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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2014


1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

2.       Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 7.d from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that, in accordance with State Statute requirements, the opportunity for the public to be heard regarding 7.g license renewal was sufficient, and based on his interpretation did not require a formal public hearing.


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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


3.        Public Comment

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


4.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe noted the Buddy Poppies worn by Councilmembers in honor of Veteran's Day.


Mayor Roe announced upcoming events, including: "Many Voices, One Minnesota" scheduled at the Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch, on November 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. providing an opportunity to meet members of the Karen community and learn about their history, customs and journey to Minnesota.  Additional events announced by Mayor Roe included upcoming seminars to be held at the Library and co-sponsored by the Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority, scheduled on November 12 and 18, at 7:00 p.m., on the topics of the process of becoming a homeowner and credit 4-1-1 respectively.


Mayor Roe announced a meeting date change for the City's Finance Commission from November 11 to November 20; and reviewed upcoming public meetings.


5.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications


6.       Approve Minutes

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


a.            Approve Minutes of October 27, 2014 Meeting

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 as presented.


                                                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

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 10, 2014, and attached check register.


ACH Payments







                                                            Roll Call

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

Nays: None.    


b.            Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, unless otherwise noted, for applicants as listed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows; and as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014; and Attachment A entitled, "2014 Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 10/31/14."







Yale Mechanical

HVAC Maintenance at City Hall



Skating Center

American Industrial Refrigeration

Replace OVAL compressor components




Roll Call

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

                   Nays: None.


e.            Request by Spire Credit Union for an Interim Use in Accordance with Roseville Zoning Ordinance, Section 1009.03, to Allow Two "Opening 2016" Signs to be Placed on a Vacant Lot at 1880 Perimeter Drive

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11186 entitled, "A Resolution Approving Temporary Construction Signs as an Interim Use at 1880 Perimeter Drive (PF14-020).


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11187 entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer, and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Approve Currency Exchange License Renewal for 2013: Pawn America Minnesota, LLC

Mayor Roe provided two separate opportunities for public comment specific to this item, with no one appearing for or against.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota LLC, 1715 North Rice Street, Roseville, MN to renew their licenses to operate a currency exchange business in Roseville for the 2015 calendar year.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


d.            Approve Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Apply for SCORE Funding Grant

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized this request for annual funding of the City's recycling program in SCORE funds through Ramsey County.


Councilmember McGehee suggested now that the City of Roseville was more active with the GreenStep program, including pursuing organics recycling, some funds from this grant be reallocated to prevent leeching into wetlands at the City leaf recycling site as well as assisting senior residents in their recycling efforts.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned, if the City were to put forth new ideas to enhance its recycling program, would it change the amount the City is eligible for in this annual funding.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that the City's Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson could bring back additional information at a later meeting, including planning underway for organics collection.


Councilmember Willmus asked that the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission be tasked with looking into this as well.  Councilmember Willmus noted several newer community events that did not include "zero waste" efforts in the past, and asked that anytime there is a City function or Foundation event, if on City property, they be "zero waste" events as well.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11188_ entitled, "Resolution Requesting 2015 SCORE Funding Grant for Use in Roseville's Residential Recycling Program;" authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to Ramsey County in the amount of $70,419.00


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         General Ordinances for Adoption



Mayor Roe briefly recessed the meeting at approximately 6:16 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:17 p.m.


10.      Presentations


a.            Quarterly Joint Meeting with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA)

HRA Board Members present included Vice Chair Vicki Lee and Members Bill Majerus, Susan Elkins, and Dan Wall; along with HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey; and City Communications Manager Garry Bowman.


Mayor Roe noted that Communications Manager Garry Bowman would initiate tonight's joint
discussion with an update of the Tagline Project being reviewed by his
department and HRA staff. 


City Tagline Project

Mr. Bowman noted that this initiative had been in process for some time, and had begun with the HRA's desire to look into the City's and HRA's overall marketing opportunities and specific foci.  Even before his employment with the City, Mr. Bowman noted the need had been identified to consolidate communication efforts and a city-wide and consistent message versus the current unorganized and distracted messages.  Mr. Bowman reviewed the proposed tagline process and unified consideration of a style guide that would consolidate logos, recognize best practices, and incorporate the City's current logo.  Mr. Bowman provided samples of various
logos currently used by departments within the City.


Mr. Bowman advised that the HRA, at their July 2014 meeting, had recognized the need for a broader and more inclusive message, which resulted in City Administration and the HRA jointly launching a project to develop a new City tagline to meet the needs and goals of both organizations.  Since that initial discussion, Mr. Bowman advised that he and Ms. Kelsey had been co-leading the project; and apologized for any misconceptions that the HRA had gone off on their own, when the purpose was to streamline communication efforts across the board. 


At this time in the process, Mr. Bowman advised that the next step was to seek Requests for Qualifications from communication consultants to see what services they could offer to the process.  Based on further discussions, Mr. Bowman noted that staff had determined that it was beneficial for the City's Administration and
Communications staff to take responsibility and carry the financial role in
moving the project forward, with City Council approval when applicable.  Mr.
Bowman clarified that the intent was for funding from the Communications
Budget, consisting of non-taxpayer funds.


Mr. Bowman noted his personal excitement about the prospects, including seeking additional information from other communities.  However, Mr. Bowman further clarified that the goal was not to seek a full-blown image campaign, which could cost upwards of $50,000; but to arrive at some conclusions and glean information through this process.  Mr. Bowman noted that staff had not moved forward from that point, and was now seeking City Council feedback and offered staff's presence to answer questions and discuss this project further.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that, it had been clear from previous City Council meetings, that there had not been enough discussion up to this point, and noted that this was intended for information only, with no formal action requested until the December 1, 2014 meeting following staff's contact with communication consultants.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff thought it was an important project, as outlined by Mr. Bowman; and at the request of Mayor Roe, estimated a total expenditure for consulting fees of a maximum amount of $15,000.


Councilmember Willmus recognized that the current HRA brand "Living Smarter," was more focused on housing, and as the HRA moved toward more involvement with the local business community, he understood the need to review that brand, as well as recognizing that the HRA was a separate legal entity from the City.  However, Councilmember Willmus questioned if the same tagline was being considered for both the City and the HRA.


Communications Manager Bowman responded that it was the goal to develop a tagline that was all-inclusive, including all city-wide departments in the City of Roseville, HRA and the Roseville Visitor's Association if possible.


Specific discussion involved individual City departments and their guiding principles or strategic or value statements that would and could be incorporated into marketing materials, but all under the same tagline or identify for the City as a whole.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the "Living Smarter" tagline currently used by the HRA was fine, and the business community could fit under that as well.  However, if the cost for review of this by consultants was $15,000 versus $40,000, Councilmember McGehee stated that she may be more likely to approve it, in an effort for the tagline to meld or combine those efforts.


City Manager Trudgeon reiterated that every department had a vision statement or value plan, but the goal was for one visual graphic and style to get the broader message across all departments.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bowman reviewed the creative process that a consultant would use in developing a tagline: through community focus groups and other tools and options with a goal to come up with something authentic to move forward, and that would provide a cohesiveness across all departments.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bowman stated that staff did not see the City's long-time logo changing, but anticipated that all departments would use that same logo and provide a more unified look moving forward.


Councilmember Etten noted that many of the divergent logos involved park facilities, some with national or regional draws beyond local; and therefore a need for a more flexible logo or tagline was evident from that broader perspective, and questioned what would be gained from that broader community with a more unified city image.


Mr. Bowman responded that part of the process would be to determine how best to capitalize on the brands already out there (e.g. OVAL), and incorporate them into what the City was doing.  Mr. Bowman opined that, by using that unified marketing moving forward, it would not only permeate Roseville, but all across the metropolitan area and begin to shape how people conceptualized Roseville, allowing the City to take control of its imaging.


Working in this field, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that a style guide would be great city-wide for all departments to understand and use the one logo, and eliminating the current fragmentation of many different identifies and phrases.  Councilmember Laliberte further agreed that often, it seemed that the HRA bore the brunt of financial responsibility in such communication and marketing efforts, since it seemed they were able to make decisions quicker and move forward faster than the normal municipal process was able to do.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that from her personal perspective, she thought this was a city-wide effort in reviewing taglines and logo uses, and should not be financially borne by the HRA.  If the consultant was as inexpensive as presented by staff, and could come out of the Communications Fund, Councilmember Laliberte agreed with supporting the project. 


Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was typical when cities did this type of project, with costs between $50,000 and $100,000, it was usually the result of a crisis situation and their attempt to redefine themselves or change their public persona.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that this was not the situation for Roseville, and reminded her colleagues and staff that when a cost of $40,000 for branding was first discussed, she had suggested a less expensive route to go that would be organization-inclusive, and involve a focus group of internal players, as well as from within the community and at a fraction of the original price.  Councilmember Laliberte referenced similar work done by Minneapolis College of Art & Design students under the direction of a professor, but student-driven.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had worked with them before in her non-profit employment experience, as well as other opportunities.  Given the final cost of less than $4,000 for those student studies, Councilmember Laliberte suggested exploring that route before committing to a larger expenditure.


Mayor Roe sought clarification on the role of the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA)
in this process, whether they were included under the umbrella or outside, since
they were a creation of the City of Roseville.  However, Mayor Roe noted the
success of their current tagline: "Roseville - Perfectly Positioned."


City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff hadn't had direct conversations with the RVA at this point beyond their involvement in communications group discussion; and would need further discussion with the RVA as to their interest in changing their current tagline.


Mayor Roe agreed that the RVA needed to be involved in the discussion, especially with the tagline, opining that what they need may influence what was done for the entire organization.


Communications Manager Bowman stated that he viewed the RVA separately as a different marketing niche, even though part of the City, and noted the effectiveness of the current RVA brand.


Councilmember Willmus questioned how staff proposed to address and/or involve area foundations (e.g. Central Park Foundation); with Mr. Bowman responding that this type of feedback was all part of what a consultant would use to deliver their end suggestion.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the RVA had done an excellent job of marketing Roseville with their own materials and tagline.  However, Councilmember McGehee noted that other areas (e.g. Harriet Alexander Nature Center, OVAL, etc.) needed unifying.   Councilmember McGehee questioned the need to include Roseville University or the Central Park Foundation, when those things were community-specific, not seeking a broader draw.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she would like to see things pared down, using Councilmember Laliberte's idea as a starting point.


Given the current messaging that was effective, and the success of the RVA's marketing efforts, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the end recommendation after this process may be a reiteration of the current tagline.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her suggestion that a great deal of money not be spent, even though she thought the proposed $15,000 cost was well within the private marketplace costs, she was not sure if it was a good use of taxpayer dollars if it simply ended up a spin-off of what was already used.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City of Minneapolis had used the Minneapolis College of Art and Design for several projects, as well as other major corporations and non-profits; and opined that they were a very credible organization.


Communications Manager Bowman advised that he had a call into their representatives, and expressed his interest in determining their level of expertise.  However, Mr. Bowman did express some hesitation in how and which students would be assigned and needed further information on how the process worked.  Mr. Bowman noted that the one consultant staff had spoken with had experience in such a process with over sixty municipalities to-date.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon noted staff's intent to bring this back to
the City Council at their December 1, 2014 meeting, and in the interim
suggested individual Councilmember guidance to staff an alternative approaches.


Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in receiving more information on Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion for students to perform the studies; as well as hearing
from staff and results gleaned from staff at cities having worked with consultants
on such a process.  Councilmember Willmus sought that background information
before this came back for action, with consensus of the council.


Councilmember Laliberte also requested information from staff on how to involve experts that may live within Roseville, and suggested involvement of Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien to determine if she was already aware of some of those creative
people who may work in the industry and already living in Roseville to see if
they could have a role in this process.


Mr. Bowman absolutely agreed, and noted that focus groups or questionnaires would provide that information, but noted that staff already had a laundry list of people in that field.


Mayor Roe suggested talking to other colleges or entities beyond the Minneapolis College of Design to determine other options.


HRA Activities and Accomplishments

Vice Chair Vicki Lee highlighted some activities and accomplishments of the HRA since the last joint meeting with the City Council, as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.


Of note, Ms. Lee updated the City Council on the status of the Dale Street Project, with the Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation (GMHC) still seeking to finalize financing, for underwriting a loan for the project.


Dale Street Redevelopment

At the request of Mayor Roe, HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey addressed how this financing delay may affect the timing of the Dale Street Project, and reviewed the current appraisal process being undertaken by Western Bank to determine their involvement in the project.  Ms. Kelsey advised that results would not be available until December, and if Western Bank chose not to be involved, this would require GMHC to seek another lender opportunity.  If that were to happen, Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA would need to have further discussion at their January  2015 meeting on the next steps or to determine if it was time for the HRA to go out for Requests for Proposals again for another developer to build a similar concept at the site.


Specific to the Dale Street Redevelopment, Councilmember Willmus asked that Councilmembers receive more frequent updates from the HRA as things moved forward, to keep the City Council in the loop.


Mayor Roe concurred that more frequent updates would prove helpful, especially given the high level of interest from the community on the Dale Street Project.


Housing Reinvestment Program

Councilmember McGehee reported her concern with a resident who had been the recipient of two HRA letters of interest in purchasing her home.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern, as well as the negative connotations felt by the resident, in the tone and style of the letter and found it offensive and unwelcome, as well as somewhat frightening.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not aware that the HRA was initiating home purchases from currently occupied homes in that manner; and opined that it was not appropriate for the HRA to imply a home was substandard and should be demolished and replaced.  Councilmember McGehee opined that a current homeowner may be very happy with their current residence, and if well-maintained and occupied, they were valuable to those residents as well as the community, and represented some of the City's affordable housing stock.  Councilmember McGehee personally urged the HRA not to send out specific letters to specific residents, but to solicit blanket inquiries in the City's
newsletter versus singling people out.  As well intentioned as the letter may
have been, Councilmember McGehee wanted to make the HRA aware of how the
recipient may feel if it was implied that their homes were of no value to the


At the request of Mayor Roe, and for the benefit of the public, Ms. Kelsey provided a brief background on how homes were selected.  Ms. Kelsey reviewed the history of the program, initiated by the City Council prior to 2000 and before the HRA was created, and based on a model program from the City of Richfield, MN.  Ms. Kelsey advised that homes identified were based on those from County Assessors touring those homes, and based on their assessed value and square footage and age of a home.  Ms. Kelsey clarified that the letters stated, "Your home MAY qualify for" and suggested contacting the HRA for additional information IF interested.  As an example, Ms. Kelsey advised that the recent Hamline Avenue home was identified based on those qualification, resulting in a sale to the HRA, demolition of the existing structure, subsequent sale and current construction of a new home valued in excess of $300,000 on that site, with the previous owner finding alternative housing for their current level of need elsewhere in the community.


Mayor Roe asked that staff provide the City Council with a copy of the letter, with the request duly noted by staff.


While not having seen a copy of the draft letter beforehand, Councilmember Willmus admitted that he also had some concerns with the identification process and those things that come into play, especially with the County's valuation process and how that assessed valuation changes from year to year, and specific situations impacting that value.  Councilmember Willmus suggested further refinement of the process before any more letters were sent out and providing additional identification mechanisms in identifying those homes if the HRA chose to continue the program.


Hamline Avenue Property Purchase and Sale

Specific to the 1840 Hamline Avenue property purchase and sale, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the process and timeline played out as the HRA anticipated.


From her personal perspective, Ms. Kelsey stated that the process played out faster than she anticipated, with initial hesitation on whether or not the City would receive the value for which the property had been listed, based on the location of the property.  Ms. Kelsey further stated that she hadn't anticipated that a home
would be constructed yet this year, but noted the considerable self-guided
interest the property and program had received, including from architects
watching this program and those within that circle of understanding.  Ms.
Kelsey advised that she now has a list of those interested in other lots that
may become available in Roseville.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the HRA had taken on a lot of new, great and exciting things; and expressed her interest in how the HRA and staff were prioritizing things overall and by this type of project in particular.


Ms. Kelsey admitted that she could not do it all, but admitted there were a few properties that staff and the HRA continued to watch, several that had been in foreclosure for three years, and were continuing to deteriorate.  Ms. Kelsey noted one area of concern was others watching the same properties who were interested in turning those properties into rentals, which provided one reason the HRA promoted this program to avoid that situation.  Ms. Kelsey opined that this program would probably continue to reside in the background as the HRA took on projects with a higher priority in the near future, and as the Dale Street Project would hopefully become a reality.


While agreeing that a single-family rental home was more likely to become substandard than an owner-occupied single-family home, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her interest in generally identifying the program for the public versus specifically targeting those homes.  In light of her earlier comments, Councilmember McGehee stated that she shared the HRA goal of avoiding single-family rentals, but wanted to ensure residents felt of value.


Ms. Kelsey responded that staff periodically made the public aware of HRA programs through the City newsletter; and duly noted Councilmember McGehee's concerns.


Councilmember Etten noted that the program was only one piece of the pie in redevelopment and strengthening and reinvesting in Roseville housing stock.  If the City Council felt more at ease in an open letter versus targeted properties, Councilmember Etten suggested that could be looked into by Ms. Kelsey and after review by the City Council of the current letter.


Mayor Roe further noted that all communication was open to interpretation by the sender and the recipient; but opined that a review by the City Council of the letter and its context was a fair step in reviewing the current process.


Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair

Regarding the Home & Garden Fair, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was a time-consuming project, and sought an update from staff on the current Fair and if any different directions were being considered.


Ms. Kelsey reviewed some of the streamlining being done by and for staff to make things less time-consuming through or labor-intensive by addressing registration rule and regulations for vendors, that had served to cut staff time considerably. 


Ms. Kelsey advised that every year, immediately after the Fair, a report was provided to the HRA on the Fair and feedback from vendors, sponsors and attendees.  Ms. Kelsey noted that the HRA Board was provided an opportunity each year after the Fair to decide if they wanted to make changes, with their ongoing response to-date to continue status quo.  Ms. Kelsey suggested discussion at a future join meeting of the HRA and the City Council to provide staff guidance on the Fair.


Ms. Kelsey reviewed ongoing feedback from those attending workshops and vendors and their desire to continue offering those useful workshops, and the feedback sought from workshop attendees.


From data he's reviewed to-date, Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that the HRA may want to offer more workshops based on the feedback and number of those attending, and the value they seemed to place on the workshops, beyond those at the annual Fair and those currently offered at the Library.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if the workshops were the real value to the community rather than their interaction with vendors.  Councilmember Willmus referenced one vendor he'd spoken to who had participated for a number of years, and thought the same
people attended, and therefore there were no new opportunities for them to
solicit business from attendees, and therefore would no longer be a vendor at
the Roseville Fair.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus questioned if a better opportunity
may be a series of speakers versus a vendor opportunity.


Ms. Kelsey clarified that if you were a vendor at the Fair you automatically were offered the option of doing a workshop; and the sponsor referenced by Councilmember Willmus had not chosen to engage people with a workshop, and that vendor had also chosen not to return.  However, Ms. Kelsey advised that a new vendor had already come forward providing the same service and willing to do a workshop on those elements and efficiencies.  When listening to vendor feedback, Ms. Kelsey advised that she listened to negative and positive comments alike; recognizing that there was a cost for vendors to attend, staff and set up their displays; and they would not return if they felt they weren't getting a return on their


Mayor Roe suggested the staff time commitment needed for this annual event may provide another opportunity for staff to look to volunteer assistance from the community.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested expanding the Fair to incorporate a broader healthy living purview that may be a larger City discussion beyond the HRA.


Councilmember McGehee suggested having the dementia group having a booth at the fair.


Mayor Roe noted the current involvement of other city departments and entities as well.


Ms. Kelsey concurred, noting that staff continually sought involvement from other areas, including involving and the historical society.


Mayor Roe thanked HRA members and staff for attending tonight's joint meeting.


11.      Public Hearings


b.            Renewal of 2015 Liquor Licenses

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the purpose of tonight's public
hearing as the City Council considered approval or denial of 2015 Liquor License
Renewals.  As , detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014 and attachments,
Mr. Miller noted that there were eight licenses for renewal consideration, and
identified those five establishments with liquor compliance failures in 2014
to-date.  Mr. Miller advised that staff had reviewed all applications, and they
met statutory and city code requirements; and with the exception of those noted
compliance failures, advised that staff had no additional findings to present.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller confirmed that, to his knowledge, all ten off-sale liquor licenses were active, with renewal applications received from all ten current licensees.


Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:14 p.m. and closed it at 7:15 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Approve/Deny 2015 Liquor License Renewals

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the renewal of requested liquor licenses for 2015, as listed and detailed in the RCA dated November 11, 2014.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


12.      Budget Items


c.            Review and Accept the 2015 - 2034 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Funding Strategies

Finance Director Miller provided the proposed 2015-2034 CIP and Funding Strategies based on current assumptions, as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 10, 2014, and presentation materials.


Councilmember Willmus sought additional debt service payment information over the next twenty years that may be available for repurposing.


Mr. Miller identified additional debt levies that may be available during that time, including funds from the Park Improvement Program and street levies coming available in 2016 and 2019; reducing the $55 gap to approximately $40 million during that twenty year period that could be repurposed.  However, Mr. Miller noted staff's attempt to provide the City Council with financial challenges
moving forward based on current assumptions.


Considering those current assumptions, Councilmember Willmus questioned if the primary assumption  "a" (continue programs at current service levels) accurately reflected the most recent community survey; and suggested at some point the City Council needed to look at that and review survey trending, with a potential reconsideration of priorities.  Also, Councilmember Willmus opined that, if debt service was not repurposed (e.g. $160,000 for 2015), and the City chose not to reinvest in those items identified for allocation, a levy reduction should be considered; and sought a percentage or dollar amount accordingly from staff.


Mr. Miller responded that the preliminary levy increase for 2015 had been set by the City Council in September at 3.64% over 2014; and if lowered by $160,000, would result in the levy dropping to $2.75%. 


To be more specific, Mayor Roe noted that debt coming off line in coming years included skating center certificates of $335,000 targeted toward facility replacement in the near term and treated as costs at the skating center.  Mayor Roe further noted that the Public Works/City Hall bonds were scheduled to come off in 2020, with other funds targeted toward the Park bond and another reduction from the Pavement Management Plan.  Mayor Roe noted that the specific survey result mentioned by Councilmember Willmus was that residents generally did not want to pay more for the same level of services, but that the question was not asked what programs or services residents might prefer to change as a result. Mayor Roe stated that he wanted to make sure that nuance continued as part of the budget discussion.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the local government aid (LGA) funding received by the City in 2014 and used for the CIP funding fund would not be forthcoming in 2015. 


Councilmember Etten stated that he found that lack of LGA scary, referencing Mr. Miller's
notes on pages 8 and 9 of Attachment C and funding recommendation #2 of 4, he
interpreted that as a pressing need in the near-term.  Councilmember Etten
asked staff for their recommendations to shore up those funds now.


For 2015, recognizing that the City Council expressed a strong desire to hit the target levy increase of 3.5% overall and their subsequent strong sentiment to see it further reduced, Finance Director Miller advised that additional funding options were limited.  However, Mr. Miller noted that this left an even larger gap in 2016 that needed addressing, depending on the City Council's comfort
level and their desire to begin addressing future considerations for tax levy
increases as well as addressing other inflationary operating levels.  Mr.
Miller noted that one aspect for addressing that gap is a broader discussion of
service levels.


Discussion ensued regarding facilities, park improvement program funding, and consideration of bonding to fill that future funding gap.


In her discussions earlier today with Finance Director Miller, Councilmember McGehee suggested discussions at next week's City Council Worksession on adjustments in the base fees for water and sewer, which she found to be very significant base rates at this time.  Councilmember McGehee offered to provide Councilmembers with her ideas on how those base fees may impact single-family homeowners.  Councilmember McGehee further noted the lack of discussion to-date on increasing fees for services other than the periodic adjustments for the leaf pick-up program, and other options to reduce services, raise fees or look for partnership opportunities outside of the community to reduce expenditures or increase revenue sources.


Mayor Roe noted past discussions about revenue options used by other communities, such as a utility franchise fee for electricity, which Roseville had discussed in the past but chose not to pursue at that time.  Mayor Roe noted that such options could address those funding issues as Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee had brought up; and suggested a need to consider such options on a continuing basis.


Councilmember Etten referenced staff's discussion in the RCA about the need for a comprehensive financial analysis for the municipal golf course, and suggested the need to do so early in 2015 from a program and financial perspective, based on the looming needs and repair costs pushed deferred in the CIP.  Councilmember Etten suggested that program be looked at in totality to find near and long-term solutions.


Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Etten.


Councilmember McGehee suggested a strategic plan of 5 years in duration to determine priorities going forward, opining that it would give the community an opportunity to assist the City Council and weigh in on how those priorities were established over that five year term versus a twenty year term.  Councilmember McGehee opined that a robust community discussion on those priorities rarely occurred, and further opined that those priorities may have changed from those funded in the past, and more inclusiveness was needed in considering priorities.


Councilmember Etten suggested survey questions around that issue as a useful tool in the next survey to focus and get more useful on priorities.


In addition to reviewing golf course needs and operations, Councilmember Laliberte suggested it would be beneficial to look at the Park Master Plan now that Park Renewal Funds have been put in place and moving forward; and whether there was a need to re-examine the Master Plan to determine if a projected CIP need in the Park Improvement Plan (PIP) was actually $27.7 million.


On pages 18 - 26 of the PIP, Mayor Roe referenced his earlier discussion with Finance Director Miller and the need to itemize that similar to other functions (e.g. park maintenance) and showing the various vehicles and their replacement cycle.  Mayor Roe opined that it would be helpful and tie in with the Master Plan itself for future discussions.  Mayor Roe also referenced the $500,000 listed for new pathway construction, and expressed his discomfort in accepting it as listed at $9.5 million over the nineteen years of the plan before a  plan and funding mechanism with council support had been identified.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Mayor Roe, and in light of previous City Council approval, suggested another look.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission, with more frequency as requested by the City Council, would occur at next week's meeting.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with comments of Councilmember Laliberte regarding previous City Council approved bonding and park improvements to-date; and recognized the remaining needs at the OVAL and golf course, while the Council majority chose to use bond funds elsewhere and for facilities that would require yet more maintenance and ongoing expenditures.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this, in her perspective, was like "double-dipping" and left outstanding and serious needs for streets, water and sewer infrastructure. She opined that Parks: should not be seeking more money above and beyond the $19.25 million bond granted very recently. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee reiterated the need to look for community input and establish priorities.


In response, Mayor Roe clarified that the Park Renewal Program and subsequent bond issue, was never intended as an end-all for park needs, but only to address the most immediate $16 million backlog as it then stood.  Mayor Roe stated that he did not see that as "double-dipping" or not being aware of other things needed, but simply an attempt to prioritize long-deferred park needs, recognizing that all could not be done in one bite.


Regarding a five year review, Mayor Roe noted that this issue came up with the original CIP Subcommittee several years ago, and the City at that time routinely approved a five-year CIP without being aware of the issues and needs beyond that period.  Until a long-term CIP was created and periodically updated, Mayor Roe opined that  he would be reticent to look at only a five-year plan,  unless that was included as part of the long-term, twenty-year CIP.


On page 18 of 26, Councilmember Etten noted that the "detail" had been cut off, but sought that information on future iterations for discussion purposes for pathway construction and natural resources, listed as high priorities that came out of the Park Renewal Program as well as in the latest community survey.  Councilmember Etten noted that the Pathway Master Plan was not exclusive to Parks & Recreation, but also the Public Works Department, and a broader community desire for connectivity.


Based on the assumptions listed earlier and their relationship to what goes into the long-term CIP, Mayor Roe noted that the current listing for maintaining existing programs, did not jive with new pathways, and having a better understanding of that would help, including the same type of detail in the same format parallel to other City operations.


Mayor Roe asked staff to provide additional information as noted during tonight's discussion for the next budget discussion and subsequent adoption, duly noted by Finance Director Miller.


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


b.            Mounds View School District Hamline Avenue Property Discussion

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke introduced consulting Environmental Specialist Eric Hesse with Leisch Associates and City Attorney Charles Bartholdi, both working with staff on the purchase of the former School District No. 621-owned site at 2959 Hamline Avenue N, adjacent to Autumn Grove Park, and as part of the extended "due diligence" period.  Mr. Brokke, City Attorney Bartholdi, and Mr. Hesse summarized the remaining title and contamination issues, each detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014 and attachments; and potential additional costs for which the City would be responsible, beyond the purchase price and budgeted amount set aside in the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program Fund.


Mayor Roe clarified staff's requested action tonight, per the RCA, even with the
remaining outstanding issues, based on the few meetings yet scheduled in 2014;
and was recommending City Council action, contingent on those items as identified
in the RCA.


Mr. Brokke responded affirmatively, confirming that action be taken, contingent upon the "No Further Action Determination" letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and clear title prior to actual closing on the property.


City Attorney Bartholdi noted that this action was premature and the preference would be to seek City Council action after the issues were resolved, and opined that staff was anticipating that they may actually be completed before year-end.  However, Mr. Bartholdi advised that staff thought it better to come in with this update, and clarifying the outstanding items, at this time.  Mr. Bartholdi opined that the environmental issue was of some consequence under the circumstances, irrespective of getting the "No Further Action Determination" form the MPCA, with the City assuming remediation, monitoring and reporting as required by the MPCA.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Hesse responded regarding depth and location of the three remaining monitoring wells, as shown on the map (Attachment G) and the localization of remaining contamination of TCE and PCE in those areas shown for monitoring wells #2, 3 and 4.  Mr. Hesse clarified that the source of contamination in the soils had already been removed per implementation of the Response Action Plan (RAP) implemented to-date and associated remediation; with no other source having been identified by the MPCA or any other parties, resulting in the MPCA's willingness to close the majority of monitoring wells on the site, with the remaining three scheduled for closure after an additional two-year period, typical of their process, but not anticipating any endangered receptors.  Mr. Hesse noted that everything in this area as on City water and far away from any city supply wells.  Mr. Hesse advised that the wells scheduled for closure didn?t indicate any significant contamination, and were down-gradient from the original contamination source, believed to result from the previous school structure and use, and printing company use prior to that.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke advised that all indications were that the land could be used over the next few years for recreational purposes, and staff would propose to line the area for soccer field use or open space; with the only anticipated expenses on the property for seeding that would be accomplished through budgeted funds from the Park Renewal Program for that property.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding experimental planting done by the University of MN in a contaminated area and harvesting plants to remediate soils, Mr. Hesse responded that, while recognizing that type of remediation for cleaning ground water, the soils on this site had been sufficiently cleaned to-date through excavation of and removal of the soils from the site. 


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Bartholdi advised that he anticipated no problem moving forward with purchase of the property, providing the two remaining contingencies are addressed.  If those two issues are not resolved, Mr. Bartholdi advised that staff would need to take a hard look before recommending that the City Council proceed, and considered those items as conditions to any closing on the property.


Mr. Brokke further clarified that, if the title issue and/or "No Further Action Determination" were not forthcoming, staff would return to the City Council for further direction regarding the property purchase.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the documents needed to close the Purchase Agreement for the property at 2959 Hamline Avenue N; contingent upon "No Further Action Determination" and "No Further Action" written assurances from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency pertaining to the property; and satisfactory resolution of and title clearance of any perpetual right-of-way ingress and egress reservations through a Proceedings Subsequent remedy for this Torrens Property, which has been commenced by the seller.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the City would be responsible for the costs of closing the monitoring wells, and annual costs of approximately $6,050 for continued well monitoring and reporting to the MPCA.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Canvass Election Results

A bench handout consisting of a municipal election abstract from Ramsey County was presented at the dais.,


Mayor Roe recognized the high voter turnout for Roseville, and expressed his pride in the community for their continued participation in the election process.


Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, declaring the municipal candidates elected to the office of the City Council, as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:24 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:32 p.m.


d.            Consider Extending the Term of Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and Agreement Held by Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.

Mayor Roe introduced Michael Bradley, with the law firm of Bradley, Hagen, & Gullickson and representing the North Suburban Commissions Commission (NSCC); and asked City Manager Trudgeon to summarize this request as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 10, 2014.


Mr. Bradley concurred with City Manager Trudgeon's summary of the documents, and expanded on the background information somewhat by addressing the two main documents the NSCC has with Comcast: the cable franchise held by each of the ten member cities, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NSCC and the cable operator, and the purpose of each document, both presented for a two-year extension as agreed to by both parties.


By approving this extension, Mr. Bradley noted that formal negotiations will be suspended with that action, an advantage that the NSCC took under consideration in accepting the extension agreement with Comcast, with that contingency incorporated in the agreement before the City Council.


Mayor Roe noted language in the proposed ordinance language did not include similar language included in the agreement that stated that the franchise could roll over on a month to month basis as part of the extension; and questioned if that language was intentional.


Mr. Bradley confirmed that the provision in the extension agreement between the NSCC and Comcast was intentionally not included in the ordinance.


Mayor Roe noted that approval of this request would extend the franchise through December 31, 2016.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bradley advised that the City of Shoreview had approved both documents at their meeting of November 3, 2014.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bradley noted the two years was what Comcast agreed to after protracted negotiations.  Mr. Bradley reviewed some of the many benefits during that two year period as detailed in the RCA, and funding for the NSCC of approximately $3 million over that two-year period.


Having been involved throughout the process as a member of the NSCC Board, Mayor Roe advised that based on his point of view from the commission, this action would freeze the status quo and retain funding status quo, which was key to the NSCC, and allow member cities and the NSCC to take a break over the next two years as it discovered who the new entity (GreatLand Connections) was and watched the marketplace.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, and for the benefit of the public, Mr. Bradley explained the total subscriber refund of $49,000 related to rate settlement end-result negotiations related to franchise compliance issues on how Comcast imposed rates to subscribers.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1472 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance;" consenting  to the transfer of the cable franchise from Comcast to GreatLand Connections, extending the existing cable franchise to December 31, 2016; and adoption of Resolution No. 11189     (Attachment C) entitled, "A Resolution Conditionally Granting the Consent to the Transfer of Control of the Cable Television Franchise and Cable Television System from Comcast Corporation to GreatLand Connections, Inc."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe noted, at the last NSCC meeting, another potential cable provider had expressed interest in looking at a franchise in this area, noting that the GreatLand Connections franchise was not exclusive and that interest under review by the NSCC over the next few months.


e.            Adopt an Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Section 1011.11.E, Parking Lot Lighting

City Planner Paschke briefly reviewed the requested ordinance text amendment found through practical application and as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.  Mr. Paschke clarified that, following the Planning Commission public hearing and discussion, along with their recommendation for action to the City Council, in staff's subsequent analysis, and discussion with lighting consultants, staff was recommending the better approach to text amendments, as outlined in lines 69 - 77 of the RCA, removing redundancies and removing potential ambiguities between the two code sections (Attachment C).


Councilmember Willmus questioned if the issue should return to the Planning Commission for further review before Council action since it was different than their initial recommendation.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the recommended changes by staff were minor enough that it didn't need to return to the Planning Commission.  However, for consistency purposes, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff reference a "1.0 foot candle" (line 33).


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1471 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville Zoning Code, Title 10;" using staff's alternate language as recommended; and using the 1.0 foot candle reference as noted.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Adopt an Ordinance Approving Roseville Zoning Code, Section 1009.07, Text Amendment - Developer Open House Meetings

City Planner Paschke briefly reviewed the requested ordinance text amendment found through practical application and as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014. 


Councilmember Etten thanked staff for bringing these good improvements forward and seeking to further include the public in meaningful ways.  For consideration in future revisions, Councilmember Etten suggested changes to the open house invitations related to what information should be included and how to draft language for richer understanding by the public beyond typical planning and development jargon; or at a minimum through routing those interested to a website reference and/or a phone number contact, or even a proposed sketch that would identify the impact of a potential zoning changes allowing meaningful preview information for the public prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.


From a staff perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that, as recently as last week, discussions had been held among staff that it may be better for staff to generate the language of the invitation, including maps and other submittal information, since each case is different and sometimes during staff's review sufficient
information is provided by the developer, and other times it was not.  Mr.
Paschke advised that Councilmember points were well taken, and suggested it may
be better for staff to undertake the process to ensure everything was
highlighted that was indicated, including portions of applicable ordinance, and
staff contact information for the public for any areas of confusion.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that this language was intended for any areas of applicable code, including when the subdivision ordinance update was finalized, and included as identified in the blue text in the RCA (page 4, lines 105-109).


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of staff involvement in generating that open house invitation information, recognizing the differences she'd observed in those invitations, and what was discussed or presented by various developers.


Mayor Roe clarified that staff's intent to review and revise the invitation portion was a separate piece of business, and noted that this proposed text amendment could proceed without that particular piece at this time.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1473 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance" as presented.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Authorize Radio and Meter Purchase

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided a brief presentation, , as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.


Mr. Schwartz advised that this requested action is only for the purchase of the meters and radios, and staff would return at a later date seeking Council consideration of an outside contractor to facilitate installation.  Mr. Schwartz further noted that the initial purchase would be facilitated by a short-term internal loan.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Schwartz reviewed the initial estimate of $1.2 million for the equipment purchase and installation over the next two budget cycles at $600,000 annually and assuming inflationary costs for their purchase.  Councilmember Etten suggested that any cost savings be put toward hiring an outside contractor for installation.


At the request Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz clarified that staff had reviewed the warranty periods ties to installation dates; and advised that the meters and radios had twenty year warranties, with full replacement for ten years, and prorated for the final ten years, so over time there would be little impact whether or not the installation date varied by a year.  However, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the warranty period was initiated on the delivery date.


Councilmember McGehee noted that there would be some cost savings by eliminating the need for someone to physically read 5,000 meters.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorization to purchase meters and radios needed to complete the automated reading system (AMR) upgrade; and authorizing staff to receive proposals for installation of meters and radios.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would find room to store the meters, and while it sounded like a large quantity, they would not take up a tremendous amount of space.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            2015 Street and Utility Preliminary Work Plan

City Engineer Marc Culver provided an overview of 2014 Work Plan components accomplished to-date, and a brief presentation of anticipated 2015 Street and Utility Work Plan items.


Councilmember McGehee referenced a segment of Roselawn Avenue between Fairview and Snelling Avenues that had problematic storm drains, and suggested that since this was a joint project with the City of Falcon Heights, it should be reviewed. 


Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the proposed Work Plan, and questioned two small segments for pathway, at County Road B at Lexington and County Road B at Snelling, and whether they were infill pieces or not.  Councilmember Etten expressed his continuing interest in attempting those smaller connection segments, especially in areas with apartment buildings, adjacent to major streets or corners, and to areas with bus service.


Mr. Culver clarified that the one west of Snelling was an existing section in need of repair or replacement; and the same may be the case for the piece on Lexington based on his recollection.  Mr. Culver assured Councilmembers and the public that staff would continue to look for additional funding to accomplish those connections; especially with projects in particular.  Mr. Culver reviewed intentions with the upcoming Highway 36/Lexington Avenue Bridge as an example of how to expand pathways to serve additional residents, depending on available funding. 


Mayor Roe echoed the comments of Councilmember Etten, specifically in the area of County Road B and Dale Street with the unique configuration of multi-family housing and number of people needing to walk during winter months particularly on the non-sidewalk side of the street to access the bus stops.  Mayor Roe asked staff to continue to seek ways to fill in those segments throughout the City with similar situations and available funding options, whether considered a priority in the Pathway Master Plan or not.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver addressed the upcoming Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) terminals along Snelling Avenue, and City participation in those amenities.  Mr. Culver noted areas needing enhanced access or stubs to connect to the enhanced BRT hubs, along with ongoing discussion on whether the frontage road at County Road B and Snelling Avenue was sufficient to serve people accessing it from other sites and depending on future types of use in that area.  Mr. Culver noted that the other BRT hub was at Rosedale with plenty of sidewalks.  Mr. Culver recognized Councilmember comments and concern as certainly having validity once BRT service is up and running, and anticipated additional input from residents on their infrastructure needs, which would be plugged into the existing Pathway Master Plan and existing priorities as well.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2015 Preliminary Work Plan for street and utility improvements, as presented and detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Changes to City Code, Chapter 314.05: 2015 Fee Schedule

Finance Director Chris Miller presented the proposed 2015 Fee Schedule, as detailed in the RCA dated November 10, 2014 and Attachment C.  Mr. Miller highlighted two main areas of adjustment to existing fees in the area of construction noise variances and various building permit and plan review fees, as outlined in page 2 of the Fee Schedule, and highlighted in yellow, along with other changes highlighted in the document on pages 7 through 16.  Mr. Miller clarified that remaining revisions were typically inflationary in nature.


Councilmember Willmus took note of several Appeal fees (page 16 of Attachment C), seeking further review and consideration before this came back for formal adoption, and whether they supported that level of a fee for an appeal.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this was a significant fee, and expressed his lack of interest in supporting such a substantial amount.  Councilmember Willmus also noted the significant fee increase for Conditional use applications (page 15). 


At the request of Finance Director Miller to determine if the fee increases shown were accurate or typographical errors, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta advised that some of the suggestions may need further consideration and refinement, but were tied to reducing the residential variance appeal fee and matching it for commercial variance appeal fees. 


At the request of Councilmember Willmus regarding Conditional Use permit fees, Mr. Bilotta advised that history shows that these "escrow" accounts were never tapped into, and staff's questioning of why those should be added onto the initial fee; and simply incorporate it into the fee to simplify the application process.


City Manager Trudgeon opined that the use of the term "escrow" may be adding to the confusing, clarifying that it was actually part of the deposit from which staff drew down funds over time and as applicable.


Councilmember Willmus opined that it still represented an upfront cost for someone to pay.


Mayor Roe suggested further staff review of these items as discussed tonight rather than taking action, as originally proposed by staff, at tonight's meeting.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her preference that this item return and be placed earlier on the agenda to allow public comment and participation rather than having to wait until the end of the agenda.


Mayor Roe suggested the item be included as part of the standing Agenda's Budget Item.


On page 6, under "Parking", Councilmember McGehee noted a number of fees that seemed to be inconsistent with State Statute, and questioned whether this was an additional fee on top of those fees.  Also, Councilmember McGehee questioned the accuracy of fees for blocking fire hydrants; and noise complaints and whether or not the City had equipment to measure noise decibels, and if not, why charge a fee for it.  Councilmember McGehee also questioned what the fee of $100 for wetland/shoreline was about. Councilmember McGehee referenced the discrepancies and inconsistencies for lifetime dog licenses (page 2) depending on whether or not they were sterilized and/or micro-chipped.  Councilmember McGehee noted a number of fees within the Administration category that she found curious or needing further clarification.


City Manager Trudgeon offered to have staff further review and define those areas under questions.  Mr. Trudgeon did note that many of the items on page 6 were City charges for administrative fines above state statute.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred with City Manager Trudgeon, further clarifying that often the City may choose to issue an Administrative Citation versus enforcing State Statute depending on the particular situation.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the allocation of fines depending on who issued the citation and how it was done, with the State retaining all or a larger portion of fines depending on the type and situation.  Mr. Gaughan provided some examples between administrative penalties versus those set by the State legislature.  Mr. Gaughan did clarify that a municipal violations and notice provisions based on State Statute, assuring the City Council that a potential violator would not pay more, but how a fine was addressed would define how it was divided between the municipality and state, and often depending on the type of violation, with each fine having a different set division and identifying how much could be retained by a local municipality and how much went to the State's General Fund.  Based on his years of prosecutorial experience, Mr. Gaughan assured Councilmembers that the financial basis was not part of the consideration when issuing a citation.  Mr. Gaughan noted that, often with an administrative fee, it would not go on a violator's record, since it was handled in-house versus through the court system. 


Councilmember Laliberte expressed some concern, providing several examples (e.g. Wabasha County) of jurisdictions that got into trouble by charging municipal fees versus legislative fees; and asked that staff and the City Attorney look into that allocation more carefully.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that this was why he stated it depended on the type of fine; and suggested some of those items may still be on the books or included in the fee schedule, but no longer applicable and no longer used.


Councilmember McGehee expressed confusion about several other fees, with Mayor Roe suggesting she review them with staff off-line, in addition to requesting staff's review of residential variances and other fees within the Community Development Department as previously noted.


Finance Director Miller advised that staff would further review the fee schedule before bringing it back for action, and ensure staff representatives were available at that time to address any additional questions or areas of confusion.


15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon reviewed upcoming preliminary City Council meeting agendas through year-end 2014.


16.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Laliberte requested that the tagline discussion proposed for the December 1, 2014 meeting, be done at a time when the Community Engagement Commission was present for their joint meeting and update for the City Council, suggesting that they may have some input and interest in that discussion.


17.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:39 p.m.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.