View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
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.
Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
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.
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.
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
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.
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Andrew Henderson, Little Canada, MN Resident
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
Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair
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
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.
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: CTVNorthSuburbs.org/nscc or by
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
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.
Approve Minutes of January 27, 2014 Meeting
McGehee seconded, approval of the January 27, 2014 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 8, Lines 28 - 29 (Willmus)
read: ?Regarding Item A, Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in the group
function[ing equally] more on short-term
issues [but also] versus long-term
Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
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
Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
72633 ? 72765
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
2233 N Hamline Avenue
Brittney Sarchet; Massage Xcape
1767 Lexington Avenue N
Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2014 Apportionment of Assessments
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11129 (Attachment A) entitled,
?Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments for the Year 2014.?
Set a Public Hearing on February 24, 2014, for Lake Owasso Water
Ski Course and Jump
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.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
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.?
Approve Local 49ers Contract
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
Cancel Metro HRA Contract for Section 8 Inspections
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.
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).
Approve Roseville HRA Contract Service Agreements
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
Approving Addition to Council Meeting Calendar Allowing a special Meeting
on February 20, 2014
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
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Consider Approving IT Shared Service Agreement with the Anoka
County Joint Law Enforcement Council
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.
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.
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
Willmus questioned why a two-year timeframe had not been specified in the
contract using that same rationale.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
Roe noted that the exposure for employees was no different whether for two days
or two years; to which Councilmember McGehee concurred.
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.
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.
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
moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to the termination clause for a date
specific to terminate the contract by January 1, 2016.
Etten; Laliberte; and Roe.
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,
13. Business Items
Consider Approving Mayor?s Appointment to the HRA Board
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.
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.
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
Willmus; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at approximately
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
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
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
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
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
thanked Ms. Wilson for her attendance and presentation.
Business Items (Action Items)
Authorize Roseville Firefighter?s Relief Association to Approach
the State Legislature for Special Legislation
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.
Business Items ? Presentations/Discussions
Receive Public Input and Approve the Design and Construction of
an Interim Pedestrian Pathway Along County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue
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
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
and gutter installation in the future, Councilmember Willmus questioned how far
west on County Road B that would be extended.
responded that he estimated approximately 100? to tie into where the pavement
currently narrows to form additional lanes.
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.
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (SWARN)
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.
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.
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.
thanked the neighborhood for attending the meetings and being involved in the
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.
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).
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.
Etten echoed his appreciation for the neighborhood?s advocacy and involvement
in this process.
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.
Authorize Position Reclassifications in the Public Works
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the shared
mechanic position would most likely be a levy dollar addition.
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.
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
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.
Laliberte spoke in support of the motion; but expressed concern for other
departments without the same funding mechanism in place.
Roe spoke in support of the motion; clarifying those utility fees were also
paid by residents and businesses, so any increases did impact them.
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.
Discuss Community Survey Content, Length, and Budget
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.
Manager Garry Bowman reviewed the proposed questions as proposed by staff for
those areas they wished to receive feedback from the public.
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.
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.
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.
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.
to Councilmember McGehee?s recommended language, Mayor Roe expressed his
preference to use ?interconnection use? and ?recreational use? in defining
those citizen preferences.
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.
Roe opined that the responses may be different from recreational versus
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.
Roe concurred, opining that such detail in another subsequent survey is not
helpful; and sought consensus to keeping the question more simplistic and focused.
Etten expressed his interest in keeping it simple, with no more than a two-part
Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten.
McGehee agreed with the recommendation of Councilmember Etten, opining that it
would obtain the information she was looking for.
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.
Roe concurred that the previous Parks & Recreations Survey should be reviewed.
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.
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.
Collection (#70, 71, 72)
Councilmember McGehee?s handout, Councilmember Willmus cautioned care
pertaining to organized collection, opining that her proposed questions seemed too
McGehee stated that she found the question as stated inaccurate.
Willmus responded that the proposed question was similar to those asked in
Roe suggested, instead of debating the wording of the questions, the City
Council focus on what information they wanted to find out.
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.
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.
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.
Etten clarified that currently legislation dictated that the City first pursue
the third option, and move on from there accordingly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Willmus spoke in support of Mayor Roe?s suggestion.
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
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.
Laliberte opined that she would prefer to have a follow-up question on why they
feel one way or the other.
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; (?)
McGehee stated that she would not agree to that suggestion.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.?
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.
concurrence by the body, Councilmember McGehee suggested getting rid of the
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
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.
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.
on that response, Councilmember Willmus questioned if this question was what
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.
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
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.
those circumstances, Councilmember Etten suggested the question be rated similar
to other rating questions in the survey.
Bowman noted that suggestion, and advised he would ask the survey company for
their input as well.
Roe concurred that specific ratings and rankings would provide more consistency
unless free form answers were desired.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bowman suggested that the survey
company be asked for their input on how best to rank questions.
Performance (Questions #74 and 75)
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.
of the Mayor and City Council (Questions #46, 47)
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
Willmus spoke in support of eliminating #46 to shorten the survey; with Mayor
Roe concurring to drop #46.
Park Used Most Frequently (Questions #17 ? 27)
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.
Aspects/Quality of Life (Questions 13, 14)
concurrence of the body, Councilmember Etten suggested those questions be combined
as they essentially got to the same feature.
Roe concurred that this made sense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
McGehee expressed her interest in keeping the survey no less than 400
Mayor Roe noted
that the original proposal from the survey company had more people but fewer
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.
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.
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
McGehee suggested the company return with a tight survey, and then provide an
option with those estimated fourteen (14) additional questions added back in.
Roe opined that this seemed to be a reasonable approach.
Laliberte concurred, opining that then the City Council could decide if they
were willing to pay for those extra questions.
Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue
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.
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.
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
time constraints, Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, TABLING this item to a date
Discuss Redevelopment of the Dorso Property, Tax Increment Financing
Trudgeon distributed two bench handouts at this time, consisting of a concept
plan for the project and a draft resolution of support.
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.
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
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
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.?
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.
Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephens
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.
responded that the mechanical device was related to the cardiovascular system;
and would be under FDA regulations and monitoring.
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
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.
Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Adopting Commission Ordinances
constraints, Mayor Roe suggested that the discussion focus on only the two new
ordinances: Establishing a Finance Commission and Establishing a Community
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.
207.01 Establishment and Membership
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
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
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.
questioned if ?professional management? experience was comparable.
Etten questioned whether a degree in Economics would qualify, even if not
currently being used.
Willmus stated that it would then narrow things down, and he would be amenable
to those qualifications as well.
Laliberte expressed her interest in adding the word ?Professional.?
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.
noted that the qualifications did not state ?CPA licensure.?
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.
McGehee suggested that if a specific number of applicants with that expertise
was desired, the qualifications could simply state: ?financial/management
questioned the consensus for leaving in professional language or not.
McGehee spoke in support of the blue language, specifying financial management
Mayor Roe noted
that this was the same as Councilmember Laliberte?s suggested language with the
exception of ?background.?
McGehee offered her support of Councilmember Laliberte?s version.
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.
207.03. Meetings and Reports
Willmus stated that it should require a minimum joint meeting with the City
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).
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.
McGehee spoke in opposition to such a requirement, opining that it would make
serving on the commissions much more onerous.
Etten suggested that they be ?invited,? rather than ?required? to participate
at such meetings.
questioned if this was a requirement in ordinance language or simply a
directive to staff.
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.
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.
duly noted that goal.
207.04. Scope, Duties and Functions
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.
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.
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.
?Functions,? Councilmember Laliberte noted that the language was similar, but
the list was somewhat different.
McGehee opined that she felt that the budget process was important, with
language as: ?including but not limited to.?
Laliberte advised that she had moved that specific language to a different item.
the body was confirmed to go with the green language.
McGehee questioned how many things needed to be listed; and expressed her
preference to have just a few, with fewer words and fewer points.
Willmus opined that he had no problem with various points; and further opined
that Councilmember Laliberte?s language encapsulated his intent for this
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,
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.
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.
Willmus opined that he had no problem with Councilmember Laliberte?s proposed
Laliberte proposed to edit Item ?C? language as she had previously proposed
(green type) as follows:
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
revised language was approved by consensus.
McGehee advocated striking language in Item ?F.?
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
Trudgeon questioned if the intent was to have peer communities across the board
for comparison purposes, or to recognize the differences among those peer
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.
opined that he was amenable to leaving Item ?G? in, but was willing to give up
Item ?H? as it was implicit.
Willmus and Etten concurred with Mayor Roe.
Laliberte noted that it had been stricken from the original.
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.
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.
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.
McGehee opined that if it was left broad, the commission could do as they saw
Etten opined that the first line encapsulated the goal without needing any more
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of keeping the language for receiving public input.
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.
Ayes: Willmus; Etten;
McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.
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
suggested this item remain (green type) as proposed except striking language
referring to selection of the auditor, with consensus of the body.
207.04: Scope, Duties and Functions
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,?
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.
add language as referenced during the Finance Commission discussion, similar to
that specific section in the Parks & Recreation Commission Ordinance.
Scope, Duties and Functions
ensued regarding elimination of the majority of the proposed green language,
supported by Councilmembers McGehee and Etten.
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.
Etten opined that it still belonged in the scope, but not so specifically.
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
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.
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.
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.?
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.?
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.
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.?
approved by consensus is as follows:
partner with neighborhood, community, educational, business and social service
groups and organizations; and review and recommend opportunities to collaborate.?
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
Laliberte noted that she had combined later items from the original proposal in
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of that combination, opining that they were essentially doing the
Item ?C? was approved in totality as suggested by Councilmember Laliberte
Items D, E,
F, and J
these items were removed in their entirety.
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.
it was deleted in its entirety.
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
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
Laliberte noted that these items had been removed or replaced elsewhere.
McGehee opined that she saw no point to include Item ?L.?
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
Etten opined that ?volunteering? should be addressed more broadly in the scope.
suggested bringing the notion of volunteering into Item ?B?, and recommended
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).
suggested returning to the language of Item ?B? later in this discussion.
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
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.
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
questioned if training was desired, as he heard the community and staff, and
thus his problem in making the distinction.
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.
the body approved removal of Item ?I? in its entirety.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.?
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.
Willmus opined that this didn?t stipulate that everything had to be printed.
opined that he would prefer including language ?making communication available
in multiple languages.?
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.
opined that ?facilitating communication? served that intent.
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.
As noted, Item
?F? under the new items was included elsewhere and was stricken in its
New Item #1
McGehee opined that another annual look back was not needed.
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
of the body, Mayor Roe confirmed that the intent was that it be referenced, but
not included in the code language.
New Item #2
Laliberte reviewed her intent in this proposed item related to government
efforts; with consensus of the body to leave the language as proposed.
confirmed that New Items #1 and 4 were stricken, along with Item ?F.?
spoke in support of including ?volunteering? in the scope.
Mayor Roe spoke
in opposition of Councilmember McGehee?s recommendation.
Etten spoke in support of including it as a separate letter.
consensus apparent, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the opposition to
include it in the scope.
opined that he didn?t like defining civic life, as it had been removed already.
Etten suggested language ?encouraging volunteers in civic activities??
McGehee opined it should be included in Item ?B? to promote broad and diverse
volunteerism and participation.
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.
final language for Item ?B? is as follows:
strategies and actively promote and encourage volunteerism and participation on
advisory boards, task forces, commissions, and with other participatory civic
activities, including volunteering.?
Trudgeon clarified that Item ?L? went away completely, confirmed by the body.
this step for almost five years, Mr. Grefenberg clarified that New Item #2
remained as shown, with Mayor Roe confirming that assumption.
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
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.
McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1462 entitled, ?An Ordinance
Adding Chapter 208: Community Engagement Commission;? as amended with tonight?s
Roe thanked those residents involved in recommending the establishment
of these commissions for their involvement to-date.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:42 p.m.