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

City Council


City Council Meeting Retreat Minutes

February 18, 2015


Roll Call Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 12:00 p.m. and introductions were made around the table of Councilmembers and Department Heads; before turning the meeting over to Facilitator Craig Rapp.


Present:      Mayor Daniel Roe and Councilmembers Robert Willmus, Lisa Laliberte, Tammy McGehee, and Jason Etten; City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and Department Heads: Police Chief Rick Mathwig, Fire Chief Tim O'Neill, Finance Director Chris Miller, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta; and Facilitator Craig Rapp.


1.            Review Discussion from Tuesday Session

Mr. Rapp briefly summarized yesterday's meeting based on the organization's culture and value propositions accomplished through a SWOT analysis to identify organizational and community challenges, in preparation for further defining and refining strategic priorities and identifying desired outcomes and indicators.  Mr. Rapp advised that the efforts today will be to finalize those key outcome indicators for moving forward.


2.            Identifying Organizational and Community Challenges (continued)


Strategic Priorities (Challenges) Summary

Those priorities identified from yesterday's meeting and receiving uniform agreement were:

·         Civic Engagement

·         Housing and Redevelopment

·         Effective Governance

·         Aging Infrastructure - Infrastructure Sustainability

Another priority was identified; however, Mr. Rapp stated that he was unsure if it received unanimous agreement; and that was "Determining Priorities/greatness" which he had taken the liberty to restate as "Organizational Evolution," which from his perspective would include an organizational value proposition, service, delivery and quality.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, through accomplishing the four uniform priorities, the City would have gone a long way toward effective governance, at which point organizational evolution would naturally follow as the City moved forward from that point.


Mr. Rapp confirmed his understanding that the desire was to incorporate "civic engagement" in all areas, even though it was called out as a separate strategic priority in the list.  Mr. Rapp expressed concern that, if not calling it out separately, its impact may be lost; but by saying it was a target priority in all other categories, the outcomes specifically addressed the governance concept, allowing the freedom to relate civic engagement in all those areas and providing a greater opportunity to elevate certain things to their own status versus including them under one umbrella.


Councilmember McGehee responded that she didn't consider those things were precluded, but she personally thought civic engagement had to be a piece of that and if the various targets (e.g. tax base, work with Metropolitan Council, etc.) included an obligation to educate the public and work with them to make sure they also understood the targets and were on board with those targets.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this would create a much better process than the current one, which often got the City into trouble, with the City sometimes inviting public participation and educational efforts, and other times simply cramming things down their throats.


Mayor Roe opined that he found the list provided by Mr. Rapp to capture yesterday's discussion by not making one thing more important than another or combining them and losing emphasis in each area.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred that while "civic engagement" would certainly play into everything the City did, it wouldn't necessarily be addressed unless separated out.


Under "organizational evolution," Councilmember Etten stated that he struggled with that term, as the City struggles with upcoming Department Head turnover due to retirement, and the City's need to look at its service delivery progress in relationship to what it was great at.  Councilmember Etten questioned if that was "evolution" or "refocus," since to him evolution meant something different than finding what the City was great at.


In focusing on the current control model and desire to move toward a customer intimacy approach, Mayor Roe stated that was key in his mind.  Mayor Roe opined that it made sense that the organization had to evolve to deal with that concept, and other suggested other questions would and should get answered as part of that changed approach.


Mr. Rapp opined that, if the terminology changed from "organizational evolution," a member of the public may not immediately understand it, while theoretically they could understand the remainder of items listed.  As an example, if determined that service level was a priority and concepts were defined on how to deliver those service, Mr. Rapp noted that the operational excellence would be impacted by the role of innovation and other tools.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she found that whole category difficult based on categorizing them from yesterday's perspective of value propositions and culture and where those two categories differed.  As an example, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was a huge interest in being customer intimate, but questioned how anyone would want to accomplish that at the expense of the organization's excellence.


Councilmember McGehee seconded the comments made by Councilmember Etten, opining that rather than the term "evolution," she would prefer organizational "priorities," to determine how the City wanted the culture to work rather than working toward evolution.


Mr. Rapp questioned if organizational "excellence" would be preferred versus "evolution," allowing the City to determine its own level.  Mr. Rapp questioned if the organization itself and delivery of service by the organization could be separated or if it was about prioritizing what the organization did, improving and/or fixing how it was done, or what their intent actually was.


Councilmember McGehee opined she thought priorities would be a group discussion of the City Council and Department Heads to make that determination, including succession planning, and what it meant to bump up service levels in different departments.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that she thought it would be trying to establish some understanding of priorities and a cost benefit analysis in making those changes, and thereby causing City Manager Trudgeon to determine the internal structure of groups working across departmental lines.


Mr. Rapp noted key words that he continued to hear during this discussion: priorities, excellence, focus and evolution, and effectiveness.


Community Development Director Bilotta noted that even when there was a desire to cut a program or service, it continued on because it was done last year.  With a limited amount of resources, Mr. Bilotta noted the importance of defining and/or redefining where to put those resources - staff and finances.


Mr. Rapp noted that he continued to hear that prioritization issue a number of times, and suggested changing language from "organization" to "resource prioritization" to more clearly define the intent.


Mayor Roe opined that may make it too narrow.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that was too narrow; and resorted to her category from yesterday, "determining priorities as broad versus specific organizational priorities."


Mayor Roe stated he had a problem with the word "priorities," as he found it created confusion with projects undertaken versus how things were done, and balancing resources accordingly, which were actually two different things.


Councilmember Etten concurred with Mayor Roe's observation.


Mayor Roe noted it may just be a terminology issue: how we do things or make calls on what to do and how.


Mr. Rapp clarified that the term "organizational evolution" defined the challenge or strategy, with the next step, as comments were indicating, determining what it involved.  In lieu of this discussion, Mr. Rapp suggested changing "organizational evolution" to "organizational effectiveness" as a priority; and asked whether that encompassed enough to include succession planning to service levels, while prioritizing what was more important including the value proposition.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this put the connotation on the culture piece, and moved the culture back to a control model rather with organizational excellence.


Mr. Rapp responded that it was designed for that, but all cultures ultimately wanted effectiveness and excellence.


Mayor Roe suggested it could be flipped.

Mr. Rapp opined organizational effectiveness seemed broad enough that it would then allow the City to define what it means from their context.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her support for "effectiveness" versus "excellence" or evolution."  Councilmember Laliberte stated that it was obvious the City wanted excellence, and as noted yesterday by Mr. Rapp, the question was "Why are we doing what we do'"


3.            Where We're Going - Establishing Strategic Priorities


Revised Strategic Priority List

·         Civic Engagement

·         Housing and Redevelopment

·         Effective Governance

·         Infrastructure Sustainability

·         Organizational Effectiveness


4.            What We Want - Identify Desired Outcomes

Mr. Rapp provided some definitions and examples of strategic priorities gleaned from his work with other communities including various categories that may apply, some common to all communities but others differing in each community, and specific to Roseville.


Breaking down each of the above strategic priorities, Mr. Rapp led in defining important and desired outcomes offered by individuals in the group and as shown below.


Civic Engagement


·         Connection

·         Transparency

·         Authenticity

·         Communication

·         Proactive

·         Timely/early

·         Process

·         Broad/inclusive

·         Valued


Housing and Redevelopment

·         Variety/diversity - housing, redevelopment, commercial

·         Prepared for change

·         Reinvestment

·         Growth of tax base

·         Proactive

·         Job creation

·         Living wage jobs

·         Fulfills community needs (public assistance)

·         Public safety considerations

·         Cost benefit ratio understood at the frontend


Effective Governance

·         Process: consistent, transparent


Councilmember Etten suggested using League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) references as a refresher/primer to make sure Roseville was following that process each time


·         Constructive

·         Clear decision-making

·         Timely decision-making

·         Decisive decision-making

·         Respectful

·         Forward looking

·         Thorough, fully-informed analysis


Councilmember Laliberte noted that while staff and Councilmembers were having ongoing conversations throughout the analysis and performing their due diligence, the community may not be aware of that, creating the need for a transparent and consistent continuum.


·         Acceptance of decisions (team based)


Infrastructure Sustainability

·         Funding

·         Long-term planning

·         Equipment, facilities, and in-ground

·         Accommodates change without extreme dollar fluctuation

·         Innovation

·         Reliability

·         Long life cycle

·         Matches community needs and values


Mr. Rapp suggested a division on infrastructure issues is in the near term, or their performance period, with an emphasis on rehabilitation, maintenance and sustainability versus expansion and upgrading quality.  Mr. Rapp noted it was not an either/or situation, but a review of the City's biggest challenges.


Mayor Roe noted that the twenty-year capital improvement program (CIP) had already allowed a lot of areas to be addressed.  However, he noted the need to focus on some things without designated funding to-date (e.g. pathways).


Councilmember McGehee referenced Community Development Director Bilotta's comments on amenities, and suggested looking at creating amenities where opportunities arise (e.g. development with sufficient land to build attractive retention ponds versus a lift station with a fence, or a handicapped bridge versus no access).


·         Address Current Deficits


Organizational Effectiveness

·         Customer Intimacy

·         Inter-departmental cooperation

·         Adapting to change

·         Performance Measurement (e.g. program and service level prioritization)

·         Prioritizing our resources

·         Providing adequate funding

Councilmember Willmus sought clarification from Finance Director Miller on what was intended by "performance measurement."


Finance Director Miller responded that, if the City's desire is to move toward customer intimacy, how it would measure if it was reaching that goal.  Mr. Miller questioned if the intent was to start small and build from there; and in determining the services provided by the City, deciding if they were allocating resources accordingly.


Councilmember Willmus suggested this involved program and service level prioritization, which was then added to "performance measurement."


Councilmember Laliberte noted centralized communications efforts recently implemented, and asked staff if they saw other areas needing the same efforts.


Community Development Director Bilotta responded that there may be areas to centralize, or others needing to be decentralized, depending on their application.


Mr. Rapp noted that this could be combined with "Deploying our Resources" as effectiveness and efficiency measures.


On "Performance Measurement," Councilmember McGehee questioned if that division and organizational efficiency and organized customer service didn't fall under the purview of the City Manager to organize and experiment in decentralizing, while his management of that organizational structure or performance for the City Council was in determining the community's satisfaction level with that process by which it was governing the City.


·         Efficient and effective structures and resource use


Again, Councilmember McGehee opined this was more up to the City Manager


Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council was saying it was important, and it was up to the City Manager to sort it out.


Councilmember McGehee disagreed, opining that it was different in this instance, since it spoke more to organizational effectiveness.


Mr. Rapp stated that he didn't see a distinction, and under a Plan B form for municipal government, the City Council had its role as the governing board and provided guidance to the City Manager as the government's staff leader.  Mr. Rapp noted that the City Council provided the City Manager with expectations, guidance and resources, but anything having to do with the organization ultimately came back to the City Council to determine if the City Manager was using those things given to him.


Councilmember McGehee opined that historically, the City of Roseville had problems with the City Council stepping in the role of managing staff; and stated that she constantly liked to remind everyone that this is the direction, but the performance measurement piece was needed for the City Council as well.


Mr. Rapp clarified that he was not talking about micro-management, but some level of oversight while not stepping over that line.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that yesterday's discussion had proven how important and valuable leadership was.


·         Leadership, including Succession Planning

City Manager Trudgeon addressed his definition of leadership innovation in how the organization approached things, as well as how it empowered those within the organization to be leaders.


4.            What We Want - Identify Indicators

At this point, Mr. Rapp reviewed the next step in taking the identified outcomes to determine success indicators as they related to that specific priority to address a particular strategic challenge.  Mr. Rapp advised that, in the end, he was looking for 2-3 key outcomes in each priority area to provide desired outcomes for each strategic priority.


Mr. Rapp provided a variety of examples of this exercise to identify key outcome indicators, clarifying at that point targets would be identified for each of those indicators or aspirational things to work toward.  Mr. Rapp noted that some of those targets would not be set today without additional research and information.


As a result of this exercise, Mr. Rapp advised that he would take the key indicators and prepare a one-page matrix for the City of each of the five strategic priorities, their key outcome indicators (KOI), targets, and strategic initiatives to reach the goal.  Mr. Rapp noted that the goal of today would be to get a draft form of that matrix, from which staff would develop and draft a final column (Strategic Initiatives) for the City Council to review and consider prior to finalization.  Mr. Rapp noted that there were variable timeframes for the performance period for the strategic plan, suggesting it be more than one year.


Mayor Roe suggested a two year plan be provided to ensure the City Council could meet that timeframe.


Mr. Rapp reiterated that over that next two year period, the matrix consisting of five priorities, three outcome indicators, and 15 targeted definable outcomes would need to be undertaken and monitored as to their progress.  Mr. Rapp opined that was a lot to take on, but assured participants it was doable, and if they were important priorities to the group, they would be motivated to accomplish those 15 targeted items.  Mr. Rapp opined it would be even more hugely successful if used on broad-based priorities for the budget process, taking the budgeting/resource allocation and aligning it with priorities established by this group. 


Mr. Rapp indicated, if that exercise was successful and pulled all together, it would provide a one-page reference sheet for the group to use during and as part of the budget document.  Mr. Rapp stated that his goal was to help the group reinforcement this process and provide them with an accountability system to attain its targets.


Mr. Rapp divided participants into five groups, with one Councilmember in each group, and choosing a strategic priority, then the appropriate staff person for each group according to the topic.  Group breakdowns were as follows:


Civic Engagement

(Subgroup: Councilmember McGehee and City Manager Trudgeon)

Housing & Redevelopment

(Subgroup: Councilmember Etten and Community Development Director Bilotta and Police Chief Mathwig)

Effective Governance

(Subgroup: Mayor Roe and Fire Chief O'Neill)

Infrastructure Sustainability

(Subgroup: Councilmember Willmus and Public Works Director Schwartz and Parks & Recreation Director Brokke)

Organizational Effectiveness

(Subgroup: Councilmember Laliberte and Finance Director Miller)


Prior to break-out, Mr. Rapp responded to a written public question left by an audience member earlier in the morning, questioning his definition of "community."  Mr. Rapp stated that he used that term in its broadest context and as it applied to any and all stakeholders involved with the City or Roseville (e.g. anyone with ties to Roseville, having investment property in Roseville, a life-long resident, or any agency or other Roseville stakeholder).


Groups started this exercise at approximately 1:00 p.m., with Mr. Rapp reiterating the goal of this step was to define a general theory of governance and how it worked.  In clarifying this process, Mr. Rapp suggested the subgroups consider the following ownership and roles of stakeholders:

          City Council: owns purpose, direction, success definition and accountability

          Staff: owns action plans, methods and performance

          Shared: perspectives, creation and accountability


Mr. Rapp suggested it would serve better to put out clear, outcomes/expectations or purposes by the City Council, and leaving it up to staff to work the rest out as indicated.  Therefore, Mr. Rapp asked that the subgroups try to refrain themselves from problem solving and stick to strategy only, rather than getting bogged down in the "how."


5.            Finalize Key Outcome Indicators

Reports were provided by each subgroup, listing their interpretation of Key Outcome Indicators (KOI's).


Civic Engagement (Subgroup: Councilmember McGehee and City Manager Trudgeon)

Priorities: Connection; Transparency; Authenticity; Communication; Proactive; Timely/early; Process; Broad/inclusive; Valued


Key Outcome Indicators (KOI)

Community Satisfaction

Target: Some percentage (90%) expressing satisfaction with the process, not necessarily the outcome, but the process itself through responses to the periodic community survey.


Councilmember McGehee added that the big emphasis was on satisfaction, whether done pre- or post-survey and specific to the process itself.


Mr. Rapp clarified that if the KOI was community satisfaction was the indicated target, it should be refined to stipulate large projects or issues with a clear definition of how to define how you intend to define that 90% satisfaction rate (e.g. the Community Development Department creates a community engagement process and the Police Department has a separate process for their work or is the intent for a comprehensive satisfaction level').


When he considers civic engagement, Councilmember Willmus noted the often-missed demographic in Roseville was renters or those new to the community and not yet aware of the process and how things are done, causing them to not be participatory in that process.  Councilmember Willmus questioned what outreach or KOI was available to account for that missing demographic.


Councilmember McGehee noted she and City Manager Trudgeon had talked about several things, including communication efforts that could come down to the level of leaflets distributed in target areas.


Mr. Rapp suggested that what Councilmember Willmus was suggesting was actually a separate KOI.


Target: Participation in reaching a currently underserved percentage or segment of the community


Mayor Roe concurred that this was a key to community satisfaction.


Target: Volunteer opportunities

City Manager Trudgeon noted the KOI was to make opportunities for volunteers, not in numbers but in the variety of opportunities by offering a variety of different ways for people to be a part of and work with the community.


Councilmember McGehee added that, at one point, City Manager Trudgeon made the distinction between community satisfaction and its participation on major projects.  Councilmember McGehee noted that historically, volunteer opportunities have been specific to several departments, but opined that one thing that had been overlooked was how to engage people in the community in their areas of expertise or talents, saving staff time and also involving them in community efforts.  Councilmember McGehee provided several examples, including organic collections with four residents already coming forward offering their broad background and interest.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the City Manager could call them in on an informal basis to research background information and best practices used by other communities, or ask them to perform the research.  Through this process, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City was not engaging them or putting the City in the position to ask those volunteers for their opinions.


In the spirit of coming up with a meaningful outcome, Mr. Rapp questioned what the KOI was for engaging volunteers and getting useful information, whether using volunteers in established city programs, or using volunteer s or volunteer hours donated.  Mr. Rapp questioned what the City would find the most meaningful KOI.


Mayor Roe opined that he wanted to maintain areas with historic volunteer activity; but also get more volunteers and hours donated in non-traditional areas, or broadly expanding volunteer participation outside the traditional Parks & Recreation opportunities.


Mr. Rapp encouraged more comments, noting this was the group's chance to focus over the next two year period.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she wanted some different characteristics of volunteer opportunities.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned how broad this volunteer effort was being viewed, opining that volunteerism went all over the community, whether or not it was tied to the City itself, but including civic and community engagement.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City was attempting to do anything outside just helping fulfill its own needs.


Mayor Roe questioned how broader volunteerism could be measured (e.g. churches, community organizations, etc.).


Mr. Rapp suggested that was a central question for all participants, as they owned this over the next two years, "What is your focus for volunteerism?" and how big or small it was intended to be, and what was a meaningful outcome they were seeking to achieve and how to measure that outcome.  Mr. Rapp stated that he was hearing "increasing participation in targeted areas."


Councilmember McGehee opined that the area she was referencing was not included.


Mayor Roe opined the only outcome was to increase volunteering and volunteer opportunities.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it needed to be defined first.


Mayor Roe suggested identifying everything not now being provided by volunteers.


Mr. Rapp suggested, if the KOI is "volunteer opportunities," an increase from one percentage to another by the end of two years, and measuring that actual increase.  Mr. Rapp questioned if that KOI achieved the desired effect by simply volunteering, did it advance the quality of life or achieve a goal other than creating more opportunities, or what the meaningful end measurement was about volunteerism to get the City where it wanted to go.


Councilmember Willmus suggested some sort of metric be plugged in for each department such as for the internal operations within the organization as they related to volunteer positions by department (e.g. clerical assistance).


Councilmember Etten questioned if that was any better than simply increasing volunteer numbers or hours.  Councilmember Etten noted the investment by the City in the Volunteer Coordinator position for the purpose of improving volunteerism and making it more rigorous in new areas, with the overall goal to get more volunteers involved.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she'd like to see 3-4 small targeted opportunities for either brainstorming ideas or general purpose research on topics coming before the City Council.


Councilmember Etten opined that is very specific for this type of broader exercise.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was attempting to get to the definition.


Mr. Rapp suggested that the KOI was volunteer hours, with the TARGET being to increase the number of volunteer hours by 25%; and staff then identifying strategies to achieve that and meet the needs of the organization via survey needs, or whatever the next step is in solving that.  Mr. Rapp asked if this was a reasonable approach.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that, with that description, and using Councilmember Willmus' route as an initiative, it could free up staff to do what they were trained to do, by putting volunteerism into certain places.


Suggested KOI

·         Community satisfaction - ___% satisfied with process

·         Volunteer hours - increase volunteer hours by ___ #

·         Participation by ____ demographic population(e.g. renters) and segments of community (e.g. Karen immigrants)


Housing & Redevelopment

(Subgroup: Councilmember Etten and Community Development Director Bilotta and Police Chief Mathwig)

Priorities: Variety/diversity - housing, redevelopment, commercial; Prepared for change; Reinvestment; Growth of tax base; Proactive; Job creation; Living wage jobs; Fulfills community needs (public assistance?); Public safety considerations; Cost benefit ratio understood at the front end).


Key Outcome Indicators (KOI)

Market value growth in SE Roseville

Target: residential

Target: commercial

Homestead housing City-wide

Target: % change in homestead versus rental housing


Mr. Rapp asked for clarification of the purpose of this target if intended to influence the outcome to provide more stability.


Community Development Director Bilotta responded that it was in support of the homesteading position; and through inspections push single-family rentals back toward owner-occupied housing to keep certain areas of the community from becoming saturated with single-family rental housing, observed as a slowly increasing trend in some areas of the community and impacting other aspects.


Councilmember Etten concurred, noting that, as the country came out of the recession trending was toward rentals; and from the development side, there were potential impacts not only on investment in individual homes, but rental homes becoming a larger component of certain quadrants throughout the community,  creating a lower investment in housing in those areas.


Mr. Rapp clarified that the KOI was trying to achieve the target as the outcome, knowing the trend is not the outcome.


Mr. Bilotta clarified that the KOI was to reduce the decline in homeownership.


Mayor Roe clarified home ownership vs. rental; and questioned if that was inherently a bad thing or if it was an attempt to deal with happenings in neighborhoods and types of housing stock.


Mr. Bilotta responded that, at the point when the symptom got to a certain percentage of total rentals, it historically created additional problems in the home ownership market not being as attractive in those areas of the community.


Mr. Rapp suggested a more affirmative way to be found to state the intended KOI, whether that was to achieve a balance in segments of the neighborhood, in the broader community or neighborhood specific, or by defining the percentage of preferred housing stock to avoid declining housing values.


Councilmember McGehee noted the proliferation of single-family homes turning into rentals in specific neighborhoods.


Mr. Bilotta clarified that the concern was with single-family rentals versus owner-occupied homes and not referencing apartment buildings.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the Community Development Department had looked at the issue city-wide, and that the concern was that Roseville's single-family housing stock maintained its attractiveness to homeowners in relation to rental/investment properties.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that one addressed existing housing stock, and one move-up housing and initiatives or goals to rezone and identify developers to create new opportunities.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she did not see how her interpretation affected this target.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, ultimately you were trying to achieve sustainability of existing neighborhoods versus the more transient, short-term or transitional housing, through reinvesting in those neighborhoods.  Councilmember Willmus noted this may involve facilitating redevelopment of certain areas in a neighborhood, and looped back to Councilmember Laliberte's comments in looking for an indicator that encouraged or fostered that type of housing in Roseville: owner-occupied, single-family, or medium density residential (MDR) type uses.


Mr. Bilotta stated that such a scenario got into "how," to be developed later, such as adding 25 more owner-occupied units or somehow increasing that proportion through reinvestment targeting housing programs available to the City for those properties, making the property more attractive for ownership versus rental. 


Mayor Roe opined that the nexus wasn't necessarily between rental and ownership, but to make sure neighborhoods were attractive and well-maintained, and the "how" could be either comparing average values or the amount of investment being made, or somehow tie that in.  Mayor Roe admitted that he was not simply tracking renter versus owner-occupied as part of the whole picture.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed as we came out of the recession, people wanted to move up, and it was more cost-effective for them to rent their homes rather than selling at that time when values were low.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined this trend might correct itself over time.


Police Chief Mathwig added that this was also a public safety investment, as nationwide data indicated more police calls to rental homes than owner-occupied, with a corresponding reduction in police calls based on home ownership.


Mr. Rapp clarified that the target established and being monitored created the impetus for the programs being created.  If the City said their KOI was "homestead housing and change," with the TARGET to balance that in all neighborhoods, Mr. Rapp asked how that led up to the right kinds of initiatives and programs relative to housing and neighborhood stabilization.


Councilmember McGehee opined that if homestead housing fell, it was incumbent on staff to come up with a variety of programs to target specific neighborhoods.


Mayor Roe opined that he did want to tamp down current trending toward rental housing versus home ownership for those just entering the housing market.  Mayor Roe noted that rental housing values were trending consistently with non-rental single family homes at this time.


Councilmember Willmus concurred that this was a trend, and that it was cyclable.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that it created management problems when housing stock intended for one use moved into another type of use; and confirmed that it was a proven fact that single-family properties tended to be more stable.


Mayor Roe clarified that he was referring specifically to single-family rentals, not multi-family rentals.


Mr. Rapp questioned if there could be a reversal in that trend and still have the community experience declining property values; and whether property values were the indicator or if there was some other indicator of the market or attractiveness.


Mayor Roe responded that if single-family properties were on the downward trend, the desire was not to have everything else trending up.  However, Mayor Roe clarified that those choosing renting were just as attractive as Roseville residents as those owning housing stock.


Mr. Rapp questioned if the next step in terms of market value would be programs including code enforcement and continued diversity in housing that fed into that attractiveness model, which could perhaps still be achieved with another indicator.


From a public safety standpoint, Mayor Roe suggested targeting residents continuing to be interested in rental property; and how to monitor that.


Data-wise, Mr. Rapp suggested tracking valuation increases of owner-occupied homes compared to rental homes to keep them within a target range of each other, and based on observed deviations, push resources to one side or the other.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she'd still be happier with some target tied into homestead, and referenced the recent Dale Street Project and neighborhood comments that they wanted owner-occupied stock surrounding them.


Residential Housing Changes

Targets: Homestead and rental; owner-occupied value, and rental value

Councilmember Etten expressed his amazement at the number of and interest in duplexes in Roseville, which he attributed to a symptom of the modest upkeep for owners. Councilmember Etten stated that this suggested the need to make sure housing stock included not just individual single-family homes, but also included MDR options as well.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't attribute this to identifying any particular market segment at all, but thought Roseville was still missing certain types of homes.


Mayor Roe opined this sounded like another indicator and shouldn't be lumped in with this one.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was struggling with this stage of the exercise, as it seemed that at each stage the discussion veered farther away from the initial SWOT.  While originally talking about move-up housing stock, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the conversation was now moving toward reinforcing the housing code enforcement program already in place and very successful versus identifying yesterday's discussion about housing diversity and the City's lack of some types of housing stock.


Mayor Roe opined there were more indicators in this section of housing and redevelopment.


Finance Director Miller opined that he would find it of a huge advantage to see the work done by the subgroups two hours ago, as well as that done 24 hours ago next to this part of the exercise to help connect the dots.  Mr. Miller noted that what was now being reviewed had been distilled down several times, and seems to be causing the discussion to flounder indicating that the group had lost its way.


Community Development Director Bilotta noted that his subgroup had struggled with the whole KOI and how to define the number of units and what move-up housing or median housing was.


Finance Director Miller suggested it would be clearer if seen from his subgroup's work, admitting that his subgroup struggled mightily in defining their own KOI's.


Mr. Rapp recessed the meeting at approximately 2:26 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 2:38 p.m.


After the break, Mr. Rapp clarified that most important step at hand is getting the KOI's correct.  Mr. Rapp advised that the targets may or may not be fully fleshed out; and he would summarize everything accomplished, including a table and summary of all of the SWOT and information contained in the flip charts from various subgroups and the group as a whole in his draft report.


After that, Mr. Rapp reiterated that he would work with City Manager Trudgeon and staff to facilitate a half-day session to develop initiatives or key pieces to bring before the City Council to help achieve the City's strategic priorities.  Mr. Rapp recognized the frustration and normal desire at that half-day staff session.  If he found the group sliding into that minutia again, Mr. Rapp advised that he would refocus discussions to avoid losing continuity.


Using the move-up housing topic as an example, Councilmember McGehee questioned if they would then be on sheets for staff and they would return to the City Council with that issue for decision-making to set priorities.


Mayor Roe asked that "indicator' be defined, using the example of Councilmember McGhee for move-up housing, whether it was intended as specific or not.  Mayor Roe noted that the housing & redevelopment priority talked about variety and diversity, which may be the desired indicator, but suggested it may instead be related to work force housing.


With a two-year time period, Mr. Rapp suggested housing in particular tended to have a longer time horizon than that, providing an optional target specific to housing variety.  If the indicator was defined by the City Council to monitor housing variety with a target to achieve balance across the board or by a certain percentage, Mr. Rapp suggested that would be the target.  As an example, Mr. Rapp suggested  20% move-up housing by 2020 as a target, whether achievable in the two- year program or balanced with other options.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan would suggest those targets.


Mr. Rapp concurred that in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update and any new zoning, the City could start focusing on which housing options would receive initiatives, which would also provide an idea of the timing for the target over a longer time horizon.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, while the end use may be beyond two years, in order for it to happen or even be a potential, proper zoning and guidance was needed to be in place to accomplish that.


Mayor Roe opined that in itself that was a strategic initiative.


Councilmember Willmus concurred, opining that it was actually working the process backward to get to a strategic priority.


Mayor Roe opined that he saw this priority category (housing and redevelopment) as inclusive of growing the tax base, picking a target, as well as defining percentages for rental and owner-occupied and other housing options.


Market value growth in SE Roseville

Target: creating ways to grow that


Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and living wage growth

Target: defining what is living wage growth

Mayor Roe noted the need to address what all went into that.


Mr. Rapp suggested it included the desired housing income and what it wanted to achieve and how to articulate that desire.


Housing - increase the number and minimum home value of $350,000

                        Target: 50 units MDR residential housing in next 2 years

Councilmember McGehee opined that more specificity was needed as to whether it was intended as $350,000 per unit.


Mayor Roe questioned if there needed to be a distinction about owner-occupied units or rental units.


Councilmember McGehee suggested owner-occupied, 50 units, and valued over $350,000.


Councilmember Willmus noted that $350,000 was the low price point for detached townhome developments.


Mr. Rapp questioned if there was a distinguishing piece for move-up housing.


Councilmember Etten suggested care was needed in tossing out home values to avoid offending those in lower valued homes and not diminishing their importance in Roseville's housing stock.


Councilmember Willmus concurred, but noted that this did represent a missing segment in existing Roseville's housing stock.


Mayor Roe concurred, expressing concern that whether that value of housing stock was seen as a net plus or minus to the community, the intent was not to diminish the importance of those living in lower valued homes.


Suggested KOI

·         Focus on commercial/residential properties in SE Roseville and attempt to increase market values in that area

·         Create move-up variety housing by increasing the number of additional units available at a minimum price point of $350,000

·         Create living wage jobs specifically in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area

Councilmember Etten suggested going back to the Weaknesses/Threats section related to housing diversity and existing and aging housing stock, including concerns with public safety and tax base, and other considerations all boiling back into that.  Therefore, Councilmember Etten expressed his personal reluctance to leave off that aspect, but instead suggested having a fourth KOI addressing the rental aspect especially based on the community's little developable space for new housing stock.


Mayor Roe opined that he liked targeting the value increase and tracking of owner-occupied and rental housing within a certain range.


Councilmember Willmus noted there may be certain areas of town that reinvested and changed housing stock types.


By consensus, the participants added a fourth KOI as follows:

·         While recognizing it would take longer than two years, start now to remove homestead from residential housing values; creating a target for both of those housing types by developing a work plan during that two year period and initiatives to begin that process.


Effective Governance

(Subgroup: Mayor Roe and Fire Chief O'Neill)

Priorities: Consistent and transparent process; Constructive; Clear decision-making; Timely decision-making; Decisive decision-making; Respectful; Forward looking; Thorough, fully-informed analysis; Acceptance of decisions (team based)


Key Outcome Indicators (KOI)

Decisions are made and stick

Target: Every action item that comes to the City Council has a resolution at that meeting.


Mayor Roe noted that this may indicate that an item is discussed at several meetings prior to action, but when coming forward for action, it occurs at that meeting without further delay.


Mr. Rapp suggested that the indicator may be "decisions or action items" with the target being "tracking City Council actions."


Transparent Process

Target: Every item under consideration includes an indication as to where the decision-making process is at.


Councilmember McGehee referenced Councilmember Laliberte's desire for a continuum that every project had a schedule with a checklist for a clear understanding of where it was at to ensure transparency.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that it came into plan with communication tools, documents at meetings, communication about meetings and when/where they were being held; whether public comment or a Public  Hearing was being held at the Planning Commission or City Council level, and announcing or noting on the agenda packet at which stage it's at.


Process Conformity

Target: 90% of the time you will conform to the agreed-upon City Council process.


Councilmember Etten noted that there was a very defined process by Minnesota State Statute for land use cases.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that typical residents were not aware of that process.


Councilmember Etten concurred, noting the need to make the process more transparent for the general public.


Mr. Rapp suggested that the target was to have a process that the community could understand.


Mayor Roe noted that everyone, whether City Council, staff or the community, had a different definition of community as previously discussed, and using a different example than land use, such as the reorganization of the Fire Department, there should be a process for everyone, including the public, to understand at what point it was at, perhaps through a web page associated with the process, or using a thermometer graphic with a process line.


If the target is to monitor process transparency, Mr. Rapp suggested using Mayor Roe's "Transparent Process" as the target, each Request for Council Action (RCA) could include a check box indicating at which point the process is currently at.


Mayor Roe suggested instead that it could be like the Twin Lakes Engagement meetings, as residents see the steps where the project is at currently.


Councilmember McGehee noted the significant issues in notification for transparency and consistency, on large development project, and often what is perceived from one informational meeting to the next or what actually the prevailing perception of what actually transpired is. 


Mr. Rapp opined that, if he as a staff person was to be held accountable to achieve the target, a graphic on an RCA at every venue or every meeting would provide a clear continuum of the process and whether I'd fulfilled it and/or met with the satisfaction of constituents.  Mr. Rapp opined that this seemed to be a rather low bar to meet.


Beyond the land use stages and required meetings noted by Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe opined that the bigger challenge of the target was not a checkbox, but how the process itself was defined ahead of time.  Mayor Roe opined that this was the big and key part of the processing missing at this time.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that it was an overarching issue with community engagement and a big thing.


Revised Target (as suggested by Mr. Rapp and approved by consensus): A process will be published for every major project or issue, as defined by the City Council or for ALL projects and/or issues as determined.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that it still wasn't going to fix the problem of a resident not paying attention to or engaged with happenings in the community, and then attending a meeting only at the last stage at the recommendation of their neighbors.


Mayor Roe opined there needed to be a process and communication of that process throughout; first by developing the process and then continuously communicating it.


Mr. Rapp suggested if the target is 95% satisfaction post-decision on the process used, it was literally trying to make sure people were contacted and the process was open.


Process Transparency (revised)

Target: To have 95% of the people involved saying the process was adequate or fulfilled their needs


Mr. Rapp advised that the initiative would be to create a process for every item with the communication plan then getting into details.  Mr. Rapp advised that by unleashing the creativity of its staff, the City Council could make sure it was being held to that standard to ensure it happened.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested that it became more of a strategic initiative of community engagement efforts.


If that was the case, Mr. Rapp questioned if that indicated it should come off "effective governance" and go back to "community engagement."


Councilmember McGehee opined "no," that this was more of a sign-on to the process with satisfaction with the process but also needing to define that process and the City Council signing off on it to make sure it was consistent.


Laliberte noted earlier discussion included targeting a certain percentage of satisfaction with the process, and opined that it had taken over as a strategic indicator.


Mr. Rapp clarified that it was already a different strategic priority listed under "community engagement."


Engaged Political Candidates

Target: 2016 elections with incumbents who don't quit out of frustration and/or new candidates coming forward for openings.


Mayor Roe questioned if the intent of this included respectful acceptance of decisions and construction criticism.


Community Development Director Bilotta advised that the concern was that it would build attractiveness of serving on the City Council.


Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee opined that they didn't feel that was a problem.


Mayor Roe noted that only three citizens ran for two open Council seats in last fall's election.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she preferred a key indicator that would help the body in day-to-day meeting conduct and decision-making, not something that was only needed every two years at election time.


Mr. Rapp noted key discussion focused on respect, forward thinking and constructive criticism.


Mayor Roe agreed that this was the subgroup's intent.


Council Respect

Target: (undefined at this point

Mr. Rapp noted another community had asked their staff and advisory commissioners to generally and/or selectively rate and monitor City Council meetings by video or in person and rank the City in terms of their respectful comments or how they perceived the meeting.  However, Mr. Rapp noted that this was subjective.


Finance Director Miller asked if it was always necessary to have a key indicator for priorities.


Mr. Rapp responded that the theory of this is if effective governance is important enough to focus on, then there had to be a way to define City Council actions to fix or improve a particular target through transparency and how to measure it.  As an example, if respectful conduct is important, if we don't define how to measure it, Mr. Rapp indicated it was not likely to have any attention paid to it or any attempt to change or improve it.  If something was put in writing, such as achieving a 70% compliance rate for respectful behavior, Mr. Rapp suggested this provided a way to account for progress at the end of a year.


In his own situation with his staff, Finance Director Miller opined that most of their behavior or culture was ingrained with no clear indicators, but communicated out in the open and staff held accountable.  While the objectives are written down, Mr. Miller stated that there was no measurement of what percentage of time staff met those goals, but the value statements were written down for the department.  However, Mr. Miller advised that he didn't measure them quantitatively, but they were the expectations for the culture and work environment he wanted to create in the department.


Mr. Rapp questioned if a measurement would be the number of violations observed in staff interaction with customers, providing quantitative versus objective measurements.


Mr. Miller responded that this wouldn't hold him back since he had predefined instilling that culture within his department.


Councilmember Laliberte noted it could relate to a lack of individual decorum.


Mayor Roe noted that it was necessary to hold each other accountable as a group, and some way was needed to define issues at the end of the measurement period.


Mr. Miller questioned what the punishment would be for noncompliance.


Based on his experience and conversations held with staff, Councilmember Willmus suggested that if indicators were in place, you would be able to account for and be aware of that type of occurrence earlier on.


Mr. Miller advised that his department had that indicator in place, but it was not strictly defined.


Mr. Rapp recognized the many layers to this target, but suggested an ideal of having a limited number of measurable outcomes (e.g. 15) that in a perfect world, every quarter's performance report would provide a snapshot of that status.  Even though it's an objective accountability measurement, Mr. Rapp noted that it was deemed important enough for participants to list it as a KOI, and a simple target would be to quantify how that measurement was compared to expectations.


Mayor Roe suggested an indicator could be that at a certain percentage of meetings over a certain period of time, the group was above the threshold that everyone agreed to and conducted their business well.  Mayor Roe suggested a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" measurement may be adequate, or a consensus of the body on a particular meeting.


Monitor Respectful Meetings

Target: At the end of the year, 80% self-judged their behavior as respectful.


Mr. Rapp noted this would force the City Council into a discussion about their individual and corporate conduct.


Mayor Roe noted that it was worth saying that it was not just the City Council and staff, but also attending the meetings who were not always respectful.


Police Chief Mathwig suggested input from community advisory commissions, as well as internally among Department and Councilmembers, that would allow them to address if from their perspective and observations of public meetings, providing a 360 degree evaluation.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that the advisory commissioners could debrief after a Council meeting and provide a measurement based on their perspective at their joint meetings with the City Council.


Respectful Interactions within the Leadership Team

Target: 80% of public meetings judged respectful


Councilmember Etten provided an example from his experience with his peers in the education field.


Mr. Rapp suggested a quarterly, informal meeting with a score card of areas the participants struggled with.  If the goal is to improve respectful conduct, Mr. Rapp stated that would be a way of not letting things fester too long without being addressed.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how other groups managed to have convenient social times without televising those discussions.


Mr. Rapp suggested that the Council reconsider and adopt a policy on those meetings that they televised and those not televised.


Mayor Roe suggested other means may also be available for that type of discussion.


Mr. Rapp opined that the more participants were willing to put in writing and commit to changing, the more likely they would be to accomplish those outcomes.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it would serve to grade the municipal governance across the board, since everyone was in it together and everyone was responsible for that good performance.


Suggested KOI

·         City Council decision-making

·         Respectful leadership


Infrastructure Sustainability

(Subgroup: Councilmember Willmus and Public Works Director Schwartz and Parks & Recreation Director Brokke)

Priorities: Funding; Long-term planning; Equipment, facilities, and in-ground; Accommodates change without extreme dollar fluctuation; Innovation; Reliability; Long life cycle; Matches community needs and values; Address Current Deficits


Key Outcome Indicators (KOI)

Capital Improvement Funding

            Target: Identify unfunded needs

            Mr. Rapp opined that this target was actually step 1 and should go into the initiative column.  Mr. Rapp suggested that a more measureable target may be what percentage made sense for high priority or full funding over the next five years.


Parks & Recreation Director Brokke noted that CIP funding needs over the next 20 years had already been identified.


Mr. Rapp questioned if that was sufficient and well-defined enough.


Councilmember Willmus noted that originally the City had looked at a much shorter term within a few years to identify those needs and put some measures in place to track performance.


Mr. Rapp admitted that, for two years, it was a big task, but would result in coming out with a prioritized list and result in a good, measurable outcome within two years; and beyond that 2 year timeframe, identification of full funding for all needs.


Councilmember Etten expressed confusion, asking if this list wasn't already available and updated annually.  Councilmember Etten recognized that there were two different priority lists for pathways, which remained at tremendous demand in the community, but asked what additional measurement was necessary beyond that.


Public Works Director Schwartz advised that it would identify and target unfunded items.


Councilmember McGehee observed that in other communities they use a five-year timeframe to ensure the commitment is there, stating she was unaware of any other city using a 20 year plan.  Councilmember McGehee opined that by looking out so far into the future, some things got pushed off; and she would prefer to focus back into serious funding for a shorter time period.


Mayor Roe cautioned that if you don't look out far enough, you don't see upcoming problems, which had already been discussed.  Mayor Roe noted that the City was already aware of two areas that were unfunded: roads and pathways, and suggested focusing on an outcome to fund those areas at a minimum over the next few years.


After further discussion, it was the consensus that the KOI was:

A list, with identified funding stream, allowing the needs to be identified as the first step; then identifying funding sources; and then how to prioritize the list.   The KOI within the two-year timeframe would be to fund the CIP for all identified infrastructure, equipment and other CIP needs.


Councilmember Etten clarified that the picture should be completed for the City's larger needs that are in high demand.


Mr. Rapp suggested the target may be to adopt a comprehensive infrastructure plan, with the outcome being the strategy to accomplish that.


Infrastructure Condition

Target: Identify City condition standards and an index for each successful



Mr. Rapp suggested a "how" or Indicator may be "Monitor infrastructure conditions and the target: based on industry standards for each.


Councilmember McGehee noted the existence of the City's Asset Management Program; and suggested a target may be completion of that data input and use across the board, or a way to feed results from the program back into the CIP funding issue.


Public Works Director Schwartz clarified that the data in the program is used to feed back to the CIP and identify city condition standards for users and funding.  Mr. Schwartz noted considerations included at point they should be replaced based on community expectations, industry standards, life cycle costs, etc.


Mr. Rapp noted that having those standards would not be a simple matter, and the City Council would need to discuss the costs and implications of changing current replacement cycles (e.g. pavement index condition standards).


Councilmember Willmus opined that was something to be determined by the broader group.


Mayor Roe suggested an indicator within two years would be for the City to establish a policy for maintenance of that standard index.


Mr. Rapp suggested the target be: Adopted standards for each infrastructure category.


Community Expectations Indicator

            Target: % satisfaction via community surveys and community engagement

City Manager Trudgeon noted that this also fed back into the community engagement aspect; with Mayor Roe noting that they all eventually tied in together.


Mr. Rapp suggested it was good to keep it there to create a standard.


Councilmember McGehee observed that the project had already been started with the community survey, but needed to be further refined to ensure specific infrastructure questions and specific feedback was received by carrying those questions on consistently in each survey.


Suggested KOI

·         As noted above during discussion.


Organizational Effectiveness

(Subgroup: Councilmember Laliberte and Finance  Director Miller)

Priorities: Customer Intimacy; Inter-departmental cooperation; Adapting to change; Performance Measurement (e.g. program and service level prioritization); Prioritizing our resources; Providing adequate funding; Efficient and effective structures and resource use; Leadership, including Succession Planning


Key Outcome Indicators (KOI)

          Gauging Citizen Satisfaction


Mr. Rapp suggested this indicator be broadened to "stakeholder satisfaction" whether internal and/or external.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred, but questioned how to judge that internally.


Mayor Roe noted that was a good point, and questioned how to measure customer satisfaction versus citizen satisfaction.


Mr. Rapp noted "operational effectiveness" would incorporate all groups touched by that internal function.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that ultimately, you come back to the citizens, whether the Finance Department was struggling in working with another department or directly with citizens; opining that either way it still impacted the citizens.


Mr. Rapp advised that he was thinking in the terms of discreet functions (e.g. development applications and/or permitting processes) and how various stakeholders, whether citizens, developers, architects, engineers, or other stakeholders - as consumers of the services provided - found that service, with others ultimately touched by that service.


In sticking with the citizen, Councilmember Etten suggested exit surveys of those receiving services, while not being scientific by nature that would help provide a 360 degree evaluation of how a specific department was serving, with feedback possible from different or a variety of groups.  Councilmember Etten opined that then the statistically valid community survey would be just one other piece of the picture under this strategic initiative.


After further discussion, the consensus was to change the indicator to: "Gauging Stakeholder Satisfaction" with the target as a certain percentage of satisfied stakeholders through establishing strategic initiatives and providing ways to measure it.


Connect Citizen Expectations to Resource Allocation (Programs and Services)

Target: % of resource allocated to highest priorities


Councilmember Laliberte advised that the intent of this KOI would to ensure adequate funding was in line with prioritizing resources.  Councilmember Laliberte personally observed that at no point had the City taken community survey results and those priorities and tied them back to the financial allotment of staff and/or programs/services, actually connecting and aligning those community priorities.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of that concept.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that this was about citizen expectations as taxpayers on this point, narrowing the picture even more as to who's expectations were trying to be met.


Mr. Rapp noted that this would create a vehicle for adoption of the City budget to allocate resources, and budget decisions would need to be aligned with some validated data of citizen expectations, with the outcome that the decision was really up to the City but aligned with citizen expectations.


Mayor Roe opined it would be a challenge to measure and allocate funds to the highest priorities since there was a different level of costs associated.


Mr. Rapp suggested the participants brainstorm that challenge now.


Councilmember McGehee noted in the budget process early on, there could be a reminder that the budget was based on survey expectations and apply it across the board or tie to specific budget allocations.

Councilmember Etten stated that he would need to look at the survey within that framework and whether enough information was available to the average taxpayer filling out the survey to determine which programs were core, vital or preferred for the entire community with the City Council and staff simply serving as a pass through for those community preferences.  At this point, Councilmember Etten opined that the community survey asked relatively broad questions and questioned if that broad information could be boiled down to actual reductions or increases on an item by item or department by department approach.  Councilmember Etten suggested a goal for this indicator may be to take the more generic information and create a specific document to meet that goal.


Mayor Roe noted that the group struggled mightily with that during the last budget cycle.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed, but opined citizens were not necessarily going to indicate or rank things until they became aware of problem areas (e.g. no awareness of road conditions until they're bad).


Mayor Roe suggested the community survey question may be whether or not a respondent was satisfied with or not satisfied with the way the City was allocating resources.


Councilmember Etten opined that the questions could get specific in some areas; however, some specificity was not available (e.g. performance of a particular staff member) if the survey was going to be used as an instrument to drive the budget.  Councilmember Etten questioned if a respondent would have the necessary depth of information to make such a decision.


Councilmember McGehee opined that her perception of the last community survey was that citizens felt strongly about roads and keeping pathways clean year-round, and while those were not quantifiable when doing a budget, they came up and were of note in addressing budget priorities from a broad, not more narrow approach.


Mr. Rapp suggested the target was: Resource allocation reflects citizen priorities, without a percentage being listed; at which point the City made the decision based on the most current data available from various information sources.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he wanted to somehow connect resources to taxpayer expectations, opining that the current priorities were not actively serving all of the City's taxpayers.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred; however, she also recognized the comments of Councilmember Etten and the fact that all segments of the organization did not touch residents in the same way, making it meaningful across all of those segments, yet each of those segments still being important (e.g. IT).


Councilmember Willmus opined that what staff did on a daily basis had impact on taxpayers.


Mayor Roe noted the need to get feedback from the business community as taxpayers as well as residential taxpayers.


Community Development Director Bilotta noted that there were other ways to look at this impact, such as the sanitary sewer system managed by the Public Works Department.  Mr. Bilotta stated that the sanitary sewer system was not generally on citizens' minds until it failed.  Mr. Bilotta noted that some citizen expectations may be low based on their lack of awareness or information on various areas, but the City needed to educate them and work on raising their awareness of the value of what the City staff did on a daily basis.


Mayor Roe questioned if Mr. Bilotta meant that resources could be allocated toward educating the public, to which Mr. Bilotta responded affirmatively.


Mr. Rapp suggested the desired outcome was for a prioritized plan.  Mr. Rapp drew the focus back to the organization's effectiveness as being what it is, with a legitimate part of that seeking agreement from stakeholders.  Mr. Rapp questioned if the part about resource use or prioritizing resources was about that effective use of resources or the cost of services to taxpayers, and whether they should be effective and efficient for low cost or if resource allocation should have a target that the cost didn't go up much every year and how it tied into the KOI.


Mayor Roe opined it was hard to measure some of the areas.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of Community Development Director Bilotta's suggestion to come up with a plan to evaluate allocation.


Mayor Roe suggested it may be necessary to identify a way to measure it in order to evaluate it.


Community Development Director Bilotta responded that it would be similar to the Finance Commission's efforts on ways to make the budget more transparent.  Mr. Bilotta suggested the target could be: "Prepare a plan or adopt a plan for better linking resource allocation to citizen expectation."


Mayor Roe suggested it may be a way or means to adopt it.


Mr. Bilotta suggested there may be several techniques to accomplish the same end.


Mr. Rapp noted that realistically the best that could be achieved within a two year period would be to develop a process.


Finance Director Miller asked if the intent was to adopt an actual plan and how to link it by a formula or mechanism or just having being aware or make a conscious effort to link the two.


Mayor Roe opined that there needed to be some measurement of whether or not it's been accomplished.  Mayor Roe noted that this has always been a struggle throughout the budget process, how to allocate funds based on priorities.


If the desired outcome is to have a budget or resource allocation that reflected stakeholder needs, Mr. Rapp suggested simply stating that.  KOI: Resource allocation reflects stakeholder expectations with the target: being to align allocations and expectations based on available information and data, by developing a plan within the two years.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that at no point would be a perfect system, and as a body, the City Council would still need to make decisions based on their level of information compared to that of survey respondents from their municipal experience, as long as they remained reflective and kept in mind the expectations of its taxpayers.


Mr. Rapp opined that the targets were aspiration, and making on-the-ground decisions would always be necessary or addressing something that may occur during the middle of the year, since change always happened, making some of those expectations no longer realistic, but still keeping the aspiration in front of the group.  Mr. Rapp noted that this would require periodically refining reality to match the environment, and educating and making the public aware that the goal was not lost, but was being addressed within the reality of the budget, and when not lined up exactly still making them aware that you did the best you could based on that reality.


By consensus, the following was approved:

          Adopt a budget that reflects stakeholder priorities

Target: establish initiatives on how that happens and where it comes from as established through the strategic initiatives.


Create a process for identifying participants and resources to address problems and opportunities (Project Teams)

                   Target: (unidentified at this time)

Finance Director Miller stated that the intent of this identifier was to grasp interdepartmental cooperation and identifying participants in play, with the key word being "process in place" and how to address that.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred, noting that the intent was a reaction to attempts to be less silo-oriented and more collaborative.


Mr. Rapp questioned what the desired outcome was, with Councilmember Laliberte responding to more effectively solve problems; and Mr. Miller responding to address organizational needs and not limit thinking.


Councilmember McGehee stated it went back to staff's and Councilmembers' desire to move away from the top-down mentality and have more open interdepartmental collaboration.


Mayor Roe concurred.


Finance Director Miller noted that it required a conscious decision whether the process was individual or collaborative, which made a difference in how best to solve an issue.


In addressing problem solving, Mr. Rapp suggested a KOI stating: More collaborative decision-making," or "improved problem solving," both which was more of a "how."


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that the target was "effective problem solving" and recognizing that collaboration was not prudent on every issue that came along.


If better problem solving was the desired outcome, Mr. Rapp opined that it needed a way to monitor its success to indicate improvement or not.


As an example, Councilmember McGehee referenced streetscaping, with one group planting trees, another performing maintenance, and if the groups were collaborating it would maximize efficiency for maintenance and survivability, or the best outcome versus how it was currently set up. 


Mr. Rapp responding that he did not see that as problem solving, but advocating a change or prioritizing resources.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that it involved efficient and effective structure and use of resources.


Mr. Rapp suggested the struggle with this KOI was because there wasn't a good measurement for problem-solving.


Mayor Roe clarified that the struggle was with it as an outcome indicator.


Mr. Rapp opined that it was more applicable to organizational effectiveness and how to measure those assets and deploy resources in the most effective manner.  If running the business, Mr. Rapp stated he would be concerned with the effectiveness of the organization itself: what customers thought, the cost per unit, and life cycle.  Mr. Rapp opined that this was missing here.


Councilmember Laliberte opined it could be more of a performance measurement as with other outcome indicators; with strategic initiatives to get at those structural items.


Mr. Rapp agreed that "asset utilization" or something around efficiency or operations could be a target, with each department having developed one core efficiency measure by the end of the two-year period (e.g. response time for Fire or Police Departments, efficiencies in snow plowing for the Public Works Department) or other ways to measure the effectiveness of operations and establishing a core to look at.  Mr. Rapp opined that this would be more meaningful in terms of measuring effectiveness.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the examples given by Mr. Rapp were of a silo mentality, and noted the desire was to encourage interdepartmental collaboration.


If so, Mr. Rapp suggested coming up with targets inviting the collaborative approach, instructing effectiveness and efficiency.


Mayor Roe suggested a measurement could be by encouraging breaking of silo thinking, where doing so made sense and at the end of two years, provide examples of how and where it worked.


Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussion about duplicative communication functions resulting in a more streamlined approach, and suggested other may be additional opportunities.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she saw Roseville as becoming an example of multi-departmental work at some point in the near future.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he saw a clear nexus between this and quality of life issues in getting at the bigger picture.


Also in addressing the financial side, Councilmember Laliberte noted the consideration of whether resources were being used well and accomplishing the desired outcome.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if it could be tied into something easily measured and put into a metric, such as "if we have greater departmental cooperation, it will lead to a higher quality of life (e.g. land use issues)."


Mr. Rapp suggested the KOI as: "monitor operational effectiveness;" with the target: "adopted effectiveness measured in core service as defined" by those business or service delivery measurements used.


Councilmember McGehee opined that was not what she was seeking, but as stated by Councilmember Laliberte a more collaborative effort, even though it may not be an observable measurement.


By setting a target for it as he suggested above, Mr. Rapp opined that it invites staff discussion to look into all ways to accomplish it, hoping that it included collaboration across the lines and how to best do so.  Mr. Rapp noted this could also involved benchmarking Roseville against other communities and searching out other models.


Mayor Roe noted it also could involve collaboration among other units of government or agencies.


By putting too much emphasis upfront on describing the "how," Mr. Rapp cautioned that it didn't allow staff to proceed in assessing how and where they could accomplish that collaboration.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of Mr. Rapp's measurements, and while maybe all goals wouldn't succeed, some additional ones may come forward in the future.  In the context of collecting tax dollars, Councilmember Laliberte supported this way to say that at the end of the two year timeframe, the City was more efficient and used equipment, materials and people in the right way and in the right places.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that those details were best figured out by staff for the most part.


Mayor Roe concurred, opining that it got to all the areas, while allowing the City Manager to define the most cost-effective way to accomplish the various goals.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how this fit with the huge interest she'd heard from staff in moving toward collaborative versus silo problem solving,


Councilmember Laliberte responded that it would be their choice to do so or not.


Councilmember McGehee noted that was missing in the wording.


Councilmember Etten noted that it would be a performance measure included with prioritizing resources and effective use of those resources, based on staff's leadership abilities, tying in a lot of those goals with the current wording of "interdepartmental cooperation."


In previous review of this issue, Mayor Roe noted it wasn't necessarily a cost issue per area, but how things were process, what was done well or efficiently, and how to have the ability to measure that effectiveness and efficiency.


Councilmember Etten asked Department Heads what it would take to get this information together without it becoming a monster project and their expectations of the effort in adopting this.


Finance Director Miller suggested starting small and building from there by coming up with some type of performance measures that could be easily compiled without a lot of labor-intensity from staff.  Mr. Miller opined that his greatest fear was staff taking time to compile the data on performance measurements that would subsequently have not influence on City Council decision-making nor see any adjustment allocation for resources.


Councilmember Etten opined that cost was not the only consideration in whether or not to make something a higher or lower priority, but needed some other filter after this process.


Finance Director Miller opined that it made it easier to have a reason why to measure data for performance and easier to institutionalize if compiling that data and presenting it to the City Manager and City Council resulted in it being used in a productive way.


Mayor Roe suggested identifying five things being done to satisfy stakeholders that could be easily measured and start at that point to track trends over time to see if they are or could be managed better.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that this goal was not intended to make more incremental work for staff.


Public Works  Director Schwartz advised that their department had been tracking those things for years, and all their staff time was attributed to various areas, so coming up with the information should be straightforward and not an extra burden.  However, Mr. Schwartz agreed with Finance Director Miller that it had to be a useful exercise.


Community Development Director Bilotta noted that the data received may not be the same, recognizing that the Public Works Department had some complex tracking software, while other departments (e.g. Finance or Community Development) may need to quantify the data on the number of licenses and/or permits and over time, different information may come out of each department.  However, Mr. Bilotta stated that his department could jump into it slowly without a lot of extra time being required.


Mayor Roe suggested always remaining focused on the objectives, if measuring whether or not they're achieving the desired outcome.


Police Chief Mathwig advised that in order to do performance measures in his department, cost may prove difficult to define as the department itself had many layers to it and all were measured differently, whether the number of traffic stops, citations written, and record technician time involved for the traffic enforcement division; the time required for training and or maintenance for squads; or other divisions.  While the oversights were already being done, Chief Mathwig opined it would be difficult to put a figure to them.  When looking at performance measurements.  Chief Mathwig advised that their achievements were addressed in the community survey, as an example, with the satisfaction or lack thereof for residents feeling safe in their home, while shopping at Rosedale, or while driving down the street, all subjective.


Councilmember Etten recognized that each responsibility may not have an associated fee as with other departments; and questioned how the information would be made available in many areas.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that she wasn't interested in a lot of that information, stating that she found the satisfaction survey fine for her use.  Councilmember McGehee opined that if staff told her they were happy and since it was the City Manager's job to keep them happy, while looking for efficiencies and encouraging staff to work together as applicable, that was enough for her.


Mayor Roe agreed with part of that perception; however, he suggested identifying a target of two initiatives within the entire organization where costs could be consolidated where they were currently spread out in several departments, or identifying several projects with cross-department efforts and cost savings that could be achieved in doing so.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested centralized supply purchases as an example.


Mr. Rapp summarized the KOI as identifying two areas or programs/services versus creating a set of measures, clarifying that it constituted an outcome.


City Manager Trudgeon stated that he struggled with performance measurement, noting past attempts and questioning if there was any value from those attempts.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that what was important was for the organization to change what they were doing, but questioned if it was important to have a report card, and opined that he was hearing from participants that it was not necessary.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff already looked at this issue and it was reflected in their budget documents; and clarified that he would much rather focus on inter-department cooperation.


In terms of examples then, Mayor Roe suggested that over the next two years, staff identify several instances where it was possible to achieve more efficient operations, however that was accomplished.


Councilmember McGehee opined that collaboration should not be only for operational effectiveness or efficiencies, but to get a better handle on issues through brainstorming at the staff level.   Councilmember McGehee stated that she would be happy for City Manager Trudgeon take on as a goal to have more collaboration as part of staff's weekly meetings and work toward more of those efforts and return to the City Council with two things that resulted from that brainstorming or staff-initiatives of where they had worked together.


City Manager Trudgeon questioned if that was more of a City Manager performance goal.


Mayor Roe agreed, but opined it could still also be an organizational goal.


In previous discussions about top-down organizations and silos, Community Development Director Bilotta opined that moving forward with a more customer-focused outcome desire, he saw that naturally occurring.  Mr. Bilotta opined that the City Manager and Department Heads were already doing it in their roles (e.g. SE Roseville groups being formed and integration of other groups), and the only missing element was that they weren't written down.


City Manager Trudgeon stated that he was still struggling in how to quantify it.


With nothing yet listed under this category, Mr. Rapp expressed his surprise that effectiveness and efficiency improvements were highly desired as identified by participants, but there was nothing to respond to that desire yet.


Community Development Director Bilotta argued that Item #2 will pick up some of that given the Roseville population, opining that staff didn't need to worry about not being efficient.


Councilmember Etten concurred, opining that residents considered staff and the City Council to already be efficient as part of the current culture.


Mr. Rapp opined he believed in proving that as opposed to it only be anecdotal.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced discussion yesterday that indicated a desired move from command/control to a more customer intimate model; and advised that this was what the subgroup was attempting to come up with beyond the silo approach.


Mayor Roe suggested that at the end of two years, perhaps the group could agree that the City was 80% more customer intimate.


Mr. Rapp advised that the City would know through its interaction with its customer base and it would be reflective of its bias toward that point, providing customer/stakeholder feedback as part of the target.


6.            Finalize Key Outcome Indicators and Summing Up Review and Reflect on Discussion

In wrapping up today, Mr. Rapp advised that he would summarize today's discussion and noted, and meet with the City's key leadership to provide participants with full report and matrix, including the full SWOT and applicable appendices.


Mr. Rapp advised that he typically used the SWOT questionnaires and individual top three priorities as a double-check based on upfront work and results of working together as a group.  Mr. Rapp advised that it was typical that the results were similar to those initially listed, and offered to include them as part of his report.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte expressed their interest in comparing their individual SWOTS with the group results, hoping to find agreement from the majority as one of her ultimate goals of this retreat.  Councilmember Laliberte asked if the group could agree to eliminate what they couldn't agree on, and while understanding it would eventually become part of the how and strategic initiatives, it would be good to say out loud what the end result looked like.


Mr. Rapp distributed his list of goals entitled "Highest Priorities" as outlined by City Councilmembers and staff.


Based on their review of the document, Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Rapp agreed that they did a good job of hitting most of those issues.


Mr. Rapp noted this indicated a lot of common thinking of participants, and that the subsequent five priorities covered the territory quite well.


Councilmember Laliberte noted a question asked of her by resident Lisa McCormick of what the City wanted to be known for, or a tagline or brand.  While sometimes that can be communicated well, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was difficult without identifying what the City wanted to be known for.


Mr. Rapp questioned if that was related to the vision comments provided in the group list.


Finance Director Miller opined that it might, but noted that most cities like Roseville would come up with a list, but stated that the unique part of this was what distinguished Roseville; why you live, work and/or play in Roseville rather than anywhere else.


Mayor Roe questioned if the group was skirting the value proposition form the customer intimate model, opining that it was a big step to go from a command/control model to the customer intimate model; and questioned if it was linear or three different and separate foci.  Mayor From his perspective, Mayor Roe indicated that his first question would be what the City government wanted to be good at; and his second was what the community's image was using a maximum of two words for that description.


Mr. Rapp suggested it would be asking what a great community was versus what was its greatest service, noting that it may be a broad definition as addressed by Finance Director Miller.


Since everyone talked about Roseville's existing park system, City Manager Trudgeon questioned if the vision was already out there.


Councilmember McGehee opined that to be a good city, there needed to be balance, caution with the tax base, and engineering in place for all amenities.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that Roseville had shopping amenities, senior housing and healthcare, but needed to address move-up housing as requested by its residents.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she was less interested in a brand for the community that with a good, solid community with a good functioning form of government with a good park system.  Councilmember McGehee noted some areas needing improvement, including living wage jobs and increasing the tax base to support community amenities (e.g. trails, pathways, parks) so they can be afforded by those living in the City's housing stock.  Councilmember McGehee stated that was more in line with community expectations, with comments repeatedly heard that residents didn't want Roseville to be another Edina or St. Louis Park.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she in turn didn't want Roseville to become a Brooklyn Park or Fridley either.


City Manager Trudgeon stated he wanted Roseville to be great at better communication with its citizens, which staff was striving to do in every service and program, with land use issues often being the first response areas.  While that goal may not be tangible, Mr. Trudgeon opined that he wanted Roseville to be great across the board and crossover among all areas, with that being his take-away theme.


Mr. Rapp thanked participants, opining that everyone really worked hard, and should be proud of their efforts over the last two days.  While the outcomes may stretch each individual and the overall group, Mr. Rapp suggested it would be a good trip, and everyone should buckle up.


City Manager Trudgeon thanked Mr. Rapp for facilitating this retreat; and for the benefit of participants clarified the next steps would be receiving Mr. Rapp's draft report, then filling in the gaps, and bringing it back to the City Council for discussion with eventual adoption at some point, even though there was no firm timeline for that adoption.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the draft report would be posted on the City's website when available.


Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation for the initiatives offered by staff, and the atmosphere created at this retreat and hopefully in the future that if there were great ideas, there should no reason to be shy in bringing them forward.


Participants agreed with Mayor Roe's comments.


Mr. Rapp expressed his appreciation for the participation and vigorous engagement of the group.


7.            Adjourn

Mayor adjourned the retreat at approximately at 4:44 p.m. and thanked everyone for their participation.