 Utility Rates scheduled for November 18, 2013.  Mr. Miller encouraged feedback at any time during the process.

2% Employee Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

Councilmember McGehee opined that the COLA seemed straight forward, and had been supported by the City Council in past discussions and continued to be supported.

Councilmember Willmus questioned if it had in fact been supported, other than only as it was supported as it tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  Councilmember Willmus noted his rationale in wanting to go back over two budget cycles during discussions about the Employee Compensation Study; thinking it would be easier to view the broader picture. 

Councilmember Willmus noted that, in January of 2012, staff received a 1% COLA; in January 2013, another 2% COLA; and then in October of 2013, received a 3.26% COLA.  At that rate, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found that the City was ahead of the game with increases of 6.26% while inflation only increased 3.18% over the same period. Councilmember Willmus stated the additional 2% was not warranted. Councilmember Willmus opined that the intent of the policy was for an annual look back; and proposed that the additional 2% COLA should not be provided now, but during the 2015 calendar year when a clearer look was available for 2014, in order to make adjustments for 2015.  If the City was to go forward and provide an additional 2% COLA, it would represent an additional $165,000, making other items shown for discussion a moot point; and from his perspective, not allowing them to be accomplished.

Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had also not been supportive of the 3.26% COLA increase approved October 1, 2013; and had thought that was in place for 2014; with the CPI used as a tool going forward.

Councilmember McGehee stated that her recollection of the entire discussion was that the results of the most recent Compensation Study had indicated that the City was 5.6% below the average for peer cities; and with no one happy with the findings of the study, they were unwilling to move forward, with the CPI determined to be an alternate way to make annual adjustments, and a policy developed to move that issue forward.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council was clearly informed by staff that, if they went ahead with the 2.26% COLA increase in October of 2013, but did not set aside the 2% COLA for 2014, they would revert back to the same position of being well below that average.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the behavior of the City Council throughout this process has been bad and lacking in support for its staff; and while no one appreciated the increase, it was apparent that the City Council did not value its own staff.

Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt insulted by the comments of Councilmember McGehee, and did not feel that the City Council had verbally or non-verbally communicated any lack of appreciation of its staff.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation of staff; and even though she did not support the Compensation Study and findings that the City was under its peer cites, this discussion again brought that back into the conversation, even though she thought it had been set aside.  Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her appreciation of staff, and the great job they did; but based on the CPI, percentage increases had been granted, and discussions had been held about staff positions and filling those positions, with no apparent problem.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was staff, not the City Council, who continued to belabor this issue; and whether or not the City Council valued its staff.

Councilmember Willmus stated that his intent in considering this was how best to move forward.  While agreeing that there were certain budgetary limitations and constraints, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in how best to move forward from today.  In his review of 2012, Councilmember Willmus advised that his intent in suggesting this idea to Finance Director Miller, was that as of today, a total of 6.26% in COLA adjustments had been made at the same time inflation had been half that amount; and if another 2% COLA was enacted in 2014, it was being done in a vacuum without the benefit of local adjustment numbers in the Minneapolis market.

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller advised that the Minneapolis CPI figures were more commonly available on a semi-annual basis at mid- and end-of-year.

Councilmember Willmus opined that he would consider staying where currently at, and not enact an additional 2% until the situation was re-evaluated in 2014 to determine 2015 COLA.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the discussion should be whether or not the City Council supported a retroactive pay increase or remain at the current point.  Given the needs expressed by the Parks Commission for one for a Volunteer Coordinator and a Parks Maintenance position, Councilmember Willmus opined that it would be difficult to fund those positions if another 2% COLA was enacted, thus his personal struggle.

Mayor Roe clarified that the 3.26% enacted in November of 2012 was intended as a "catch-up" looking back beyond 2012; and to make up for the years when zero levy/budget increases were in place and during difficult budget times, using CPI to provide a more accurate picture, but still all involving "catch-up."  Mayor Roe further clarified that this 2% COLA increase proposal was looking forward, and with the value of the CPI piece at this time.  However, Mayor Roe noted that he didn't observe much difference from the second half of 2012 and the first half of 2013 that would significantly alter the inflationary projections of 1.02%, or between the first and second half of 2012 about another 1%.  Mayor Roe reiterated that all that had been accomplished in October of 2013 was to "catch-up" to that point beyond 2012; and now under the new policy, the City was looking forward at what percentage to move toward based on that and the CPI, using that policy for 2014, and staff's recommendation for a 2% COLA.

Councilmember Etten stated that Mayor Roe's perspective as stated was also his understanding; and questioned the accuracy of Councilmember Laliberte's comments that a 1% and 2% COLA had been approved in the last two calendar years.  Councilmember Etten noted that the Compensation Study went back ten years to the last study, and addressed any "catch-up" and this assumption was based on fresh money for 2014.

Finance Director Miler advised that Councilmember Laliberte's comments were accurate, exclusive of the 3.26% one-time adjustment.  Mr. Miller concurred that this was a new assumption for 2014 and not applicable to the "catch-up" action recently taken.

Interim City Manager Trudgeon clarified that staff did not keep bringing this issue back, but their action was simply based on the City Council discussions direction given to staff to-date.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the policy adopted was to be used for future years in determining COLA as part of the budget process.  Mr. Trudgeon stated that, if the City Council had said "no COLA" with Preliminary Budget adoption on September 9, 2013, it would have the end of the discussion.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was simply following City Council direction.  With adjustments made to-date, Mr. Trudgeon opined that that was a market adjustment, not COLA based on the Compensation Study indicating that the City was 4.6% below average of peer communities; and after considerable discussion, approving a 3.26% "catch-up" allotment to bring the City within the 90^th percentile of that average to correct that past allotment. 

As Interim City Manager, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was up to him not to grant employee raises just to be nice, but to look out for the overall health of the organization in recruiting, retaining and succession planning of its employee resource.  While not at the top of cities and their pay structures, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the adjustment now brought the City within competition range; and his charge was to keep the City competitive, thus the previous discussions and recommendations for the 2% COLA to avoid the City and its employees from falling behind again.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that another aspect of his consideration as Interim City Manager was in making sure that the City continued to adhere to the State's Pay Equity regulations ensuring equitable pay for genders and represented and non-represented employees.  When an organization was faced with many male-dominated positions and different classes of employees getting different increases, Mr. Trudgeon cautioned the need to remain aware of remaining in compliance. 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that those were just two things to he needed to keep in mind as the Interim City Manager: keeping the organization healthy and making sure it was in compliance with State regulations for pay equity; opining that the further skewed the pay equity plan was, the more problems that would surface. 

In arriving at the proposed 2% COLA, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the process used in developing this as part of his City Manager-recommended budget previously presented to the City Council and public; but noting whether the CPI measures were used or not were up to the City Council and their policy.  While speculation could be part of that process looking forward, Mr. Trudgeon noted that without a clear picture of the future, and based on information currently available, those calculations indicated the 2% COLA recommendation.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff research to-date had indicated most peer communities were projecting between 2% and 2.5%, with each city's budget limited by its own resources.  Specific to the City of Roseville, Mr. Trudgeon noted that their decision would also need to be based on the City Council's priorities; with staff recommending a 2% COLA to keep the City competitive, while recognizing the tough budget decisions before the City Council.  However, Mr. Trudgeon sought to clarify staff's rationale in making the original recommendation, and bringing this assumption forward based on previous City Council direction.

Councilmember Willmus referenced another index, the Employment Cost Index for Local and State Government Workers, noting that had also been running flat at 1%; and opined that the City needed to be careful how it budgeted and allocated its funds; and questioned Mr. Miller on the percentage of the overall budget that was allotted to wages and salaries.

Mr. Miller estimated 75% to 80% in tax-supported programs.

Councilmember Willmus noted the need to be cognizant regarding its choices; and if using a similar tool going forward, suggested that maybe the CPI wasn't the best or only tool to use.

Mayor Roe clarified that when referencing an index for policy decisions, the one index represented what others were paying and the other is based on cost of living; and not making an argument either way, Mayor Roe questioned if the cost of living index was keeping up with what was being paid.  Mayor Roe suggested finding a composite for individual points of view, noting that it appeared that a majority of the City Council supported COLA, but the difficulty was in its context with other things.

Councilmember McGehee noted that Councilmember Willmus had originally suggested using the CPI, which she thought was a good suggestion, as it provided a very organized and clean process going forward.  Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe in trying to pay a reasonable wage to keep employees whole, which she supported.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated that the concept of using the CPI seemed fine moving forward, since the 3.26% adjustment was looking back from the study done ten years before it, and the adjustment was made.  However, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her previous comments that now it was time to look forward; and spoke in support of looking at the previous year to move forward, putting the City on a good footing for the next year's budget cycle.

Councilmember Willmus opined that, another component of this has been that an overall context discussion was pending on the budget and levy; and if required to make up his mind on this tonight, it would also require him to make a decision on the other items.

Mayor Roe clarified that staff was not seeking a decision tonight, simply direction as noted in the RCA.

Councilmember Laliberte advised that for her personally, she needed to know more about the other items for 2014.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that Ramsey County and several adjacent municipalities were proposing flat levies with no increases for 2014, and possibly for 2015.  While understanding that the City of Roseville provided additional services compared to some of those municipalities, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she needed to have a better feel for the overall levy increase.

Mayor Roe clarified that the proposed  levy increase for 2014 was inclusive of the debt service. The 4.4% not-to-exceed Preliminary Levy adopted in September of 2013;  including  1.4%  exclusive of debt service.  Mayor Roe further clarified that Ramsey County was able to project a zero percent levy increase based on their receipt of additional federal and state funding that they had not received before; further clarifying that they were actually spending more, just not raising taxes to do so.

New Parks Maintenance Position (budgeted)

Councilmember Etten opined that this position should remain in the budget; that it would bring the park system back up to what it had been in past decades; and serve to maintain existing and new items in the Park Renewal Program.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller clarified that this was the only new position that was tax-supported.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten; noting that new park assets required a price at the end; and this position was needed to support the programs and products of the park system.

To justify the position because "they used to exist," Mayor Roe opined was not applicable, as organizations continued to adapt and become efficient.  While agreeing that the City was adding some long-overdue assets, Mayor Roe opined that made sense to include this position in the budget.

New Volunteer Coordinator Position (not budgeted)

Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would bring back a detailed report at the next meeting regarding this position and how he saw it working within the overall organization, as well as better numbers based on his recent interesting research with the City of Plymouth.

Councilmember McGehee stated that she would support the position if it was an overall volunteer position, which she envisioned as part of the Administration Function; and expressed her interest in seeing how Mr. Trudgeon put that together.

Councilmember Etten expressed his support of looking at this position as well in addition to how the position could be funded, not just what it would cost to do so.  Councilmember Etten spoke in support of having additional funding available for other budget choices and options that were still on hold, through use of creative financing to support the position and through reorganization of other functions.

Mayor Roe referenced staff's memo related to the use of reserves having gone down due to closer scrutiny, with the use of reserves projected for 2014 reduced from $430,000 to $317,000.  Mayor Roe opined that this could be a way to fund the first year of the position; but cautioned that the City Council may need to reconsider that option after 2014 to avoid continued use of reserves.

Councilmember Laliberte noted that this position request originated with the Parks & Recreation Commission; but clarified that it was her understanding that this position would serve the entire community and not just that specific department.

Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that this was the discussion being held at the staff level to-date.

2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Plan

Mayor Roe noted that the portion being brought forward by staff was based on initial City Council discussions, based on  reinstatement of Local Government Aid (LGA) funding, as amended in detail in the RCA.

Councilmember McGehee opined that, in order for the CIP to be fully sustainable by 2020, it would require $1.4 million annually; and noted that this fell far short of that goal for funding $225,000 annually, an ongoing issue that had created the current situation, and the need to use debt service to address infrastructure issues.  At a very minimum, Councilmember McGehee opined that funding for 2014 should be consistent with those decisions made just two years ago and not immediately make cuts to the CIP.

Councilmember Etten agreed that this was an important priority, and in capping the levy and taking $50,000 or more from another source, this was a one-time compromise and may represent a short-term levy investment.  Councilmember Etten noted that this may put the CIP further in arrears, but may be necessary to get the levy where it needed to be in 2014.

Mayor Roe noted that the thought had been to look in 2015 to get the levy funding back in; thus only losing one year of the twenty year CIP and not selling the City too short;  an approach that he could support for 2014.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that additional discussion was scheduled for next week's meeting, including the Volunteer Coordinator Position.

Mr. Miller noted that the Utility Rates were currently slated for the November 18, 2013 meeting; and represented the only lingering big ticket item that hadn't been discussed at length yet.

If the City Council had additional specific topics for discussion, Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Miller asked that they let staff know.

At the request of Mr. Trudgeon as to whether the City Council wanted to discuss COLA next week, Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council may not be prepared to do that quite that soon.

19.         Business Items (Action Items)

a.            Consider Policy on Annual Staff Cost of Living Adjustments

Mayor Roe noted that staff was presenting proposed policy language for City Council consideration based on the City Council's direction, specifically as detailed in lines 7 - 10 of the RCA dated October 21, 2013.  Mayor Roe clarified that this was not intended as a hard and fast rule that is considered automatic, but to be used during budget discussions, and still at the discretion of the City Council with flexibility built in.  If the Council preferred to have a more formal policy, Mayor Roe suggested that it be done in ordinance format.

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of an annual look back to determine future budget cycles; however, he admitted that he struggled with the tool, and whether the CPI or BLS Employment Cost index was the best tool, an answer he didn't yet have.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he would like to do further research and was not ready to say if this is the policy needed to move forward.

Councilmember Laliberte suggested annual reviews of more than one index to be used that were measurable and solid enough to rely on across the state and what could be done.

Councilmember Willmus opined that it may also be important to address timing in the budget calendar, further roping that this seems to come before the City Council on a recurring basis; and the policy maybe should spell out a timeframe that could still accommodate setting a preliminary not-to-exceed levy and annual number.  Councilmember Willmus noted that he was not sure when access was available for first half figures.

Mr. Miller responded that they were often not available until September 30^th of a given year.

Councilmember McGehee questioned if it would be acceptable for the policy to reference 2 indices: the Employment Cost Index for State and Municipal Employees as well as the CPI.

Finance Director Miller clarified that those two indices were two entirely different measures used for two distinct purposes, and not intended to determine wages.  Historically, Mr. Miller advised that the CPI, based on his observations, had remained a much closer approximation to other cities that with which the City competed for employee pools; but also noted that he was unaware of another City that used an employment cost index.  Mr. Miller admitted that there may be some out there who do so, but he was not aware of use of the index which was intended for measuring something other than salaries.

Mayor Roe opined that, if the broader overall Employment Cost Index was considered, based on his review of it over the last 10-11 years, it consistently tracked almost identically with the CPI.

Councilmember Willmus opined that it will also be broken into different components; and concurred with Mayor Roe that they track fairly close; however, he further opined that it should be something that was given a closer look.  Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he was hesitant tonight to make a determination on which direction to go.

At the request of Mayor Roe to clarify his hesitation, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was hesitant to make a decision to add an additional index or to approve the proposed policy, without further research.

Councilmember Etten advised that his thought in using the State and City Employee measurement was in considering public and private sector positions when competing for expertise from the broader market beyond other cities or government agencies (e.g. Information Technology positions).  Councilmember Etten questioned whether or not staying within only those indices that may trend lower, would put the City out of the market for those not necessarily giving thought to municipal employment at the time.  Councilmember Etten opined that he didn't want to remove the City from the broader market in recruiting and retaining other candidates outside the public sector.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Etten, opining that his was an excellent point; and reiterated that since this had been Councilmember Willmus' suggestion in the first place, it served to eliminate any contentious perceptions from the Compensation Study, and provided a more accurate and straightforward approach.  If done mid-year, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would provide an even more accurate number for the preliminary budget, and would be a workable, nonjudgmental way to proceed.

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the comments of Mr. Miller that neither indices is typically used for this purpose; opining that this was her rationale in having both sets of data available for discussion versus basing policy on only one.

Mayor Roe questioned the interest in having a policy that took them both into consideration or only mentioning one.

Councilmember Laliberte opined that both could be mentioned with merit, while not ruling out other indices that may weigh in.  Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was not seeking a position to use the lesser number, as that would be disingenuous; however, she liked the idea for a timing factor rather than talking about it throughout the year.

Mayor Roe opined that the mid-year idea provided a clear and accurate goal.

Councilmember Willmus opined that the ECI index would be helpful for reference, but note that the CPI was published monthly, and not necessarily only Minneapolis data, but a broad index that tracked closely; and suggested incorporating both into the proposed policy.

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approving Compensation Policy language as recommended by staff and detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013 as follows: "Annually, during budget discussions, the City will provide any cost of living wage adjustments as deemed necessary by utilizing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) site for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of urban consumers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for the previous fiscal year as the basis, rounding that percentage to the nearest tenth of a percent."

Councilmember McGehee opined that left open the option for individuals to bring any other indices into the discussion by reference.

Amendment

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amending the motion to incorporate inclusion of the Employment Cost Index for State and Government Workers.

Mayor Roe offered his support of the motion to amend.

Councilmember Etten stated that he could support the amendment, as long as those indices were guiding pieces and not the ultimate determination of COLA increases, even though he preferred a cleaner policy as originally moved.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

Amendment to the Amended Motion

Roe moved, Willmus seconded, an amendment to the amended motion to delete the sentence on line 10 of the RCA that the percentage be rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.

Roll Call (Amendment to the Amended Motion)

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe. 

                        Nays: Laliberte.

Roll Call (Original Motion as amended twice)

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

                        Nays: None.

b.            Consider Approval of Rental Licensing Ordinance

As noted, action on this item was taken immediately following the Public Hearing.

c.            Consider Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional use Request to Allow Dog Daycare/Boarding Facility - Woof Room at 2025 Rice Street

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated October 21, 2013.  Mr. Paschke noted that there were two aspects for consideration and approval or denial: the Zoning Text Amendment as highlighted in Attachment F.

Zoning Text Amendment

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff beyond the Planning Commission meeting minutes included in the materials (Attachments D and E) included rationale in developing reasonable 100' area; physical location of the dog run on the property and public notice as per City requirements of 500' and State Statue requirements of 350';

Mr. Paschke noted that a fence was not going to suffice in an effort to stop or contain barking to any great degree.

Councilmember Willmus opined that he was not sure if 100' was a reasonable area or not; or whether it was sufficient to ensure reasonable, quiet enjoyment of residential properties adjacent to such a use, opining that he would prefer a 300' minimum.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that the City has no record of ever receiving any complaints with this existing facility at their current location adjacent to numerous residential properties.

Mr. Paschke clarified, at the request of Councilmember McGehee that dogs were not out all the time, and referenced applicant response to the Planning Commission meeting minutes addressing their business model in dealing with problem pets.  Mr. Paschke opined that the proposed revisions served as a way to support this type of use, with only one in town to-date; and allowing the City to manage expectations.  Mr. Paschke suggested other uses that would have as much or more noise than this use that was also permitted uses in this District.  Mr. Paschke further noted the ability to address any issues through the City's nuisance code or through the Conditional Use conditions on the property, with other areas of code still applying to this use with or without the residential property owner support within the 100' area.

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the amendments; noting that dogs from a larger distance were often heard from one residential to another residential property; and with the limited time exposure for the dogs being outdoors, it prevented the City and staff from becoming over-involved in the process.

Conditional Use (CU)

Councilmember Willmus expressed another concern with the CU and it running with the land and ramifications should these owners decide to move their business elsewhere; or if a neighbor providing written authorization moved with a property sold for residential use or another development and those owners not aware of encumbrances in place.

Mr. Paschke noted that he didn't see this happening, as a CU often had numerous conditions running with the property.

Mayor Roe questioned if and how the CU would run, if continuously or when a situation occurred within that 100' that didn't support the CU and automatically voiding the CU.

Mr. Paschke advised that the CU would run with the land unless removed by the City for cause, and provided several examples where the City might revoke the CU.

City Attorney Gaughan concurred with staff's interpretation; and provided additional examples; opining that an existing or new neighbor revoking their support for whatever reason would be unfair to applicant if their CU could be revoked due to lack of that support.  If the City chose to amend their code to require annual written support from property owners, Mr. Gaughan advised that then they could do so, but opined that neighborhood cohesiveness should not be up to whims of future property owners.

Mr. Paschke reiterated that code allows for this use as a CU, and an Interim Use (IU) would only apply when deviating dramatically from the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance if a use was not allowed in that specific district.  However, Mr. Paschke noted that this is a permitted and conditional use with a CU.

Mayor Roe, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, clarified that a permitted use if permitted by a CU was appropriate in this situation versus a more discretionary IU.

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke provided a more detailed explanation of staff's determination as referenced in the Planning Commission meeting minutes, in using this process versus a Variance request.

Mr. Paschke noted that the CU was supported by the Planning Commission with the three conditions tied to the resolution of support.

At the observation of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there was one condition at the discretion of the City Council, Item 7.2.c (page 5 of the RCA) related to pet waste that was not incorporated in the proposed resolution.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke addressed triggers to be used by assembling a record of violations and unwillingness of an applicant in not meeting code requirements and conditions of the CU approval that would follow due process to address code violations and subsequent revocation of the CU.

Mayor Roe noted that this would fall under the general condition of protecting and not harming public safety.

City Attorney Gaughan noted that code violations are misdemeanors under City Code, and repeat violations are subject to a criminal citation, a situation that quite often tended to resolve issues rather quickly.

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1457 (Attachment F) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected ZONING TEXT CHANGE pertaining to Conflicting Fence Regulations and Requirements for Animal Boarding and Daycare Facilities in Chapters 1009 (Procedures) and 1011 (Property Performance Standards) of Title 10 "Zoning Code" of the Roseville City Code including inserting, "at the time of application" into the requirement for approval of all property owners within a 100-foot distance."

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11100 (Attachment G) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Outdoor Component of an Animal Boarding and Daycare Facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2025 Rice Street (PF13-015);" amended to include Condition 7.2.c in the staff report (page 5) as a fourth condition: "All affected indoor flooring areas shall be promptly cleaned up using appropriate cleaning/disinfecting products following pet waste "accidents."

Councilmember Willmus provided his rationale in reinstating the condition to address potential future owners.

Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.

Mayor Roe wished the co-owners of the business, present in tonight's audience, good luck in their new location.

20.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

21.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

By consensus, a determination on whether or not to hold the November 25, 2013 regular meeting remained pending until a future meeting.

22.         Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings

23.         Adjourn

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:36 p.m.

                                                Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.