View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

February 10, 2014


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order a meeting of the Roseville City Council at approximately 6:00 p.m.  6:55 p.m. and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.



Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning to closed session for the purposes of discussing labor relations strategies in accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 13D.03, specifically concerning the recently certified part-time firefighter bargaining unit and the Local 49ers.


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in closed session at approximately 6:05 p.m. In addition to the members of the City Council, Interim City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan, Fire Chief Tim O?Neill, and Human Resources Manager Dona Bacon were in attendance.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning the Closed Session and returning to Open Session at approximately 6:50 p.m.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


1.         Mayor Roe reconvened the City Council in Open Session at 6:55 p.m.


2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe noted the request of staff for the addition of an additional item under the Consent Agenda entitled ?Approve Addition to Council Meeting Calendar Allowing a Special Meeting on February 20, 2014;? as detailed in the bench handout subsequently added as Consent Item 7.j.


Discussion ensued with Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus recommending moving Commission discussions (Item 9.a under ?General Ordinances for Adoption,? to Item 14.e (Business Items ? Presentations/Discussions); supported by consensus of the body.


Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.i entitled ?Consider Approving IT Shared Service Agreement with the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council,? for questions and discussion.


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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Andrew Henderson, Little Canada, MN Resident

Mr. Henderson brought a recent issue he?d experienced with the Roseville Police Department to the City Council?s attention related to a citation he?d received and the City?s policy on use of dash cams in squad cars.  Mr. Henderson provided a history of his public information request for information on the City of Roseville?s Policy on use of this technology; and asked that the City Council consider revising or updating their current policy.  Mr. Henderson provided various examples of policies from other jurisdictions to City Manager Trudgeon to disseminate to the City Council at a future date. Staff will follow up with the council regarding this matter.


4.         Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report


a.            Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair

Acting Housing and Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey announced the upcoming annual Home and Garden Living Smarter Fair on Saturday, 2/15/14 at Fairview Community Center, and encouraged the public?s attendance.


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

            Mayor Roe announced vacancies in the City Council?s various advisory commissions and encouraged citizens to apply.  Mayor Roe noted that the deadline for applications was March 5, with interviews anticipated the week of March 10, and subsequent appointment at the March 24, 2014 City Council meeting.  Mayor Roe noted several new Commissions being formed: the Community Engagement and Finance Commissions, as well as an expansion of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission by another two members, along with vacancies on other standing Commissions.


Mayor Roe announced an opportunity for students in the ten (10) member city consortium of the North Suburban Communications Commission to participate in that body?s scholarship program, with an application deadline of April 11, 2014.  Mayor Roe noted that more information was available at their website: or by calling 651/792-7515.


On behalf of the City Council and community, Councilmember Etten recognized the recent tremendous and significant donation from the Malarkey Family of Roseville to the Central park Foundation in the amount of $100,000; and thanked them for their continued support for the City?s Parks and Recreation Programs, and specifically this generous donation.


6.         Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight?s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve Minutes of January 27, 2014 Meeting

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the January 27, 2014 Meeting Minutes as amended.


·         Page 8, Lines 28 - 29 (Willmus)

Correct to read:  ?Regarding Item A, Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in the group function[ing equally] more on short-term issues [but also] versus long-term planning.?


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


72633 ? 72765





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits

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



Type of License

Misty Meier; Optimal Wellness Solutions

2233 N Hamline Avenue

Massage Therapist

Brittney Sarchet; Massage Xcape

1767 Lexington Avenue N

Massage Therapist


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2014 Apportionment of Assessments

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11129 (Attachment A) entitled, ?Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2014.?

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Set a Public Hearing on February 24, 2014, for Lake Owasso Water Ski Course and Jump

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, establishing a Public Hearing for the City Council meeting of February 24, 2014, to provide for public comment regarding placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso for the 2014 season.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11130 (Attachment A) entitled, ?Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2014 or Beyond.?


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Approve Local 49ers Contract

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the 2014 ? 2015 collective bargaining agreement with the IUOE Local 49 as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 10, 2014; and direct staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Cancel Metro HRA Contract for Section 8 Inspections

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City would still receive and would verify receipt of proof of inspection reports from the Metro HRA of the current thirteen single-family homes and multi-family apartment units in the City under Section 8 categories.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if any specific problems were identified, the City would work with the Metro HRA to resolve them, as there was a good working relationship between the two groups.  Councilmember Laliberte requested copies of single-family home inspections, which was duly noted by Mr. Trudgeon for future reference.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, directing Community Development Department staff to provide ninety (90) day written notice to the Metropolitan Council?s Section 8 Assistance Program, in accordance with the terms outlined in the agreement between the City of Roseville and the Metropolitan Council, to terminate the Contract for Housing Services and no longer provide inspection services effective June 1, 2014 (approximately 110 day notice).


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Approve Roseville HRA Contract Service Agreements

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the City Manager to enter into contracts with the Roseville HRA for the City to provide fiscal services (Attachment A), Administrative staff support (Attachment B), and a Housing Program Manager for the HRA (Attachment C) for the 2014 year, and to charge the HRA $147,162.00 for those services.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


J.         Approving Addition to Council Meeting Calendar Allowing a special Meeting on February 20, 2014

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approving the addition of February 20, 2014, to the 2014 City Council Meeting Calendar for a Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


i.             Consider Approving IT Shared Service Agreement with the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated February 10, 2014, and draft agreement (Attachment A).  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this was a special project, and any additional time that may be required above and beyond the contract would be charged at an additional rate.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, while it appears that this contract is for a unique situation to install specific equipment, the contract appeared to be ongoing in nature, and questioned that rationale.


At the request of City Manager Trudgeon, Finance Director Chris Miller advised that the Anoka County JLEC had requested that the contract be open-ended.  Mr. Miller noted that, while the project was foreseen to take place over the next eighteen months, the JLEC sought to ensure that the City of Roseville?s IT staff would be available to them to assist in design and full deployment of their system.


Councilmember Willmus questioned why a two-year timeframe had not been specified in the contract using that same rationale.


Mr. Miller concurred that this was possible, but the City was simply following the request of the JLEC to ensure completion of the project from start to finish.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that the contract contained a 90-day termination clause for their party; and even though it appeared to be an open-ended contract, the City of Roseville could terminate their participation upon giving that notice.


Councilmember Etten noted that this contract was somewhat different from other agreements for IT services, based on the specific nature of certain equipment.  Recognizing that the City?s IT staff was already stretched and working well over typical full-time hours, Councilmember Etten questioned how this additional work would fit into this already tight schedule over this eighteen month period.


Mr. Miller advised that, since it was for a limited time period, IT staff anticipated being able to fit the work in several hours each day with various staff covering it over an anticipated three month period, and not too concerned that it become a major burden to accomplish.   Mr. Miller further noted that, one of the reasons the City?s IT department was taking on this task was that, whether it liked it or not, they were involved as they were supporting a half-dozen cities in Anoka County that would be tied into this system.  Mr. Miller clarified that the driving force behind this proposal was to ensure installation and operation of the equipment the way it will best serve the overall network and avoid future difficulties.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the JLEC was taking action on this agreement at their meeting this week as well; and by adding a specific time frame for termination, he didn?t see any major problem with that body in their approval.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he was more comfortable with a specific termination date at the onset of the agreement; and if it was necessary to continue the contract, it would then come back to the City Council for review and consideration of further extensions.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale in having the agreement come back before the City Council in two years, as long as the rates were adjustable and it would continue to work financially for the City.


Councilmember Willmus responded that it was not his understanding that this was intended to be an ongoing item, but with the contract drafted as it is currently, it could be; and he thought the contract should be returned to the City Council for a review before extending it beyond two years.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that the City had some exposure (e.g. Workers Compensation for employee travel, etc.).


Mayor Roe noted that the exposure for employees was no different whether for two days or two years; to which Councilmember McGehee concurred.


In Section 11.2 (Financial Terms and Payment Process), Councilmember Laliberte questioned the ?additional task orders? listed and lack of agreed-upon amount for those services if needed.


Mr. Miller responded that Attachment B included a sample task order; and how those services were structured would depend on which employees were assigned to the task.  Mr. Miller assured the City Council that those rates would cover costs for employee health care benefits and any overhead costs.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller advised that the rates for 2014 were proposed to remain static, and if the project went into the 2015 budget yet, those costs would be revised upward as applicable to cover actual costs.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to the termination clause for a date specific to terminate the contract by January 1, 2016.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an Information Technology Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A) with the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC) for the purpose of sharing a City of Roseville Network System Engineer employee; as amended to specify a contract termination date of January 1, 2016.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


13.      Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Approving Mayor?s Appointment to the HRA Board

Mayor Roe thanked Councilmembers Etten, Laliberte and McGehee for their interest in this position and for taking the time to submit applications; noting that they were all capable and well-qualified.


Mayor Roe advised that he had selected Councilmember Etten as his appointee for many different factors, including allowing for a longer appointment on the HRA Board.  Mayor Roe noted that he, and Councilmembers McGehee?s and Willmus?s Council terms were up at the end of 2014.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11131 (Attachment A) entitled, ?Resolution Approving Mayor?s Appointment of Councilmember Jason Etten to the term on the RHRA that runs concurrently to his/her term on the City Council.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Etten

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:36 p.m.


10.         Presentations


a.            CTV North Suburbs and North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC) Annual Update ? Executive Director Cor Wilson

Mayor Roe introduced NSCC Executive Director Cor Wilson as she provided a bench handout for her presentation,


Ms. Wilson reviewed the ?CTV North Suburbs 2013 Year in Review and Municipal Assistance Program ? Agency Connections in 2013.?  Ms. Wilson noted that it had been a busy year.


Ms. Wilson provided background information on the 2010 Comcast conversion to a digital system, affecting all cable channels except the Basic 1 Tier level of service, and confusion with equipment provision and whether or not customers were required to pay for that equipment, and subsequent failure by Comcast to provide a 30-day notice to customers of that charge, and actions taken by NSCC in addressing that situation.  Ms. Wilson reviewed the numerous customer complaints received due to this equipment issue; and formal rate structure orders filed as a result of that communication issue, and subsequent appeals of that order by Comcast to the FCC. 


Ms. Wilson further addressed the ongoing franchise renewal process and negotiations to-date; creating concerns for the future of the current services provided and proposals by Comcast.  Ms. Wilson advised that the Franchise Renewal Committee for CTV and NSCC consisted of three Commission members, one City Manager and NSCC staff.  Ms. Wilson advised that the documents in their entirety, as well as an Executive Summary, were available online at CTV; and noted that there would be an opportunity for the public to make comment at a Special hearing at which time Comcast would present their proposal and CTV?s response to that proposal.


Discussion included the extension of the franchise and action taken to do so by the City Council at the end of 2013; ongoing negotiations; confusion on impacts if any to customer rates; interpretation of federal laws and differences of opinion between the regulating authority and cable company in that interpretation; and potential impacts.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Wilson for her attendance and presentation.


11.         Public Hearings


12.         Budget Items


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Authorize Roseville Firefighter?s Relief Association to Approach the State Legislature for Special Legislation

Firefighter and President of the Relief Association Board Dave Breen summarized the request of the Relief Association to approach the State Legislature for legislation related to the membership of the Association, as detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2014.


in place of the Mayor At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Breen clarified that State Statutes only allow for up to one (1) retiree of the six (6) firefighter trustees on any relief association board, in addition to the ex-officio trustees consisting of the Mayor (or a councilmember if the association?s bylaws are amended), the City Manager and the Fire Chief. 


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval for the Roseville Firefighters Relief Association to approach the State Legislature for special legislation for the purpose of providing for retiree member representation on the Board of Trustees.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


14.         Business Items ? Presentations/Discussions


a.            Receive Public Input and Approve the Design and Construction of an Interim Pedestrian Pathway Along County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue

Two bench handouts, , were provided, consisting of e-mails to Public Works staff, respectively dated January 20, 2014 from Barbara Reid, 2180 Midland View Court N; and February 9, 2014 from Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, on behalf of SWARN.


City Engineer Marc Culver provided a presentation on the proposed interim pedestrian pathway along County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue; and provided a background of the proposed project and public input to-date, as detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2014.


Mr. Culver reviewed map locations, current and possible future jurisdiction of the roadway from Ramsey County to the City of Roseville, and neighborhood public meeting comments and staff responses (Attachments E and F) to-date.


Mr. Culver reviewed the interim/short-term pedestrian facilities proposed using and extending existing shoulder areas along the south side of County Road B with the goal to provide a pedestrian pathway allowing for approximately 2? of separation from general traffic lanes, with several option still under consideration (e.g. very wide shoulder stripe, a rumble strip, or a temporary use of tubular delineators).


Mr. Culver specifically addressed the intersection of Cleveland Avenue and County Road B; and concerns expressed by residents at a January 16, 2014 neighborhood meeting related to on-street parking for Fulham Street and Fairways Lane and homes impacted if that parking was eliminated as proposed for restricting parking through the entire length on the south side; potential areas of mitigation to address that parking situation, mailbox locations, and providing a safe pedestrian pathway.

Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the long-term plans for County Road B, with an anticipated remaining pavement life of approximately ten years at which time it would be slated for reconstruction, and if under the City?s jurisdiction at City expense.  Mr. Culver advised that, at that time, the City would meet and work with the neighborhood to design an appropriate, more traditional pedestrian facility, likely including a raised curb and gutter urban design, while also addressing drainage issues in the area.


Councilmember Willmus alerted staff to a typographical error in the RCA, misidentifying County Road B as County Road B-2, duly noted and corrected by Mr. Culver.  Councilmember Willmus further noted several communication items that didn?t make it into the packet; with City Manager Trudgeon advising that they had been provided as bench handouts on the dais for the City Council, with copies provided for the public as well.  Councilmember Willmus asked that, in the future, those items be included as part of the packet when available.


Regarding curb and gutter installation in the future, Councilmember Willmus questioned how far west on County Road B that would be extended.


Mr. Culver responded that he estimated approximately 100? to tie into where the pavement currently narrows to form additional lanes.


Regarding the segment of sidewalk proposed on the south side of County Road B, Councilmember Willmus asked if that was a result of talking with neighbors and their concerns with parking; with Mr. Culver responding affirmatively, that there would be an additional cost due to that accommodation.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that for that the total construction cost without sidewalk was estimated at $138,000, with an additional $25,000 identified for the sidewalk for a total of $163,000.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver advised that, while a pathway on the north side could still be considered, given right-of-way challenges and driveways on the north side, to construct the pedestrian pathway on the north side versus the south side would be much more challenging and expensive.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it made more sense to insert a piece of sidewalk that may prove more useful later on.


Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (SWARN)

Speaking on behalf of SWARN, Mr. Grefenberg recognized neighbors along County Road B, some in tonight?s audience, who have sought resolution to this issue for over thirty years, even before his residing in Roseville.  On behalf of that neighborhood, Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation to the Public Works/Engineering Department for taking steps to finally address this issue; and referenced the summary position statement sent to the City Council via staff over the weekend, encapsulating their February 1, 2014 meeting and endorsed by the SWARN Committee.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this issue has come a long way, and the neighborhood looked forward to continuing this collaborative relationship with the Public Works/Engineering Department.


As addressed in the written documents referenced by Mr. Grefenberg, he asked for further consideration for staff to thoroughly review the rumble strip option, negatives and positives of this application; and to consider an alternate for those 4-5 neighbors on the south side of County Road B who would lose their parking with this project as proposed.


Mr. Grefenberg thanked the City Council for following through on this issue; opining that this was an example of how civic engagement can work, with good will on all sides and using the expertise of professional staff.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed his personal thanks to those in tonight?s audience, and others involved throughout this process; and asked that the City Council approve the project as proposed.


Shirley Friberg, 2130 Fairways Lane

As part of this project, Ms.  Friberg suggested installation of a bench to accommodate an elderly neighbor of hers who frequently walks along Eustice to Corpus Christi Church; and later offered to pay for the bench?s installation if the cost was under $3,000, and to dedicate it to her neighbor.


Mayor Roe thanked the neighborhood for attending the meetings and being involved in the process to-date.


Councilmember Willmus also thanked the neighbors for being proactive on this, and for their patience over the decades; and especially for being alert of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission?s review of the Pathway Master Plan and advising them of their concerns in making this happen sooner rather than later, as well as helping the City Council in advocating for residents.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation in receiving feedback from neighbors; and opined that something was definitely overdue for the neighborhood, and offered his full support of the proposed project.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to prepare final plans and specifications, and advertise for bids, for the County Road B and Victoria sidewalk project as presented and detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2014; for installation of a pedestrian facility on the south side of County Road B including the proposed sidewalk section , and continued collaboration with neighbors as the process proceeds, including the best separation option (e.g. rumble strips and/or barriers).


Councilmember McGehee thanked neighbors for their extensive comments and attendance at various meetings; and offered her support for including a bench at the corner of County Road B and Cleveland Avenue, opining that those already installed around the City were well-used.


Councilmember Etten echoed his appreciation for the neighborhood?s advocacy and involvement in this process.


Mayor Roe graciously offered to accept Ms. Friberg?s donation of the cost of including a bench as part of the project; with City Manager Trudgeon duly noting, for the record, the request to include that amenity as part of the project.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Authorize Position Reclassifications in the Public Works Department

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the Department?s Strategic Plan as developed and presented previously to the City Council, including tonight?s recommended changes as part of that Plan to address upcoming retirements of current employees over the next few years.


As detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2014, Mr. Schwartz reviewed those reclassifications proposed at this time for the Utility Supervisor and Street Supervisor positions as Superintendent positions, and reclassification of a Street Maintenance Worker and a Utility Maintenance Worker position to Working Foreman positions.  Mr. Schwartz noted that, in the future, the Department would return with a recommendation to discuss fleet and facilities future reclassification to reduce those roles somewhat.


Under the current structure, Mr. Schwartz advised that the Department was stretched thin, especially in the management and operations areas; and opined that the City and its residents could be better served by trading superintendent level positions to superintendent and first line supervision (foreman) positions using current staff to help with day-to-day duties and field operations, allowing superintendents to take on additional responsibilities in planning, analysis, and implementation of programs and projects.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this proposed structure is similar to that currently used by the Parks & Recreation Department, as well many other cities using similar organizational structures to obtain better efficiencies.


Mr. Schwartz reviewed projected costs for this proposal for 2014 and 2015, estimated at $13,000 and $21,000 respectively based on the current pay plan; and current positions for the foreman position included in the current union contract.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz reviewed current and projected pay grades depending on scoring with the actual job responsibilities and description; and those positions anticipated to be filled internally, and those anticipated to be posted internally and externally.


City Manager Trudgeon concurred with Mr. Schwartz? presentation, opining that this organizational structure set the City up much better to provide services, and to provide succession and retention plans going forward, as well as providing employees with the ability to move up within the organization.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that some other departments may also be proposing reorganizational structures; and offered his full support of this proposal, and asked that the City Council consider it as well.  At the request of Mr. Trudgeon, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that dollars to implement the proposal would come from utility funds.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz anticipated that the future proposal for a shared vehicle maintenance mechanic, and a shared rights-of-way specialist ? both new positions - would probably come on line in 2015 or 2016, if approved by the City Council at that time.  Mr. Schwartz advised that there was currently a need for a mechanic; and with increased regulatory function mandates for rights-of-way, erosion control, development inspections, and Gopher State One Call locates, he anticipated those being consolidated into one position versus the current fragmented system.  Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was currently tracking the type of permit revenue currently being received, anticipating that those revenues and existing staff dollars could pay for those future positions.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the shared mechanic position would most likely be a levy dollar addition.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the City Manager to reclassify the Utility Supervisor and Street Supervisor positions as Superintendent positions; and reclassify a Street Maintenance Worker position to Working Foreman position, as detailed in the RCA dated February 10, 2014.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion, opining that it was important to have this in place for future succession opportunities within all departments.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this department had been very light in administrative management, and theirs was an important department, with excellent work done.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion; however, he cautioned that he was not sure if he could commit to future positions if requiring more levy dollars.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion; but expressed concern for other departments without the same funding mechanism in place.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion; clarifying those utility fees were also paid by residents and businesses, so any increases did impact them.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a good model and provided succession planning as well as allowing employees some upward mobility.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that the City should think about whether it wanted to have opportunities available for staff or not.


Mayor Roe noted that other adjustments could also be made to make those staff changes happen.


c.            Discuss Community Survey Content, Length, and Budget

City Manager Trudgeon distributed a bench handout from Councilmember McGehee, with suggested additions and revisions to the survey included in the meeting RCA packet dated February 10, 2014.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the City Council focus on the questions they wanted, and not get too much into the minutia of the survey at this point; noting that the survey would come to the City Council for their final approval. 


Communications Manager Garry Bowman reviewed the proposed questions as proposed by staff for those areas they wished to receive feedback from the public. 


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised that to the best of his knowledge the cost of the survey was based on the number of surveys done, not necessarily the length of the survey itself.


To facilitate discussion, Mayor Roe suggested using the draft survey materials provided in the packet for discussion (Attachment A), after which Councilmember McGehee?s handout and proposed revisions could be addressed.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that she had no problem with the proposed questions in the packet; and agreed with Mayor Roe?s recommendations in the packet on the solid waste question, opining that it was simply a different way to approach it, further opining that the survey company may have a better approach.  However, Councilmember McGehee suggested breaking out some of the items lumped together by Mayor Roe to receive feedback on each individual one.  As an example, Councilmember McGehee addressed bikeways, noting that the issue had come before the City Council previously during pathway discussions, and her need to know whether residents are looking at those pedestrian and bicycle amenities as part of the parks and recreation program or within neighborhoods or connecting neighborhoods to shopping, and other ways to delineate those preferences, as addressed in her handout.


Pathways/Trails/Sidewalks (#27)

Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in seeing how Roseville stacked up with other communities regarding this, such as with the City of Shoreview, which had asked a similar question in their survey.  Councilmember Willmus opined that that was a factor he?d find beneficial; and suggested more in-depth questions wouldn?t hurt, even though it would also be nice to maintain consistency with other community surveys and the City of Roseville?s.


Specific to Councilmember McGehee?s recommended language, Mayor Roe expressed his preference to use ?interconnection use? and ?recreational use? in defining those citizen preferences.


Councilmember McGehee responded that she often heard comments from residents that it was most important for them to get from Point A to Point B using pathways and trails; and if that was the case, she was unsure if the proposed language made that clear and sufficiently focused it.  Councilmember McGehee noted that bike paths are a big deal, and she wanted them to be safe and useful; and not being a bike commuter herself, expressed her interest in hearing from users whether on-street bike lanes were as safe as off-street facilities.


Mayor Roe opined that the responses may be different from recreational versus commuter bikers.


Councilmember Etten clarified that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process and related survey had found that the big thing residents wanted was an interconnection within the City as well as loops within the parks.  Councilmember Etten opined that this question was vitally important to sort out where best to put those dollars, with that framework perhaps targeting some dollars.  Councilmember Etten opined that the four distinct questions or areas proposed in Councilmember McGehee?s draft may create more confusion.


Mayor Roe concurred, opining that such detail in another subsequent survey is not helpful; and sought consensus to keeping the question more simplistic and focused.


Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in keeping it simple, with no more than a two-part option. 


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the recommendation of Councilmember Etten, opining that it would obtain the information she was looking for.


Councilmember Willmus, attempting to reduce the number of questions and data sought, noted that those specific questions had already been addressed on a fairly broad scientific survey and already available through the Parks & Recreation Master Plan survey recently completed.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that the data obtained from that survey be referenced to make sure it wasn?t a repeat in this survey.


Mayor Roe concurred that the previous Parks & Recreations Survey should be reviewed.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred that the questions should be kept basic and simple; and opined that it was more important that, when asking the questions, the City Council makes sure they follow through on the citizen wishes.


Logistical Questions about the Survey and Survey Vendor

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bowman advised that the survey company purchased phone numbers in batches, both random land lines and cell phone numbers for use in the survey process.


Organized Collection (#70, 71, 72)

Regarding Councilmember McGehee?s handout, Councilmember Willmus cautioned care pertaining to organized collection, opining that her proposed questions seemed too leading.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the question as stated inaccurate. 


Councilmember Willmus responded that the proposed question was similar to those asked in other communities.


Mayor Roe suggested, instead of debating the wording of the questions, the City Council focus on what information they wanted to find out.


Councilmember Willmus stated that his interest was in finding out whether or not people wanted organized collection; and opined that he didn?t find Councilmember McGehee?s proposed language proper to accomplish that goal.


Mayor Roe opined that the Shoreview survey question got more to the point; and questioned if the City Council wanted to find out if residents were aware of how the City arrived at the question and those options.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there is a third option not presented, that used by the City of Little Canada and other communities using organized collection by simply taking a percentage of customers for particular haulers and putting them in one area to allow those haulers to retain their customer base.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that she didn?t care about the finer details, but preferred not to identify a ?Roseville Plan,? or a ?Maplewood Plan,? and let the people know that.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the way the question was currently proposed, it did not accomplish that.


Councilmember Etten clarified that currently legislation dictated that the City first pursue the third option, and move on from there accordingly.


Related to Councilmember McGehee?s proposed questions, Councilmember Willmus stated that the data was not available to support their claim, and when addressing pollution, many of the trucks used by haulers used natural gas.


Mayor Roe clarified that the question needed to focus on whether or not residents wanted organized collection or some version of it or not, to have one or multiple haulers or the current system; and then to define some way to get to the surrounding issues and people?s attitudes about it.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the purpose of a survey is not to educate the public, but to ask a question on whether the current system to choose their own hauler is preferable to them or have the City do so for them.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her concern about the length of the survey, and with this question coming near the end, she was concerned if the answers needed would be available or if residents would have lost interest by then.


Mayor Roe opined that the follow-up could be provided to a simple question, allowing a free form response, also providing feedback as part of the process, and only adding one additional question.


Councilmember McGehee further clarified that there was no other purpose in her proposed language other than for her to effectively communicate with Mr. Bowman her preference, not to wordsmith the survey but to indicate what the question needed to reflect options beyond those in the initial proposed question.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the overarching issue for her was that there are options that put haulers out of business and other options that do not do so.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of Mayor Roe?s suggestion.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned the validity in the packet draft?s suggested follow-up question related to whether or not a city run organized collection system would save them money; and why it was necessary to get into that much detail in the survey.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that other communities may directly bill customers for organized collection on their utility bill, while others receive a direct bill from the hauler even if a city-wide collector.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that it was important for residents to clearly understand the billing process.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she would prefer to have a follow-up question on why they feel one way or the other.


Mayor Roe suggested leaving the follow-up question simply as ?Why??  Otherwise, Mayor Roe opined that he was hearing that the preference was to adjust the scenario on the question beyond just either the City designating one hauler or individuals keep their own choices; (?)

Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not agree to that suggestion.


Councilmember Etten concurred with Councilmember McGehee, opining that it left out the first scenario and jumped to a certain type of system to only one hauler; with nothing yet established from the City Council as a body that they agree with that option, but reflecting on what the first legal option actually is.


Mayor Roe, reading survey questions #70 and #71, noted that the language stated   ?garbage haulers (plural)?.  Mayor Roe further noted that question #71 changes that option, and language needed revision to be consistent with the previous question.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, under the model put forward by the legislature, the community would be broken into zones; and opined that the question may be misleading if people thought they could choose a specific hauler, which would not be the case with organized collection, with certain zones having certain haulers.  Councilmember Willmus opined that care was needed to not create confusion in the survey.


Mr. Bowman responded that he anticipated that this was not something new for the survey company.  He suggested the present scenario be used, asking them to wordsmith something based on tonight?s discussion, and bring it back for City Council approval.


At the top of the survey (Question #71), Councilmember Laliberte noted that it refers to residents choosing a hauler or  the City choosing from a hauler or haulers for the entire community; and suggested striking ?Do you feel strongly that way,? and inserting ?Why do you feel that way.?



Councilmember Etten suggested saying ?the City designates a hauler by City Zone or for the Entire City,? which would provide both options.  Councilmember Etten concurred with Councilmember Laliberte?s suggested follow-up question of ?Why?? versus the other follow-up question proposed.


With concurrence by the body, Councilmember McGehee suggested getting rid of the specific follow-up.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that staff, when talking to the survey company, ask them to consider moving some of the more vital questions toward the front end of the survey.


Mr. Bowman responded that this would absolutely be a suggestion, noting that this format was only a model and based similarly to the City of Shoreview?s survey; opining that this was not the only way to structure a survey.  Mr. Bowman suggested seeking the survey company?s recommendations based on best practices for those weightier questions.


Recycling Question (#72)

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman estimated that when this survey goes out, the newly implemented recycling program would have been in place for one to one and one-half months, with the first pick-up scheduled for February 17, 2014.


Based on that response, Councilmember Willmus questioned if this question was what was needed.


Mayor Roe recognized that results may be skewed but noted the need, if this question and benchmark was preferred in future surveys, that it be retained to avoid losing it in future survey questions when the data would be more important.


Councilmember McGehee suggested putting in a delineator, such as past and present system, recognizing that the new program had just started, but seeking feedback on the overall experience.


Mr. Bowman suggested that goal could be achieved by simply striking the word ?current,? from the question.  Mr. Bowman advised that staff?s intent in including the question was to determine resident satisfaction with Eureka Recycling.


Under those circumstances, Councilmember Etten suggested the question be rated similar to other rating questions in the survey.


Mr. Bowman noted that suggestion, and advised he would ask the survey company for their input as well.

Mayor Roe  concurred that specific ratings and rankings would provide more consistency unless free form answers were desired.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bowman suggested that the survey company be asked for their input on how best to rank questions.


Communication Performance (Questions #74 and 75)

Regarding the forms of communication, Councilmember Etten suggested including a list of options in Question #74, and then start Question #75 with, ?Considering those options, how would you prefer to receive your communications??? Councilmember Etten opined that then the options wouldn?t? need to be relisted, but the response would relate to the list already created for them in the first question.


Work/Performance of the Mayor and City Council (Questions #46, 47)

Councilmember Etten suggested that this question be eliminated; opining that he didn?t know if people felt strongly about that, and he was much more interested in their response to Question #47 related to performance, questioning the goal of asking Question #46.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of eliminating #46 to shorten the survey; with Mayor Roe concurring to drop #46.


Which Park Used Most Frequently (Questions #17 ? 27)

Councilmember Etten advised that he had several questions he would send to Mr. Bowman to bring up regarding the order of questions.  Councilmember Etten advised that Question #18, as an example, was unnecessary since a specific list broken down by percentages was available from the survey done three years ago, in addition to other similar questions; and questioned the need to ask them again.  Councilmember Etten suggested those redundant questions could be cut; with the remainder of the body concurring with their elimination.


Community Aspects/Quality of Life (Questions 13, 14)

With concurrence of the body, Councilmember Etten suggested those questions be combined as they essentially got to the same feature.


Mayor Roe concurred that this made sense.


Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Etten on Questions #17 ? 27 that they should be reviewed to avoid duplication of responses already received from the Parks & Recreation Survey completed three years ago.


Councilmember Etten advised that he had spoken to Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke about including those questions, and while Mr. Brokke did want to be able to track things over time, some may not be that helpful this early in the Parks & Recreation Renewal process.  Councilmember Etten advised that he would send some other ideas for order consideration to Mr. Bowman to bring to the survey company for their feedback.


Survey Length

Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn?t have any issues with a longer survey it got at the questions needing to be asked; and wasn?t worried about having a lack of responses, as the company guaranteed a certain number of responses.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that combining some things was prudent, and by the time the survey company was done with their formatting, it may be in the target range anyway.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her support of asking sufficient questions to get the information that is most useful.


Councilmember Etten opined that information was important, but within reason, and questioned how many people would need to be contacted, and how that may affect the demographic numbers at the end count with willing respondents. 


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bowman responded that the number of proposed questions was already over the contracted number in the proposal, but by the time further edits and combinations were done, he anticipated they may only be over by ten questions.


Mayor Roe suggested splitting the difference or finding other trade offs in negotiations with the survey firm, with consideration given to quantity and changes, and the margin of error.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in keeping the survey no less than 400 responses.


Mayor Roe noted that the original proposal from the survey company had more people but fewer questions.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she wanted the survey results to be as statistically significant as reasonably possible and if that meant an extra cost to round out the final questions, she was fine with that.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the larger the random sample the better; and suggested putting this to their organization asking them to merge and do some other work in organizing it, seeking to get to eighty questions as they deem the most property process as they reorder it, and then to bring it back to the City Council.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that she preferred tighter questions and a larger random sampling.


Councilmember Etten expressed interest in staying as close to eighty questions as possible, opining that with the elimination of some of the draft questions discussed tonight, it may be suitable.  However, Councilmember Etten further opined that the most significant question is, if the survey did range in the 90-95 question range, what would that mean to the questions asked and the information received.


Councilmember McGehee suggested the company return with a tight survey, and then provide an option with those estimated fourteen (14) additional questions added back in.


Mayor Roe opined that this seemed to be a reasonable approach.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred, opining that then the City Council could decide if they were willing to pay for those extra questions.


Public Comment

Kathy Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue

Ms. Klink reminded Councilmembers of another question to add that she had previously mentioned to them, a determination of not just demographics, but the ethnicity of the respondents.  Ms. Klink opined that this may be as helpful to know as the age(s) of respondents for the same reason.


Mayor Roe duly noted that request, and staff was so directed by consensus.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, consideration of Item 14.e entitled, ?Discuss Redevelopment of the Dorso Property, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance? at this time.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Consider Drafting a Request for Proposals for Marketing and Branding Agency to Lead a Citywide Branding Campaign and to Form a Branding Subcommittee to Guide the Branding Process

Due to time constraints, Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, TABLING this item to a date uncertain.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.



e.            Discuss Redevelopment of the Dorso Property, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance

City Manager Trudgeon distributed two bench handouts at this time, consisting of a concept plan for the project and a draft resolution of support. 


City Manager Patrick Trudgeon summarized the request for TIF assistance to facilitate development of the former Dorso property, located at 2814 Cleveland Avenue and former home of American Semi, for development of a 115,000 square foot, two story work headquarters for Colliers International, Inc. (CSI) world headquarters for a medical device manufacturer.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the project is still in preliminary stages, and would still require significant due diligence; however, staff was seeking feedback from the City Council on whether or not they would consider potential TIF assistance for the project in TIF District No. 17, including site clean-up (estimated at $1 million) and to address the remaining financial gap (estimated at approximately $3 million) to facilitate the project.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that financial assistance would be predicated on the firm?s occupation of the building for a minimum number of years; and as part of the financial package, consideration would be given to allotment of Sewer Access Credits (SEC) for the development, as outlined in the draft resolution.  Mr. Trudgeon further noted that consideration would be given to the City?s participation in any federal, state, county or Metropolitan Council grants, and a pledge by the City that review of the firm?s application would be completed in a timely manner.


Councilmember Willmus opined that this is the type of use everyone would like to see in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and expressed his excitement about the opportunity to make something work and his hope that CSI can call Roseville home in the not too distant future.  Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for staff tying the City?s financial support to the firm?s commitment to staying in the community, an important aspect for him.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that this was a great opportunity and he?d like to see it happen.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approved adoption of Resolution No. 11132 (bench handout) entitled ?Resolution Supporting the Provision of Financial Assistance to a Property in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.?


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus, noting that the first time this proposed project had been discussed, she had also supported exactly this kind of project for use of TIF assistance.  Councilmember Laliberte also liked the idea of tying a time component of fifteen years to the financial assistance; noting that the goal was not only for the firm to move into the community, but also to become a part of the broader community, a goal she was fully supportive of and hoped to see move forward.


Public Comment

Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephens Street

Ms. Dushin questioned the type of medical device to be manufactured; and whether it would be held to minimum standards; and whether it would involve any major chemicals.


Mr. Trudgeon responded that the mechanical device was related to the cardiovascular system; and would be under FDA regulations and monitoring.


Mayor Roe responded that, as with any business in that location, it would also be strictly regulated by the MPCA; and as part of the development the site would be cleaned up and have much better conditions at the end of the day that currently realized.


Mayor Roe concurred with previous comments of Councilmembers, that this is exactly what the City is looking for in development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and would be a great addition to the community.  Mayor Roe noted the unique amenities offered in Roseville, with hotels, great restaurants, shopping and freeway access.  Mayor Roe opined that he couldn?t imagine a business wanting to locate anywhere else.


                                          Roll Call

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

                  Nays: None.


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Consider Adopting Commission Ordinances

Given time constraints, Mayor Roe suggested that the discussion focus on only the two new ordinances: Establishing a Finance Commission and Establishing a Community Engagement Commission.


For ease of discussion, Mayor Roe suggesting using the multi-color copy provided by Councilmember Laliberte, incorporating the original language from the January 27, 2014 meeting, staff changes since that meeting, and recommended changes from Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte since that meeting.


Finance Commission

Section 207.01 Establishment and Membership

Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was good to set the number of members with financial expertise at the inception of the Commission, suggesting a minimum of three members with that expertise.


Mayor Roe questioned if that remained the minimum proposal if the membership was at five versus seven members, a question that had been posed originally but not yet defined.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he was sticking with three members with financial expertise and a commission of seven members; proposing that the question was the definition of ?financial management experience,? whether professional or through some type of licensure.


Mayor Roe questioned if ?professional management? experience was comparable.


Councilmember Etten questioned whether a degree in Economics would qualify, even if not currently being used.


Councilmember Willmus stated that it would then narrow things down, and he would be amenable to those qualifications as well.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in adding the word ?Professional.?


Councilmember Etten questioned if adding that word would limit applicants; and expressed his interest in ?financial experience or a financial degree;:? and questioned whether it was possible to find three residents interested in being on a commission for 3-6 years who held a CPA license.  Councilmember Etten suggested it may cause problems in filling the positions if not recognizing other areas of expertise that may qualify them in other areas of economics.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the qualifications did not state ?CPA licensure.?


While recognizing that, Councilmember Etten noted that the list ended at ?CPA,? which may create a limited pool of candidates.


Mayor Roe noted that a future City Council may choose to do something totally different.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that if a specific number of applicants with that expertise was desired, the qualifications could simply state: ?financial/management background.


Mayor Roe questioned the consensus for leaving in professional language or not.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the blue language, specifying financial management experience.


Mayor Roe noted that this was the same as Councilmember Laliberte?s suggested language with the exception of ?background.?


Councilmember McGehee offered her support of Councilmember Laliberte?s version.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned if language should include ?experience,? or ?training.?


Mayor Roe, with consensus of the body, suggested eliminating ?professional? and adding ?experience or training.?


By consensus of the body, the membership of the Commission was set at seven members.


Section 207.03.  Meetings and Reports

Councilmember Willmus stated that it should require a minimum joint meeting with the City Council.


Mayor Roe suggested including the language as in the Parks and Recreation Commission to this ordinance and for all ordinances related to commissions: ?Commissions shall request a joint meeting with the City Council when necessary (taken from Section 203.06 of the Parks & Recreation Ordinance).


Councilmember Laliberte advised that as part of the feedback from Commission members, discussion included how they became aware of items coming before the City Council that were within their venue; and whether the onus to do so should rest with staff, or how the Chair or Vice Chair would be aware of and present at a City Council meeting when that discussion ensued.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to such a requirement, opining that it would make serving on the commissions much more onerous.


Councilmember Etten suggested that they be ?invited,? rather than ?required? to participate at such meetings.


Mayor Roe questioned if this was a requirement in ordinance language or simply a directive to staff.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that, typically, staff alerts them, and while an invitation wasn?t currently extended, it could be done in the future if so desired.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested that such an invitation be extended, opining that the current process was inconsistent, and that the goal was to achieve consistency among chairs and their responsibilities.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of tweaking that process at the staff level.


Mr. Trudgeon duly noted that goal.


Section 207.04.  Scope, Duties and Functions

Councilmember Laliberte noted that she added ?scope? to the ordinance heading, with some current ordinances including that and some not.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that she found it to help members understand their role and the City Council?s directive.  Councilmember Laliberte further noted that when she and Councilmember McGehee, serving on the Commission Subcommittee for the City Council, had surveyed commission members, they found some members not understanding their role.  By including that language in these new ordinances, and amending language in other ordinances, Councilmember Laliberte opined that they would better reflect the summary of the scope.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Laliberte?s goal; and advised that this was her rationale for her proposed language to ensure that the functions and duties remained broad enough and not so limiting to have to be rewritten with each new addition of commission members.


Mayor Roe accepted that rationale.  Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Laliberte, Etten, and Willmus concurred with the green language as proposed; with Councilmember McGehee stating that she didn?t care.


Regarding the ?Functions,? Councilmember Laliberte noted that the language was similar, but the list was somewhat different.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she felt that the budget process was important, with language as: ?including but not limited to.?


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had moved that specific language to a different item.


Consensus of the body was confirmed to go with the green language.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how many things needed to be listed; and expressed her preference to have just a few, with fewer words and fewer points.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he had no problem with various points; and further opined that Councilmember Laliberte?s language encapsulated his intent for this commission.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that her intent wasn?t to get the entire laundry list, but to categorize them into: policies, capital improvements, and budget items.  Related specifically to Item ?D,? Councilmember Laliberte opined that this involved communication, transparency and tools for the public.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that Item ?E? was in error and intended for a different ordinance; and should be stricken.


Items ?F, G, and H?

Councilmember McGehee questioned whether Item ?F? belonged in the Finance Commission ordinance; opining that the role belonged to the City Council, as it related to salary compensation and spending levels, opining that this was too specific, and not necessarily things a commission should be involved with annually.


Councilmember Etten concurred with both of those points, opining that he didn?t want a commission aiming for specific spending levels if their role was advisory, agreeing that the City Council was tasked with that role.  Councilmember Etten agreed that Item ?F? didn?t need to be part of their task, since they were already tasked with a lot of work, and Finance Director Miller would need to spend considerable time keeping people informed without adding this detail.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he had no problem with Councilmember Laliberte?s proposed language.


Councilmember Laliberte proposed to edit Item ?C? language as she had previously proposed (green type) as follows:

C.       ?Recommend budget goals, including but not limited to local tax rate and tax levy targets, management of enterprise funds, and spending levels[.? And striking ?including increases or reductions for both tax-supported and non-tax supported budgets.?]


The proposed revised language was approved by consensus.


Councilmember McGehee advocated striking language in Item ?F.?


Councilmember Laliberte provided her intent for including that language, noting that whenever staff presented the City Council with peer city comparisons, they were questioned on why a particular city or group of cities was used for that evaluation; and further noted that those peer cities were not necessarily always the same across the board.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that no one on the City Council seems to be willing to make recommendations on which cities should be used for peer comparisons.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that, if the City was going to compare itself to other cities for utility rates or anything regarding financial matters, they needed to seriously consider identifying those peer communities seriously at a future City Council Work session to make sure everyone was in agreement or to change the current process to provide a clear directive for staff.


City Manager Trudgeon questioned if the intent was to have peer communities across the board for comparison purposes, or to recognize the differences among those peer communities.


Councilmember Laliberte responded that there was a need to recognize the differences, but regarding financial matters, the City Council needed to settle on a group of cities and live with the results of those peer comparisons.


Mayor Roe noted that there appeared to be no majority for Item ?F? by the body at this time.


Mayor Roe opined that he was amenable to leaving Item ?G? in, but was willing to give up Item ?H? as it was implicit.


Councilmembers Willmus and Etten concurred with Mayor Roe.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that it had been stricken from the original.


In summary, Mayor Roe clarified that the green language remained for Item ?A,? had been modified as noted above for Item ?C,? Item ?B? remained as is; green language was to be used for Item ?D,? the original Item ?E? was stricken, and the new Item E (green print) was approved by consensus.


Councilmember McGehee sought more discussion on the new Item ?E,? opining that this was too detailed for the commission, and opined that the commission should be asked to make recommendations concerning the timeline for budgets and leave it at that.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of leaving it as simple as that, opining that the added language provide the commission the ability to get into more detail if they chose to do so as a group.


Councilmember McGehee opined that if it was left broad, the commission could do as they saw fit.


Councilmember Etten opined that the first line encapsulated the goal without needing any more specificity.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of keeping the language for receiving public input.


Councilmember Etten opined that this would be part of the process.


Mayor Roe, with consensus of the body, suggested language revision for new Item ?E? as follows: ?Review and recommend the annual timeline and process for creating City budgets;? and striking the remaining language.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded extending the meeting curfew to complete discussion of this agenda item, specific to the Finance and Community Engagement Commissions and ordinances establishing them, with no specific time limit.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Item G

Councilmember McGehee questioned how an external auditor was chosen; and questioned if this should be a task of the commission.


At the request of City Manager Trudgeon, Finance Director Miller advised that the auditor was typically appointed for three years, in accordance with the City Council?s standardized process for selected vendors under their Professional Service Contracts Policy; with final approval of those contracts also approved by the City Council.


Mayor Roe suggested this item remain (green type) as proposed except striking language referring to selection of the auditor, with consensus of the body.


Section 207.04: Scope, Duties and Functions

Finance Director Miller advised that he had concerns with the language ?shall? in the ?Duties and functions? statement, creating problems on many levels; and at the suggestion of Councilmember Laliberte, the language was revised to state ?may,? versus ?shall.?


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1461 entitled ?An Ordinance Adding Chapter 207: Finance Commission;? as amended and detailed during tonight?s discussion.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Community Engagement Commission

Section 203.06

By consensus, add language as referenced during the Finance Commission discussion, similar to that specific section in the Parks & Recreation Commission Ordinance.


208.04. Scope, Duties and Functions

Discussion ensued regarding elimination of the majority of the proposed green language, supported by Councilmembers McGehee and Etten.


Councilmember Laliberte explained that the inclusion of a definition of ?civic life,? had been taken from the Civic Engagement Task Force recommendations, the only place to her knowledge that the vision had been addressed.  Further, if the ?volunteering? portion of the statement is removed, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she would want it added elsewhere in the ordinance to define the intent.


Councilmember Etten opined that it still belonged in the scope, but not so specifically.


Councilmember McGehee opined that members of an advisory body to the City Council should be provided enough freedom to move and advise the City Council in ways not previously considered.


Mayor Roe opined that he could agree to pull it out of the first paragraph, as it was more legal in tone, but needed to be clarified elsewhere in the document.  Consensus was to remove ?volunteering? from the language, pending placement elsewhere in the document.


Councilmember Willmus opined that there were things in the paragraph that needed to be incorporated into the ordinance, whether in the Scope or not, as long as they were included elsewhere.


Mayor Roe questioned if the definition of ?civic life? was necessary, and while Councilmember Laliberte noted it stated ?may,? not ?shall? include but not be limited, there was still no concurrence by Mayor Roe or Councilmember McGehee.  Mayor Roe questioned if the ordinance should be used to define ?civic life.?


Final language for Section 208.04 is as follows:

?The City Council has created the Community Engagement Commission to serve in an advisory capacity regarding the effective and meaningful involvement of Roseville residents in their community.  The Commission shall make recommendations, review policies and suggest strategies that will help to improve City communication and increase a sense of community.?


Item A

Councilmember McGehee questioned why a definition was needed for ?public, private or non-political? groups since new groups may be forming all the time in Roseville; and the ordinance shouldn?t be so specific.


Councilmember Etten opined that he was fine with the original language proposed by staff in the new Item A to read: ?Connect and partner with neighborhood, community, educational, business, and social services groups and organizations.?


Final language approved by consensus is as follows:

Connect and partner with neighborhood, community, educational, business and social service groups and organizations; and review and recommend opportunities to collaborate.?


Item B

Councilmember Etten questioned the proposed language, opining that this commission would be actively doing things different than other advisory commissions, and questioned if they would be recommending strategies as noted, or actually be promoting them.


Item C

Councilmember Laliberte noted that she had combined later items from the original proposal in this item.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of that combination, opining that they were essentially doing the same things.


By consensus Item ?C? was approved in totality as suggested by Councilmember Laliberte (green type).


Items D, E, F, and J

By consensus, these items were removed in their entirety.


Item G

Councilmember McGehee argued that Item ?G? should not include all these things listed when those responsibilities already belonged with other departments.


Mayor Roe opined that Item ?G? could be eliminated altogether from his perspective.


By consensus, it was deleted in its entirety.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that it was not the intent of her proposed language to have the commission take over those other things, but to take advantage of the existing things they had already put in place for the purpose of education and engagement.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with that concept; however, she opined that it should be up to the commission, since there may be other ones.


Mayor Roe noted that the intent was covered in previous items, and the body affirmed their consensus to remove Item ?G.?


Items H and K

Councilmember Laliberte noted that these items had been removed or replaced elsewhere.


Item L

Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw no point to include Item ?L.?


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had no strong feeling, other than ensuring that the volunteering and visioning remained in the scope, there would be no need to address them elsewhere.  Councilmember Laliberte clarified that her purpose of originally suggesting including that language in the scope was to avoid these other details.


Councilmember Etten opined that ?volunteering? should be addressed more broadly in the scope.


Mayor Roe suggested bringing the notion of volunteering into Item ?B?, and recommended doing so.


Discussion included making the distinction that volunteering was not specific to civic governance (e.g. serving on a board versus serving in the community at large).


Mayor Roe suggested returning to the language of Item ?B? later in this discussion.


Item I

Councilmember McGehee opined that this language was too specific.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the staff language about using latest trends to engage; however, he noted that it may already be addressed more broadly in one of the other items.


Councilmember Etten suggested that the intent was that the commission be aware of and knowledgeable of those things, but to focus on best practices nationwide as part of their research and recommendations.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that some of that language had been repeated in the new suggestion on the last page; and if the consensus was to strike this item, it could still be addressed in those proposed new items.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that her intent with this section was to replace the training conference as originally recommended by staff and incorporate it into training already in place.


Mayor Roe questioned if training was desired, as he heard the community and staff, and thus his problem in making the distinction.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had struck the language after the last meeting; noting that it the City Council didn?t support annual training, the item could go away, as it was offered later on in the proposed Item 2 under tools.


By consensus, the body approved removal of Item ?I? in its entirety.


Item K

Councilmember McGehee opined that this item was too long; and if the point was to facilitate effective two-way communication with all residents, that should be the language.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this proposed language (green type) talked about a variety of languages and opined that if the commission reviewed it and found it important, they needed to define how many languages and how many people were affected before making a recommendation to the City Council.


Mayor Roe opined that the proposed green language on Item ?K? got rid of the language notion and provided broader direction, making it almost a new item.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that her intent was to make it about communication; and proposed adding ?understandable? before ?communication.


Mayor Roe noted that Item ?C? talked about that as well, and addressed the language issue; opining that this was a communication issue.


Councilmember Etten opined that other government organizations have translation tools on their websites, and further opined that getting specific about language was the key thing currently missing.


Mayor Roe noted that those residents unable to speak English were an under-represented group; and opined that the City Council had frequently talked about wanting to address hat.


Councilmember McGehee opined that ?understandable? wasn?t addressing that intent and didn?t get to the heart of other languages.

Councilmember Willmus opined that he was fine with stating specifically multiple languages as proposed by Councilmember McGehee (blue type).


By consensus, the body approved the following language for Item ?K:?

?Review and recommend ways to improve the City?s communication efforts, both printed and electronic, so as to facilitate effective two-way communication between the City and all its residents, businesses, community and neighborhood organizations, including making that information available in multiple languages.?

Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was setting the commission up for something they couldn?t deliver, if they made recommendations and those proved cost-prohibitive to print in multiple languages.


Councilmember Willmus opined that this didn?t stipulate that everything had to be printed.


Mayor Roe opined that he would prefer including language ?making communication available in multiple languages.?


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she still felt strongly about including ?accessible, understandable, and responsive to all? in the proposed language.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that just because something is printed doesn?t mean it?s available; and suggested there may be ways to disseminate the information in a better way.


Mayor Roe opined that ?facilitating communication? served that intent.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Mayor Roe; however, she opined that the need was also there to provide multiple languages on the website.


Mayor Roe noted that the City Council would make the ultimate decisions on that.


New Items

As noted, Item ?F? under the new items was included elsewhere and was stricken in its entirety.


New Item #1

Councilmember McGehee opined that another annual look back was not needed.


Councilmember Etten asked that staff include that as a starting point as other things could be recommended to come forward; and concurred that it should be included by reference as a foundational starting point, but was not necessary to include in the code.


With consensus of the body, Mayor Roe confirmed that the intent was that it be referenced, but not included in the code language.


New Item #2

Councilmember Laliberte reviewed her intent in this proposed item related to government efforts; with consensus of the body to leave the language as proposed.


Mayor Roe confirmed that New Items #1 and 4 were stricken, along with Item ?F.?



Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of including ?volunteering? in the scope.


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition of Councilmember McGehee?s recommendation.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of including it as a separate letter.


With no consensus apparent, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the opposition to include it in the scope.


Mayor Roe opined that he didn?t like defining civic life, as it had been removed already.


Councilmember Etten suggested language ?encouraging volunteers in civic activities??


Councilmember McGehee opined it should be included in Item ?B? to promote broad and diverse volunteerism and participation.



Further discussion ensued regarding volunteering with no apparent consensus.  Discussion included addressing the visioning process; possible addition of language to ?advise the City Council on the community visioning process? by including it as another lettered item.


By consensus, final language for Item ?B? is as follows:

?Recommend strategies and actively promote and encourage volunteerism and participation on advisory boards, task forces, commissions, and with other participatory civic activities, including volunteering.?


City Manager Trudgeon clarified that Item ?L? went away completely, confirmed by the body.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg

Having encouraged this step for almost five years, Mr. Grefenberg clarified that New Item #2 remained as shown, with Mayor Roe confirming that assumption.


Mr. Grefenberg opined that there was a major responsibility and role for the Community Engagement Commission to encourage effective and meaningful use of volunteers; and questioned where that was located in the proposed language as revised.  Mr. Grefenberg also spoke in support of adding language to ?actively promote? volunteering.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that, as a new commission direction was needed.


Mayor Roe opined that, with each of these new commissions, they would be meeting with the City Council initially upon their formation rather than waiting until next year to find out what they did wrong.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1462 entitled, ?An Ordinance Adding Chapter 208: Community Engagement Commission;? as amended with tonight?s discussion.


       Mayor Roe thanked those residents involved in recommending the        establishment of these commissions for their involvement to-date.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.         City Manager Future Agenda Review


11.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings



12.         Adjourn

Etten moved, Willmus seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:42 p.m.


                                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.