City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 5, 2015

 

1.      Roll Call

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

 

2.      Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.       Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff was requesting removal of Consent Item 8.f for further review of potential costs prior to presenting it at the October 26, 2015 meeting for City Council consideration and potential action.

 

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 8.c, f, g and h from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

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

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

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

 

a.            Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road

Ms. Ramundt announced drop off sites for new and gently-used winter coats, hats and mittens for kids on several dates in October at area parks.

 

In her efforts to get Roseville residents interested in doing similar projects, Ms. Ramundt announced a Community Idea Exchange scheduled on October 25, 2015 at Autumn Grove Park, inviting any residents to attend and share their ideas.  Additional information is available from Ms. Ramundt at:  kramundt@hotmail.com or by calling 651/488-5061.

 

Discussion ensued about intended recipients of the clothing, and interest expressed in other opportunities and local distribution options, including working with Roseville Schools to direct those efforts as well as with the Roseville Police Department in addressing local needs.

 

With several ideas coming from this initial discussion, Ms. Ramundt reiterated her invitation for residents to attend the Community Idea Exchange to find other opportunities.

 

b.            Sherry Sanders, 363 S McCarron's Blvd.

Ms. Sanders reported on her attendance at the Civility Training held on September 19, 2015, sponsored in part by the Human Rights Commission (HRC), and thanked the City Council for not only having the HRC available but for their support for such opportunities as this.  Ms. Sanders reviewed some of the events and exercises during that opportunity and education resulting from it, expressing her hope that similar offerings could be held in the future for the community to learn to respect and listen to each other. Recognizing that often hostility in the political system is perceived to bleed into the community, Ms. Sanders opined therefore that the respect needed to begin with each individual, with one voice able to make a difference.  Ms. Sanders offered reference materials from the program for anyone interested.

 

Ms. Sanders noted that she recently spoke to the City's Ethics Commission asking them to create a Code of Conduct, and asked the City Council to charge the Commission to develop that for use for anyone representing Roseville.

 

Diane Hilden, 466 Bayview Drive

Ms. Hilden reiterated her previous request she presented to the Ethics Commission for development of a Code of Conduct for anyone associated with the City Council, City staff, or members of advisory commissions; and encouraged the final document be published broadly for those having grievances to have them addressed in a meaningful and productive way.

 

Ms. Hilden referenced the recent beginning meeting sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, Ramsey County and City of St. Paul on the Larpenteur and Rice Street corridor issues, expressing her hope that it produced good results for many.  Ms. Hilden opined that this was an incredible opportunity to spend our dollars wisely and well; and offered her to help facilitate future meetings.

 

5.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe agreed with Ms. Hilden on the benefits of recent workshops as a good first step to get things started.  Mayor Roe advised that a report would be forthcoming from the Chamber of Commerce and Ramsey County to address next steps; and as part of that, advised that he would be meeting with a St. Paul Councilmember and the Mayor of Maplewood in the next few weeks to put their leadership behind that effort. .

 

Councilmembers announced upcoming events and opportunities, including Roseville University focusing on Public Works Department operations; the availability of flu shots, hearing and eye tests offered at City Hall in October; weekly caregiver meetings held during October for those dealing with memory loss issues and hosted by the Act on Alzheimer's programming in Roseville; a Natural Resources Restoration effort at Villa Park later this month; and community conversations on youth mental health issues.  Additional information on these opportunities and events is available by contacting City Hall or online on the City's website.

 

Mayor Roe reported on the current status of franchise negotiations with Century Link advising that the North Suburban Communications Commission was scheduled to take action later this week, and if approved would subsequently move to member city review and approval within the next 60 days.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Introduction of New Police Officers

Chief Mathwig introduced new Roseville Police Officer Jeffrey Lopez and provided a brief bio of Officer Lopez.

 

Officer Lopez thanked the City for the opportunity to work in Roseville, stating that he and his wife were ecstatic to be back in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, having spent an immense amount of time in Roseville during his youth, opining that the "Roseville community helped raise him."  Officer Lopez expressed his enthusiasm for visiting with individual Councilmembers and residents in a less formal setting in the near future.

 

On behalf of the community, staff and City Council, Mayor Roe welcomed Officer Lopez.

 

b.            Human Rights Commission (HRC) Award Recognition

HRC Chair Wayne Groff introduced this first-time recognition and this first year's three honorees and award recipients: Kelly Tennison; Valerie Swenson, and the Roseville Area Middle School Theater Production Team, having done exemplary work in the area of human rights.  Chair Groff invited the three nominators to come forward, read their letters of nomination and introduce their respective award winners, after which he formally presented their certificates of award and photo opportunities were provided.

 

Nominator Mary Bachhuber introduced award winners: the Roseville Area Middle School (RAMS) Theater Production Team, and introduced their team of students and teachers.

 

Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee expressed their personal appreciation of the work done in the theater program and accommodation of all participants.

 

Nominator Jenny Loeck, Principal at Roseville Area Middle School (RAHS) introduced award winner: Kelly Tennison of RAHS.

 

Nominator Monica Gallagher introduced award winner: Valerie Swenson and recognized her work in a variety  of areas, including domestic abuse and violence and other peacemaking efforts at Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Roseville, and across the broader metropolitan area and State of Minnesota.

 

Mayor Roe thanked the HRC for initiating this award program and congratulated winners.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:39 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:40 p.m.

 

7.         Approve Minutes

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$150,469.71
79053 - 79122	192,515.85
TOTAL	$342,985.56

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

c.            Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the (RCA) and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that one of the reasons she'd removed this and several other items was that she estimated there was close to $4 million in requests listed on the Consent Agenda, opining that was too much to be considered without the benefit of fuller discussions.

 

Regarding proposed purchases, Councilmember McGehee questioned the relationship of the Police Department with the HealthEast organization and what type of services they provided and if of a medical nature, especially given recent conversations with the Fire Department and medical services provided by Allina.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Police Chief Mathwig responded that this organization exclusively outfits squad cars with mechanical items (e.g. shields, cage bars, and laptops) and the items provided were all non-medical related issues.  Chief Mathwig advised that this was a subsidiary of the HealthEast chain and was used by several police departments due to the great rates they offered and the good work they provided.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated August 31, 2015.

                       

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

                       

d.            Award a Professional Services Contract with SRF Consulting Group for the Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvements

Removed and deferred to October 26, 2015.

 

e.            Adopt a Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Twin Lakes Parkway Phase III

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that installation of traffic lights were still under staff review, but intended to be part of the project.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the cost above the engineer's estimate was due to contractors addressing potential contaminated soil risks; but noted that funding allocations as originally outlined would still suffice.

 

With the project coming in at 16% over estimates, Councilmember Etten noted it would take more tax increment financing (TIF) District 17 bond funds, and asked how that would impact funding for the I-35W and Cleveland Avenue Project.

 

City Manager Trudgeon, with concurrence by Public Works Director Marc Culver, advised that the total bond issue was $3.27 million, and with the interchange work coming in approximately $200,000 less than the engineer's estimate, there would be some cost savings there.  However, Mr. Trudgeon acknowledged that continued monitoring of projects would be necessary with diligence given to reach the most cost-effective results.

 

As a general comment, Councilmember McGehee noted that there was no question as to why it is we now have a system running from the I-35W interchange to Snelling Avenue.  However, Councilmember McGehee expressed her frustration in the way the segments of the project were presented throughout the process, and instead of  presenting the entire project completely, with various phases addressed accordingly, she found this piecemeal approach creating the need to work backward.  Councilmember McGehee further stated that no one had told her otherwise and suggested a traffic model could have been run for proposed changes at County Road C and Terrace Drive without comingling projects.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this was the typical way things were done without the full cost known beforehand and costs incrementally adding to it; first with the bond issue, then the road, and then adding the stoplight.  Councilmember McGehee asked staff, for the benefit of the public and the City Council, to present a more comprehensive versus piecemeal process rather than offering one segment at a time.  Given the comments heard to-date from residents in this area stating that they don't want any more traffic in their neighborhood, Councilmember McGehee opined that this road did not serve those living in that immediate or even the broader Roseville community, especially the large expense for ongoing maintenance going into the future.  Councilmember McGehee respectfully requested that someone from staff come forward with estimated costs from I-35W to Snelling Avenue for the road costs and ongoing maintenance, further opining that the citizens and City Council had a right to know that information.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11260 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for Project ST-15-14 -Twin Lakes Parkway Phase III Project;" to Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,570,712.80.

 

For the reasons stated, Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support the motion.

 

While expressing appreciation for Councilmember McGehee's comments, Councilmember Laliberte offered her support of the motion.

 

Mayor Roe offered his support of the motion; clarifying that as had been demonstrated in the latest traffic study,   this connection would provide improvements for the neighborhood, and as this has been recognized as the next step in that process, the requested action provided no surprises, as it had been discussed several times in the past.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

f.             Award a Construction Services Contract with SRF Consulting Group for Twin lakes Parkway Phase III

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that this construction services contract was included as part of bonding funding.

 

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, award of a professional services contract (Attachment A) with SRF Consulting Group for construction services for the Twin Lakes Parkway Phase III project (City Project #15-14) in an amount not to exceed $229,847.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she would oppose this motion for the same reasons stated in her opposition of the previous motion.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

g.            Approve Terms of 2015 - 2017 IAFF Firefighters Contract

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015, for this new bargaining unit. City Manager Trudgeon offered his personal thanks for the professionalism displayed during discussions and the leadership provided in negotiating what he felt was a fair and balanced contract for the six new firefighters for a two-year term through 2017 as outlined.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that her reason for removing this item from the Consent Agenda was based on the recognition that the City now had four bargaining units requiring a considerable amount of staff time.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Manager had done an excellent job and thanked him for his efforts.  Based on these latest negotiations, Councilmember McGehee expressed her expectations that some commensurate adjustment would be coming forward to ensure the City's non-union staff were also recipients of benefits equitably with those negotiated for union staff.  Given the potential expense of contract negotiations, Councilmember McGehee sought feedback from her colleagues on their interest in having staff look at across-the-board services for outside contract services.  Councilmember McGehee again thanked City Manager Trudgeon for his excellent negotiations and time spent on these efforts.

 

For the record, City Manager Trudgeon noted that this was a team effort, and acknowledged the efforts of the Fire Department's negotiating team for the firefighters, Fire Chief O'Neill, Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon, and City Attorney Mark Gaughan.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the 2015 - 2017 collective bargaining agreement with the IAFF as presented, directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney review and approval.

                                                                 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

h.            Approve Owasso Ball Fields Purchase Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated October 5, 2015.  As outlined in the RCA, Mr. Trudgeon noted that credit was incorporated in the Purchase Agreement for park dedication fees for the United Properties at the Cherrywood Point Assisted Living project and the Applewood Site and deducted from the overall purchase price, resulting in a net purchase price for the City of $125,000 and additional transaction and closing costs.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this included transfer of a 0.3 acre parcel to the developer, and the developer's construction and maintenance of the parking lot for use by the ballfields at their cost over its lifetime.  Mr. Trudgeon further reviewed easement reservations across the street and through the parking lot for continued access.  Mr. Trudgeon asked for City Council approval of this agreement, with anticipated closing with the School District in November, and the southern portion as soon as possible or concurrently depending on completion of paperwork.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated it was her understanding that this would come back to the City Council in closed session for further review prior to a contract being presented.  Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found this process rather opaque and questioned how much of a deal this resulted in for residents with $700,000 in taxpayer monies being given the developer as a credit.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned if  these ballfields represented the best location or most efficient cost versus locating them at less cost on public land elsewhere in the community.  Councilmember McGehee questioned the current condition of this ballfield (e.g. fencing, etc.).

 

City Manager Trudgeon reported that he knew the concession stand was in immediate need of repair, and may actually be included as part of the 2016 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list, but from his perspective, thought the general condition of the fields was adequate based on investments made in its maintenance over the last twenty-five years.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this credit would come from park dedication fees paid into that fund by developers over the past years, and with that existing balance in place would require no additional monies to be expended by the City at this time.

 

While that may be true, Councilmember McGehee noted other significant CIP needs, including a new clubhouse at the golf course and $2 million or the skating center that could have come from those funds, with park dedication fees from these developments adding to the fund for use elsewhere versus making a call to add yet another expense to the existing park system already having many outstanding needs and liabilities.  Personally, if it had been a better deal, Councilmember McGehee stated she would have been more supportive, but this presented no deal at all.  Based on her understanding, Councilmember McGehee stated that the ballfields cost the City $1,200 per season before this additional expense, with the City of Roseville only one of seven communities in District 623 maintaining and holding 80% of these fields.  Given the aging demographics of the Roseville population, Councilmember McGehee questioned inordinate expense being taken on by the City for that maintenance without having any additional discussion and in light of the number of CIP issues still outstanding, all coming out of taxpayer pockets.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated the need to think about this rather than simply in piecemeal fashion and review of the bigger picture as part of the responsibility of the City Council.  Councilmember McGehee suggested more discussion on this entire CIP topic at the October 19, 2015 City Council Worksession and how to bring these type of things forward for an umbrella overview to save significant dollars while providing cost-effective services to the community.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council has failed to give sufficient direction to staff or address these issues through its strategic planning processes.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn't disagree with comments on having discussion on the broader picture, opining that this was attempted in an ongoing basis throughout the budget process.  However, specific to this request, Councilmember Willmus stated that he found nothing inconsistent with previous discussions today or when he and Councilmember McGehee served on the Task Force with representatives of School District 623 to review opportunities for I.S.D. 623 to liquidate this property, and acquisition options, with this being the result of those discussions.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this action proved responsive to I.S.D. 623, the City and maintaining green space and ballfields, and actually addressed the broader picture, and therefore, offered his support.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11261 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Purchase/Sale of Certain Land by the City of Roseville;" entering into a Purchase Agreement (Attachment B) with United Properties for the purchase of the Owasso Ballfields site and performance of the actions necessary to meet the City's obligations identified in the executed Purchase Agreement.

 

Councilmember Etten stated that this was very much representative of discussions to-date and direction to staff; as well as what was considered for green space, ballfields, and additional open space for new development north of this property.  Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for negotiations providing construction and maintenance of the parking lot by the development, providing a tremendous long-term benefit and reduced costs to the City.

 

Having served on the Task Force as referenced by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee stated that it had always been her position that the School District should sell this land for the best possible price available.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a separate issue, since at that time the City was trying to obtain this parcel at a reduced cost, causing her to be happy for the School District that that reduced cost didn't come to fruition.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that the cost to the City was probably twice the cost it would have been to relocate the ballfields elsewhere in the community.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for the motion, agreeing that it was in concert with prior discussions and goals.  As part of that, Councilmember Laliberte opined it was an important aspect for her that the developer was willing to construct and maintain the parking lot for the City's use during the season.  Councilmember Laliberte shared concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee that there were many other CIP needs in the community, not only the club house and skating center, but opined she didn't see that need hinging on this, and if it had, the entire negotiating process probably shouldn't have gone this resulting in this requested action.  However, since she found the results to be consistent, Councilmember Laliberte offered her support; and while recognizing that the City of Roseville seemed to take on the lion's share of this expense rather than with equal participation with other communities within I.S.D. 623, the idea of attempting to relocate the fields elsewhere was not feasible at this time.

 

Mayor Roe offered his support of the motion, opining that from his recollection the first plan had been to use park dedication funds to make this purchase. By crediting pending projects and not drawing down existing funds, Mayor Roe opined this would leave the existing Park Dedication fund largely intact for related CIP costs that had already been programmed into the budget.  Mayor Roe noted that the negotiations also resulted in a fair deal for the School District, and recognized property value changes over the last 1.5 years, with the City Council recognizing that evolution throughout the process itself.  Mayor Roe opined that resulting negotiations for parking lot maintenance by the developer over the long-term had also proven beneficial and were in line with City Council intentions and direction to staff.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

11.         Presentations

 

a.            Roseville Area Superintendent Aldo Sicoli Introduction

Mayor Roe welcomed Roseville School District 623 Superintendent Aldo Sicoli.

 

Superintendent Sicoli stated his honor in following Dr. John Thein, whom he greatly admired and respected and expressed his appreciation of being able to work with him during the transition period between Dr. Thein's retirement and his personal tenure as Superintendent.  Superintendent Sicoli thanked the City for recognizing Ms. Tennison for her work with the School District; and expressed his excitement in seeing the sale of the former Owasso School property coming to fruition.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Superintendent Sicoli advised that, while obviously having some programs that he may champion in the future, his first step would be to work with staff, the community and School Board to move forward and how to improve I.S.D 623 as a cooperative venture.  Superintendent Sicoli noted that a strategic plan update, last done in 2009, would probably be forthcoming that would further define the district as well as facility planning for the future.

 

Mayor Roe expressed his interest in working with Superintendent Sicoli in the future, and the City Council's interest in continuing the tradition of at least an annual get together in this venue.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:18 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:23 p.m.

 

b.            Joint Meeting with the Human Rights Commission (HRC)

Of the four current members of the HRC, those present were: Chair Wayne Groff and Members present included: Arlene Christiansen and Molli Slade.  Chair Groff advised that Commissioner Lisa Carey was unavailable to attend tonight.

 

Chair Groff reviewed the general role of the HRC was to make sure unrepresented peoples were all heard by representatives of the City Council and not forgotten.  As outlined in the RCA, Chair Groff summarized highlights of the HRC activities since the last joint meeting.

 

Member Slade addressed recent community mental health conversations; the involvement of and attendance of Roseville Police Chief Mathwig at those meetings, and interactions found at the first meetings to recognize first episodes and symptoms of mental health issues with youth.  Member Slade noted that these initial discussions had created an impetus for NAMI conversations and other modalities moving forward with this rich topic and the community interest expressed, to improve involvement and reduce stigmas.

 

Chair Groff reiterated the observations and comments of Member Slade, agreeing that the attendance of Chief Mathwig and ways addressed in the first efforts in dealing with children experiencing this mental health stigma and increasing comfort levels and awareness had proven a good first step.

 

Chair Groff noted the HRC awards presented tonight, and expressed how grateful he was with this great step forward.

 

Member Christianson spoke to the successful attendance of the documentary on Selma, and cooperative interest from the City of Shoreview HRC for further involvement with the Roseville HRC, and creating a bridge between the two communities, noting how great it was to receive that great feedback from another City's HRC.

 

Specific to the recent civility training held, Chair Groff expressed pleasure in the number attending, opining that the exercises were top notch and provided interesting sessions.

 

Member Christianson noted the fine job Ms. Sanders had done in defining the recent Civility Training, thanking the Rotary Club, Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch, and the City of Shoreview HRC, co-funders and sponsors of the training.  Member Christianson noted that the City of Maplewood's HRC had expressed their interest in participating in similar civility training next year.  Member Christianson emphasized that reclaiming civility in government and the city square were important for all to remember, especially in defining government beyond the politicians to the citizens who are the true government, and therefore making civility the responsibility of everyone.  Member Christianson expressed her hope that this message can be carried out thoroughly. 

 

Chair Groff reviewed activities and accomplishments of the HRC to-date, and work items for 2015/2016 as detailed in the RCA dated October 5, 2015.  Chair Groff advised that, after the HRC's review of the State Human Rights League's essay question for this year, the Roseville HRC - in consultation with local school instructors based on their curriculum - had developed their own topic for this year's essay contest.

 

Councilmember Willmus thanked the HRC for their proactive work with the local school districts to coordinate and gear the essay question to the curriculum and grounding that original concept.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that the book referenced by HRC members was not only a children's book, but would be of benefit for anyone in the community seeking a better understanding of cultural heritages and cultures; and referenced another great resource with the current play at the Children's Theater and upcoming mental health forums.  As a big supporter of such efforts, Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation for the HRC's efforts along those lines.

 

Mayor Roe echoed that appreciation.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked the HRC for working directly with school district staff to find an essay question in line with their curriculum presenting a great way to involve more people.  As a teacher, Councilmember Etten noted how much more effective this relevancy would be and increase the interest level for more students.

 

Councilmember Laliberte echoed the comments and appreciation expressed by her colleagues, specifically with the essay contest, supporting their choice as a much more realistic topic, especially as she had observed the HRC debate in her viewing of their meeting, and agreed the State League's question seemed disingenuous and not in keeping with the Roseville community.

 

Given recent discussions by the City Council on the role of the HRC and whether to combine it with the Community Engagement Commission (CEC), Mayor Roe asked Chair Groff if the HRC was prepared to provide their initial thoughts on that process and any other feedback tonight or if they preferred to wait for a future presentation.

 

Chair Groff stated that, he had given it some thought, and while understanding some of the logic in combining commissions, admitted it had still come as a surprise to the HRC when hearing of this possibility in August.  From the HRC perspective, as well as his personal perspective, Chair Groff noted that his understanding was that the CEC had too much work already to further tie in the HRC; causing some puzzlement as to the rationale in tying in the HRC with the CEC.  Chair Groff opined that the HRC had been consistent with their work to-date, and didn't see the CEC doing the same type of work specific to human rights (e.g. developing a community engagement website), and in specifically providing a voice to those not having one or not having an understanding of the community, and giving them a chance to be heard.

 

Based on her understanding of the August meeting, Member Christianson expressed her hope that the HRC would not face or disappear into another group, agreeing with the comments of Chair Groff in giving a voice to everyone in the community.  Member Christianson noted the importance held by the HRC in valuing diversity, with all lives mattering, and while human rights may not always be pretty or happy, or all work involving festivals, opined that it was important to have a group addressing human rights issues exclusively, whether or not all those efforts were successful, but at least making the effort to ensure residents felt they were being heard.  Member Christianson noted that many human rights subjects are weighty and covering various topics, with much work remaining yet to do to make people more aware of the HRC and plans to spread that word to continue and enhance the HRC's usefulness to the City Council as advisors so all could experience a more civilized life.

 

Member Slade echoed the comments of her colleagues, opining that the HRC represented a unique advisory commission to speak for those not having a voice or those intimidated by approaching City Hall.  If the HRC was incorporated into another commission, Member Slade opined that it would lose its special focus. In responding to Mayor Roe's question, Member Slade reflected it back to the City Council by asking, "What can the HRC do differently or do to more closely reflect the City Council's charge?"  Based on the HRC's bylaws, Member Slade opined that there seemed to be something missing beyond just financial resources, further opining that the HRC had as much value as other areas funded by the City, and were kept incredibly busy, even though the work of the HRC took a considerable amount of her volunteer time.

 

Member Christianson noted the diminished ranks of the HRC at this time, with only 4 members doing a lot of work, opining they could use a lot more help and respectfully requested that the City Council alleviate that pressure by moving forward to fill vacancies on the HRC it would be very much appreciated, as well as providing an opportunity for other residents desiring to help to do so and have some input.  Member Christianson opined that there was a lot of talent out there to be tapped into.

 

Mayor Roe thanked HRC members for their feedback, and reflecting the question back to the City Council.  Personally, Mayor Roe stated that he considered the HRC charge much more broadly than just engaging people with their government, but also engaging with each other, which he found to be the profound difference between the HRC and CEC.  Based on his personal observations of the HRC and looking beyond City Hall or City Council meetings, Mayor Roe opined that the HRC served as an important part of how the City built the community and impacted engagement of people with specifics beyond what is done here.  While recognizing there were opportunities for commissions to serve in their advisory role as "doers" and/or "advisors," Mayor Roe stated that the HRC was one commission that went a long way toward being "doers."

 

When originally looking at the CEC and their having a separate charge and action from that of the HRC, Councilmember Willmus noted that he had since come to see a lot of overlap.  While the mission of the HRC was certainly important, Councilmember Willmus opined that there were efficiencies to be gained by merging several commissions, and as a City Councilmember he wanted to continue his review of future possibilities and potentials.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that he had personally made no determinations yet, but recognized the great opportunities that may be found as part of this periodic review, which from his research and knowledge of the City's history had included other City Council actions in blending, expanding or redefining the scope of its advisory commissions periodically.  Councilmember Willmus stated that there were some strengths to be gained with a combined HRC and CEC, particularly with the "doing" and outreach aspects; and reiterated his interest in continuing to explore options before coming to a final decision.

 

In response and as an example, Member Christianson noted cooperative work of commissions, such as the Parks & Recreation Commission's work on annual cultural festivals by working with cultural organizations within the community.  Member Christianson stated that the HRC had discussed tapping into those existing relationships and organizations, in addressing the efficiency aspect mentioned by Councilmember Willmus, as opportunities are available and when it makes sense versus reinventing the wheel.  Member Christianson opined that, in those and similar circumstances there would be no need for the HRC to be absorbed and continuing to provide some distinct differences.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was necessarily not speaking in support of absorbing, eliminating or any other connotation, but retaining each mission of the advisory commission, and simply bringing the two together to eliminate overlapping goals and activities.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw the HRC as one of the most independent advisory commissions, especially given the growing diversity of the community and topics brought forward by the HRC to-date.  As an example, Councilmember McGehee mentioned the youth mental health sessions coming up, which was a huge issue everywhere and having policy implications and requiring more community conversations, while not fitting in any way under the CEC from her perspective.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation for the work of the HRC and supported their continuing to do so, opining that overlapping of some issues may actually nice.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that it was good to reach out from various bases to add different dimensions and enhance missions.  Councilmember McGehee stated that, as a moral and ethical center, she considered the HRC as the place to begin to reach out to other entities.

 

Councilmember Etten stated that he generally echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee, opining that the HRC had carved out more of their mission as the missions of the HRC and CEC were moved away from each other and each had become more defined.  Councilmember Etten suggested the HRC continue to explore ways to engage with other jurisdictions, municipalities, Ramsey County and schools, to pursue areas of commonality.  As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the recent discussions with Ramsey County and other jurisdictions on issues involving the Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue corridors and how to address those issues across borders.

Councilmember Laliberte also expressed her appreciation of the work of the HRC, and stated that she had not made a decision yet as to the validity of merging the HRC and CEC.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke to the value of the work done by the HRC, and assured HRC members that its work would continue to be just as vital if its structure were changed.  Councilmember Laliberte reviewed the background of this periodic review by the City Council of all of its advisory commissions, initiated by its recent adoption of a uniform commission code to provide some administrative consistency among them.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that consideration of whether or not to combine or revise some of those existing commissions had been the next step, and didn't signify that any were going away or changing, but just to review their charges.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that in no way did she see this as a dissolution of the HRC, but did want to look at efficiencies versus duplications and combining efforts where possible, as well as seeking new or efficient ways to accomplish things.  Councilmember Laliberte noted one of her initial thoughts had been that at some point, the CEC will get to the point they want to become "doers" and while they may need to stay in their current mode of building and establishing themselves in their advisory capacity, it would be helpful for them and for the HRC to have the HRC possibly serve as their programming/events arm of the CEC, given their successful history in serving in that role.  Councilmember Laliberte further noted that this may not only involve the HRC serving in that capacity with the CEC, but also providing their expertise to other advisory commissions or groups when it made sense.  Under that scenario, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she saw the HRC continuing to serve in that capacity and continuing everything they're doing right now, in addition to new initiatives and coordinating efforts for others.

 

Mayor Roe admitted that he has some issue with that, especially as it was new information to him, and noted part of his concern was that the CEC was still trying to find their foundation and Councilmember Laliberte's concept would start to weave things back into the CEC that had already been pulled out.  Mayor Roe stated that he still felt the value of the CEC was in connecting the broader community with City Hall; while the HRC had a distinct role in looking at and facilitating human rights issues in the community that may or may not have anything at all to do with or be involved with City Hall, but be very unique and different and in no way fall under an event planning arm of the CEC.  Mayor Roe stated that Councilmember Laliberte's concept had given him cause for concern in hearing it expressed that way; and for the benefit of the HRC, noted that obviously there was no unanimity at this point among the City Council itself.  Mayor Roe noted that some tough conversations would be needed by the City Council going forward, and would not be HRC-specific, but involve all commissions and subsequent additional discussion with them.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council continued to keep the HRC in limbo, which she found rude, and since there was no unanimity on the part of the body at this time, opined that an agenda in the very near future address their vacancies and not continue to keep them in this tentative role.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council would soon need to take action to begin the process of filling commission roles for next year, probably as soon as January of 2016.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that such an upfront discussion needed to be held on an agenda sooner rather than later to determine a consensus in order to move forward in populating or repopulating commissions.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that was an important discussion for the City Council as well as for commission chairs, as soon as it could be addressed among other priority deadlines over the next few months.

 

Chair Groff reiterated the HRC's request for a full commission contingent, noting the tolls resulting from only having four members serving at this time.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the commissioners served as the City Council's advisors.

 

While recognizing their role and importance to the City Council, Mayor Roe also noted that it would not be fair to appoint a new commissioner to the HRC for a short-term, and then pull the rug out from them after just having been appointed if a change in commission structure(s) was the Council's ultimate decision.  Mayor Roe reiterated the need to work this issue through the City Council first.

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Public Hearing to Consider an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Pizza Lucé VIII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Lucé located at 2851 Snelling Avenue N

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated October 5, 2015; recommending approval of the licenses.

 

Mayor Roe called to order a public hearing at approximately 8:03p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the above-referenced license applications.

 

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

While expressing excitement that Pizza Lucé is coming to the Roseville community and not speaking to any opposition of their license, Ms. McCormick expressed a nagging concern in her mind was how liquor licenses were awarded by the City Council based on her broader concerns in the transition she was observing in that immediate neighborhood.  Ms. McCormick asked for the City Council to continue their thoughtful consideration of license applications as they had done in the past, in order that her neighborhood not become the place to go for alcohol.

 

Pizza Lucé Representatives Ms. J. J. Haywood, CEO of Minneapolis Pizza Lucé and Brian Johnson, General Manager of the Roseville Pizza Lucé location

As a standard question asked of all new liquor license applicants, Mayor Roe asked if Pizza Lucé management was aware of the required Manager/Server training by the City of Roseville, and if they were prepared to be in compliance with that requirement.

 

Ms. Haywood responded that they were well aware of that requirement, and had found Roseville's rules similar to those of the other five communities in which their other seven restaurants were located.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Haywood advised that so far construction was ahead of schedule on site, and they were hoping for a mid-November 2015 opening, pending staff interviews and training to fill positions.

 

Regarding this liquor license application, Councilmember McGehee noted that this license fell into the category for an establishment with food service representing 50% of its businesses; with Councilmember Willmus further clarifying that the Countryside Restaurant formerly in this same location also had a liquor license.

 

Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8: 07 p.m. with no one else appearing for or against.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Johnson advised that there were continuing individual interviews with approximately 20 hires of the needed 100 or more initial need; with opening depending on hiring the remainder of those employees and their subsequent training to ensure food and liquor service and knowledge provided the best customer service possible.

 

13.         Budget Items

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Public Hearing to Consider an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Pizza Lucé VIII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Lucé located at 2851 Snelling Avenue N

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License and Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement, for Pizza Lucé VIII, Inc., located at 2851 Snelling Avenue for the remainder of the 2015 license year and extended to December 31, 2016.

                                                                 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Discussion of Civic Engagement Module Policy & Procedures

Before deferring to Communications Manager Garry Bowman for further elaboration, City Manager Trudgeon introduced previous discussions and previous presentation of the initial draft policy to the Community Engagement Commission (CEC) for their review with the majority of their suggestions subsequently incorporated into this latest draft.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified the attachments to the RCA included in the Council Agenda packet materials, advising that Attachment A is the completed version, with Attachment B showing the specific changes suggested by the CEC. 

 

As he stated earlier, City Manager Trudgeon noted that almost all of the CEC's suggestions had been incorporated with the exception of Section VIII. Posting of Topics (Attachment A - page 2) that staff was seeking additional City Council feedback, and in treating all advisory commissions the same and not calling out only the CEC. 

 

Specific to Section XIV. Moderating Public Comment (Attachment B, Page 3, Line 100), Councilmember Willmus opined that he found that language more appropriate than staff's version and homophobic references.  Councilmember Willmus opined a broader, more encompassing statement addressing all marginalized groups would be more suitable.

 

The consensus of the Councilmembers was to revise language of the second bullet point in Section XIV, Lin 100 as follows:

"Obscene or racist comments or other discriminatory comments [towards other marginalized groups]"

 

Communication Manager Garry Bowman

Mr. Bowman briefly reviewed previous directives from the City Council in addressing their concerns and preferred changes with the Granicus module.  However, Mr. Bowman reported that after consulting with various representatives of their firm, he learned this format was a template used across their entire network making flexibility very limited, including any ability to change the name of the module, inability to change colors or working areas for topics posted and resident feedback.  Mr. Bowman highlighted those items he had been able to change in accordance with the City Council's preferences, including changing the City Logo to be consistent with its branding.

 

Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her previous request for a clear delineation between the "Discussion," "Ideas," and "Forum" areas and instructions on how to respond to each.

 

Mr. Bowman reported that once this is made live, the only solution would be to drop in a "How to" video for users to explain the difference in discussions, forums and ideas.  Mr. Bowman advised that the descriptions of each module were generated by Granicus and there was no way for the City to edit them.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted the value of having consistent language.

 

Mr. Bowman reported that he had given Granicus the language preferred by the City of Roseville, and after working with the third representative of Granicus last week who indicated they could resolve that issue, when it had been dropped in, it had resulted in changing the sites of all their clients across the country.  After Granicus quickly realized their mistake, Mr. Bowman advised that they had removed the revised language and re-input their own language.

 

Specific to the Roseville site, Mayor Roe suggested using language such as "guided by the City" as the entity, rather than "guided by staff," since many residents may not understand that term.  Mayor Roe noted the goal was to make the distinction that the forum and idea sections are by residents versus a discussion prompted by the City.

 

Along those same lines, from her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that the "discussions" module was for the City Council or staff to seek feedback on a germane question or issue and while generated by staff or the City Council would flow through the City Manager, elevating the level of discussion being sought.  Councilmember McGehee questioned the intent or purpose of the "ideas" module and how it differed from the Roseville Issues Forum already in place.  Councilmember McGehee stated that her understanding was that this would be another tool for the City to use in seeking input on potential policies or direction based on this at-large community feedback.  While the information is needed, Councilmember McGehee opined that as far as who suggests forum issues outside of staff or the City Council, all commissioners and residents should be viewed as equals.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she wanted to make sure this was less of a place to chat, but more of a place for meaningful questions and dialogue germane to the needs of the community.

 

Mayor Roe stated that was what had been intended; while Councilmember McGehee questioned if that was represented in the current wording.

 

City Manager Trudgeon stated that staff had continued to struggle with the nomenclature of the "discussion" module in their review of various models; and opined that it may need sorting out further moving forward with the potential of actually shutting off one or more modules (e.g. "forums").  Mr. Trudgeon opined that the "ideas" module was good and important, while the "discussion" and "forums" modules were similar with only minor differences, making it somewhat confusion in the unfortunate way they currently termed.  To clarify, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the "forum" module came after the "discussion" module, and subsequent to the City posting a particular subject.

 

Mr. Bowman noted that the "discussion" module was intended to be broader, listing pros and cons, then seeking solutions from the questions posted by the City, with specific feedback under those topics.  Mr. Bowman further noted that the "forum" was more specific to what a resident would suggest, as an example, for what the City should do about the deer problem, with residents responding to questions generated by staff.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to make those distinctions much clearer.

 

In order to draw that distinction and avoid confusion, Councilmember Laliberte suggested it may be more prudent to turn on only the "discussion" and "ideas" forums first, and then turn on the "forums" module at a later date.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested starting with the "discussion" module first to see how people respond and if it needed to be restructured.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the first question may be how people like the module or how they would prefer it to operate, which would provide evaluation of the product.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified the intent of the "ideas" module intended to generate conversation among residents, which may or may not be directly related to anything or any event the City has control over. 

 

At the further request of Councilmember McGehee as to which section a resident would use to report a pothole, Mr. Bowman responded that the City's website already had a section for that type of "service request" or "other issues," but advised that staff would monitor the modules to respond to any such postings.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of activating the "discussion" and "ideas" modules and leaving the "forums" module immobilized for now. 

 

Specific to the language in Section VIII. Posting of Topics (Attachment A), Councilmember Etten in general expressed his preference for staff's language with some minor edits, while appreciating some of the input received from the CEC.  Further, Councilmember Etten sought clarification on whether any single Councilmember could start a "discussion" or if the preference was for a majority vote to post a topic.  Councilmember Etten suggested that the City Council needed to have its own process for City Council input and majority agreement, or at least agreement of 2 of the 5 Councilmembers if not a majority rather than having an individual Councilmember initiating discussions and indicating they represented the entire body.  In later discussions, Councilmember Etten noted this would apply to commission majorities as well.

 

Mayor Roe stated that was an interesting observation, as he was going to suggest striking Councilmembers from the draft language, opining he thought it should be the body as well.

 

While appreciating Councilmember Etten's perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that as a City Council in keeping with its role and authority, he thought in this instance you would want a City Council majority of 3 Councilmembers to initiate a discussion topic.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified that should apply for a "city generated" discussion.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her absolute requirement with the majority agreement to initiate a discussion topic, and admitted she had never entertained any other concept than that; opining that the City Manager should serve as the gatekeeper for the City Council as well.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that, as the City Manager's boss, the City Council may have a different role.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that these topics would represent important policy questions and no one was going to throw out something stupid or frivolous.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember Etten's suggested changes to Section VIII (Posting of Topics), shown below in their entirety and replacing previous City staff draft language.

"City staff will be primarily tasked with generating and moderating topics for inclusion on Speak Up, Roseville.  The Roseville City Council may also [generate] topics.  Commissions may suggest topics for staff to include in discussion or forum sections of the module.  Inclusion of suggested topics made by commissions shall be determined by the City Manager.   Residents' ideas and discussion items shall be posted in the ideas section of the module; however, should staff determine that an idea should be escalated to a discussion or forum item it may choose to do so after consultation with the City Manager.  Staff or commissions interested in employing the survey function of Speak Up, Roseville shall do so only after receiving approval from the City Council.  Staff will also make it known that the surveys are for informational purposes and are not meant to serve as scientific measurements of public opinion."

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that this clarified that all residents and all commissions are treated equally.

 

Councilmember Etten concurred, noting that was the goal.

 

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, CEC Representative

Mr. Grefenberg noted that and expressed appreciation for CEC recommended changes being incorporated into the document with the exception of Section VIII, and spoke in general support of the revisions suggested by Councilmembers Etten and Willmus.  Mr. Grefenberg noted the grass roots effort begun 3-4 years ago for such a vehicle to seek public opinion, and thanked City Manager Trudgeon and Communications Manager Bowman for their work throughout the process, and the amount of time spent by them and the CEC in moving this forward, asking that the City Council continue to get it activated as soon as possible.

 

Mr. Grefenberg clarified that individual commissioners, as a resident, could post without having to go through added scrutiny or be any more restricted or challenged than the remainder of Roseville citizens.

 

Councilmembers were in agreement that this was the intent, clarifying the distinction between individual postings and those representing the City Council and/or advisory commission.

 

Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road

Ms. Ramundt opined that the community engagement module was great, and expressed her hope it would be successful for the community.  In her review of the draft document, Ms. Ramundt questioned which city staff would be responsible for day-to-day maintenance of the site and module if a resident posted a question and when they could expect a timely response.  If residents did not experience a satisfactory response time, Ms. Ramundt opined that they would simply shut it down of if their expectations were not met or they didn't receive a thoughtful response, not just acknowledgement of their posting.  In order to make it successful, Ms. Ramundt sought City Council consideration to ensure that the two-way communication and response was accomplished in a timely manner.

 

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation of the differences and varied opinions of each individual Councilmember, opining that it represented a dynamic group; and noted that she valued those differing opinions.  Based on her understanding of tonight's discussion, Ms. McCormick expressed concern in requiring a majority of City Councilmembers or commissioners, opining that opportunities may be missed to raise questions different than those shared by the majority opinion, but adding increased dimension to discussions.  Ms. McCormick encouraged having a distinction for individual residents versus when serving in their role on the City Council or an advisory commission.

 

From his personal perspective, and hopefully representing the City Council Mayor Roe stated that he hoped both the City Council and advisory commissions would see the value even if a question was not that of the majority's particular point of view.

 

Regarding the timing response brought forward by Ms. Ramundt, City Manager Trudgeon stated that was a good question, and the intent was to respond as soon as possible.  With the Communications staff being the gatekeeper in monitoring the site, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if they were unable to immediately answer a question through the Administration Department, they would defer it to the appropriate department, with staff regularly checking the site and ideas put forward; with the goal to respond the same day unless requiring additional time or research, but at a minimum beginning the dialogue on line or off line as appropriate.  Mr. Trudgeon stated that staff didn't want to ignore something or appear to do so, and suggested it may even be monitored over the weekend if an urgent issue came forward.

 

Regarding Ms. McCormick's comment about recognizing diverse positions of councilmembers or advisory commissioners, Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn't see that being muted at all.  However, since this is taking on an official perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that those things put out there should have some consistency and indicate a majority stance, which he didn't think in any muted the diversity of thought or opinion.  Councilmember Willmus stated that there were many venues for individuals to get items on an agenda or to bring things to the public; but this quasi-official tone should have some consensus amount the groups putting things out to the broader community for discussion and feedback.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with Councilmember Willmus, opining that all were residents and anyone could use that section if they had thoughts outside the majority weight.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, in order to facilitate a job that may prove onerous in answering all the questions that may come forward, especially if used for meetings and event postings, it may be prudent to have people asking questions coded to specific departments for staff to offload immediately and thereby manage questions without someone responsible for reading through them all.

 

City Manager Trudgeon suggested that could be given further thought depending on the volume experienced.

 

Regarding diversity of thought and if she were the dissenting vote on the City Council, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would still want it posted for information and learning; opining that she didn't anticipate only majority topics would be addressed, and still had no concern going forward from that viewpoint.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding an additional bullet point to the top of page 2 of Attachment A that set expectations for timely responses, such as: "Provide a timely response or acknowledgment if information needs to be researched."

 

Regarding the sentence including topics by commissions to be determined by the City Manager, Mayor Roe asked if that still needed further vetting.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined it was an important step, since something may be coming up on the agenda sooner than later that a commission may not be aware of, but the City Manager would know about and could alert the advisory commission accordingly.

 

Under that scenario, Mayor Roe noted it involved not just whether or not to post a topic, but the behind-the-scenes timing of an issue, opining that made sense, and therefore agreed no further revisions were needed to that language.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the revised "Speak Up, Roseville!" procedures manual (Attachment A), authorizing staff to begin integration of the civic engagement module as presented into the City's website; as amended during discussion as follows:

·         Throughout the document, consistently strike the comma from the title and references to "Speak Up Roseville!"

·         Revise language of the second bullet point in Section XIV, Line 100 as follows: "Obscene or racist comments or other discriminatory comments [towards other marginalized groups]"

·         Specific to the Roseville site, use language such as "guided by the City" as the entity, rather than "guided by staff," since many residents may not understand that term with the goal of providing a distinction  that the forum and idea sections are by residents versus a discussion prompted by the City.

·         Page 2, add a bullet point related to timely responses as follow: "Provide a timely response or acknowledgment if information needs to be researched."

 

·         Section VIII (Posting of Topics), replace paragraph as shown below from original city staff draft language as follows: "City staff will be primarily tasked with generating and moderating topics for inclusion on Speak Up, Roseville.  The Roseville City Council may also [generate] topics.  Commissions may suggest topics for staff to include in discussion or forum sections of the module.  Inclusion of suggested topics made by commissions shall be determined by the City Manager.   Residents' ideas and discussion items shall be posted in the ideas section of the module; however, should staff determine that an idea should be escalated to a discussion or forum item it may choose to do so after consultation with the City Manager.  Staff or commissions interested in employing the survey function of Speak Up, Roseville shall do so only after receiving approval from the City Council.  Staff will also make it known that the surveys are for informational purposes and are not meant to serve as scientific measurements of public opinion."

                                                                 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Discuss a Draft Ordinance regarding Wildlife Management in Roseville

As previously directed by the City Council, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed a draft of the more complete and broader ordinance prohibiting the feeding of wildlife and establishing a more specific policy and program for a deer management plan (Attachment B) allowing for deer hunts with the City of Roseville, as detailed in the RCA dated October 5, 2015 and related attachments; and subject to periodic adjustment accordingly. 

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced various sections of the draft ordinance for clarification or questions as follows:

·         In section 411.03, line 37, the definition of intentional feeding didn't specifically address the specific period (e.g. day, month or year).

·         Line 44 - 45 regarding feeders 5' above ground, and how that addressed those in wheelchairs wishing to feed birds, opining that there was no reason why a feeder needed to be specified at that level

·         Beginning with Line 49: she expressed her complete opposition to fees or ordinances, opining it was ridiculous from the beginning to try to manage deer

·         In Section 411.04 Deer Management Plan, and the first 3 items (lines 66 - 70), opined there was no reason to include those items or pretend the City was doing so when agencies or governmental bodies with more authority than the City of Roseville (e.g. Ramsey County and/or the DNR) were already doing so.

·         The most important component to here was that addressed in Item 4 related to education to residents

·         Item 5: opined that while an annual report was a fine goal, it didn't need to state that a hunt was planned, again since Ramsey County was charged legislatively by the DNR whether or not to have a hunt, and they can ask if they feel it is needed in Roseville as well, without the City needing to overstep its authority.

·         From line 22 on specific to intentional feeding, expressed strong support of the personal responsibility of residents to manage their own yards and protect their properties as needed, whether a hobby they enjoyed and engage in.  Councilmember McGehee opined that for the City to attempt to add a lot of expense and another fee to its system, or spy in private backyards, was not necessary.  While agreeing that intentional feeding of wildlife was not responsible, including deer or exceeding that feeding beyond a certain amount in one day, may be prudent to enforce, Councilmember McGehee stated that anything else beyond the educational aspect and encouraging responsibility of private property owners to manage their own yards, was both inadequate and unnecessary.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated, other than his agreement with Councilmember McGehee specifically on line 37, Item B regarding the need for a specific time frame, he had no problems with this latest draft brought forward by staff and would support it.

 

Under the Deer Management Plan referenced in Section 411.04 and development and maintenance of such a program, Councilmember Etten recognized Councilmember McGehee's question on who was performing the deer hunt, suggesting that information needed to be incorporated as part of the Plan.

 

City Manager Trudgeon concurred, and advised that staff anticipated using existing data and resources, not its own deer counts.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to include that provision in language of the Plan to clarify that the City was not going to be undertaking the counting.

 

With that clarification, Councilmember Etten offered his support of this latest draft.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that in line 37 related to intentional feeding, adding "at any one time," may address that concern.

 

Public Comment

Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan suggested some residents may not be happy if deer were coming into their yards specifically due to waste feed, with this proposed document not addressing their concerns and changing nothing.  Mr. Callaghan brought up various diseases that result from animals and referenced studies about those tick borne or Lime disease issues and questioned how this might impact those concerns.  In reading this ordinance and in view of past ordinances and decisions, Mr. Callaghan questioned whether those already feeding wildlife shouldn't be "grandfathered in" and exempt from this ordinance unless the City Council intended to declare them a public nuisance.  In his personal review of state law, he questioned how that would be addressed.  Mr. Callaghan further questioned where funding for enforcement of this proposed ordinance would come from, and stated that it wasn't going to come from him due to his religious belief that you do no harm to wild animals, and therefore was not going to pay for anything the City charged for hunting, including data gathering, suggesting the cost should not be borne by anyone objecting to such actions.  Mr. Callaghan noted this ordinance, which didn't say much, supported bow hunting, which was known to be one of the most painful and lengthy ways for an animal, which he found further objectionable. 

 

Mr. Callaghan opined that residents needed to protect their own flowers and landscaping from deer hazards rather than the City attempting to enact an ordinance due to a few objecting to deer present that they knew were present when they moved into Roseville, or basically as a pre-existing condition. 

 

Since he may consider legal action if forced to pay for such an ordinance and plan, Mr. Callaghan asked for a specific legal opinion on the grandfathering issue he brought forward.

 

Jim Bull, 3061 Woodbridge Street

As long-time residents who enjoy deer, Mr. Bull recognized that there was a growing deer population, and opined that people understood they were becoming a nuisance.  Mr. Bull disagreed that a solution for preventing migration was fencing when limiting migration and numbers were much more obvious.  Mr. Bull stated that his biggest concern was the cost factor and the enforceability of the ordinance.  Based on his understanding of previous City Council discussions, staff was to discuss with Ramsey County their deer management program and how Roseville could become part of it.  If the City of Roseville enacted this ordinance, Mr. Bull questioned if Ramsey County would exclude the city from their hunt; opining he would prefer to remain a part of theirs.  Mr. Bull opined that this draft ordinance still had too many holes in it even though great progress had been made since the first iteration.  Mr. Bull asked if vole management would be included in the next iteration for their management or eradication.

 

Mr. Bull expressed appreciation for the one gallon feed designation and a timeframe; but expressed opposition to enforcement and feeding (line 39) attracting wild animals, using fall displays and decorations that may attract wildlife (e.g. squirrels) and hoped people didn't avoid decorating because of wildlife access.  It this is taken to an extreme, Mr. Bull opined that residents may be subject to fine, and if hunts are only held bi-annually, would the City's ordinance language be changed accordingly. 

 

Mr. Bull stated his preference in participating and cooperating with Ramsey County's management of deer without a separate Roseville ordinance.

 

Regarding his previous recommendation for inserting language "at any one time," Mayor Roe recognized that it may not suffice and directed legal counsel and staff to work out revised language.

 

Regarding the grandfathering question from Mr. Callaghan, Mayor Roe, with concurrence from City Attorney Gaughan, clarified that this referred specifically to land use and zoning codes.

 

Regarding working cooperatively with Ramsey County, Mayor Roe asked staff to respond to how that was envisioned.

 

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke

Mr. Brokke advised that the City of Roseville had been working with Ramsey County over the years and intended to continue doing so, with the county performing a count for which Roseville paid an annual participation fee to be included.  Mr. Brokke noted that the county hired a helicopter during the winter for better visibility after a fresh snowfall, to take a county representative around for that count, whether or not it was scientific or not.  However, Mr. Brokke clarified that Ramsey County only did a hunt on their property, and in Roseville that would include any county-owned property (e.g. Lake Josephine Park), which they would conduct after having alerted and received authorization from the City.  For any hunts on city-owned property, Mr. Brokke clarified would be the responsibility of the City of Roseville, but would still be coordinated with Ramsey County in their work with the DNR.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Brokke confirmed that Ramsey County conducted the deer count annually unless a lack of snowfall prevented them from doing so, thus the minimum standard of bi-annual counts referenced in ordinance language and as noted by Mayor Roe.

 

Since Ramsey County hunts on their land and in surrounding jurisdictions, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was an identity of those properties, what cities and how often that may be driving the deer population to Roseville.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that a broader understanding of that regional picture was needed if not tonight then asked that staff provide it at a later date.

 

Mr. Brokke responded that the annual Ramsey County hunt identified a number of sites, with ten identified this fall after which they would perform hunts in those areas indicated after receiving applicable individual community authorization for those hunts on county-owned property within those respective jurisdictions.

 

Since Ramsey County is charged in managing this herd, Councilmember McGehee asked if there was any reason they wouldn't ask to hunt on property they owned in Roseville if they thought it was necessary.

 

Mr. Brokke clarified that Ramsey County managed the deer population only on their property and tracked it accordingly, with other cities performing hunts and providing that information to Ramsey County so they are aware of that other harvesting occurring in Roseville.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Brokke confirmed that Ramsey County would still need to seek authorization from the City of Roseville before conducting their hunt on county-owned properties in Ramsey County, providing that check still in place; but them not currently doing so because such a hunt is not allowed anywhere in Roseville at this time without some type of ordinance like this in place.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Brokke advised that Ramsey County had strongly encouraged the City of Roseville to look at some type of control mechanism.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that an ordinance of this type would be good and would start to help the City gain control of the deer population.  Regarding placement of ornamental displays referenced by Mr. Bull, Councilmember Willmus opined that was a totally different situation than intended with this ordinance, and targeted to deliberate feeding.   If the City Council wished to be responsible to concerns expressed by some residents in the community regarding the growing deer population, Councilmember Willmus opined that some type of control mechanism was needed to limit exposure to or availability of food for wildlife, as well as options available if and when the City needed to look at physically reducing their number.   Therefore, Councilmember Willmus further opined that this ordinance helped set in place that path; and again expressed his support for such an ordinance.

 

In terms of a policy, Mayor Roe noted that while the draft ordinance talked about bow hunts, he wasn't sure the policy excluded other means; referencing his hearing today about another community's approach to trap deer and euthanize them at that time.  Mayor Roe noted that any ordinance could be revised as needed by a majority vote.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with both speakers; opining that the original intent was to address those feeding deer, and now it had morphed into something else; and suggested reverting to a simple deer management plan.

 

Councilmember Etten disagreed with that synopsis, opining public testimony had indicated otherwise as heard over the last few months.

 

Councilmember McGehee responded that other wildlife problems brought forward were the result of improper enclosure under their decking.  While this community chose not to support organized trash collection as an example, Councilmember McGehee questioned how they could be willing to spend money on this enforcement that impacted residents in their back yards and those liking the wildlife aspect, creating the overpopulation of deer that the City was now being asked to manage, but not encompassing management of turkeys or other wildlife, which she found an imposition and terribly offensive.

 

Councilmember Etten noted his receipt of another neighbor communication about experiencing raccoon problems and their safety concerns due to intentional feeding of wildlife by others in that neighborhood.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was uncomfortable with the end of c (line 22) that intentional feeding causes concentration of wild animals and other details, questioning the need to get into that much detail.  If the main issue is a concern with public safety and health, Councilmember Laliberte opined that language should suffice without any further editorializing about impacts to front yards.  Councilmember Laliberte further suggested not listing species or categorizing waterfowl; while supporting more specificity in Item B ((lines 37 - 39) in defining time.  Regarding fines, without apply them, Councilmember McGehee opined that the ordinance became a suggestion with no enforcement mechanism, even though from the beginning she has referred to this as a "tattle tale" ordinance, while also recognizing the various passionate emotions on this topic.  While not in general disagreement with the draft ordinance, with further revisions, and in line with tonight's discussion, Councilmember Laliberte expressed caution regarding her concerns.

 

Deer Population Management Program and Policy

Specific to the Deer Management Plan section, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City should completely adhere to the DNR sustainable deer habitat numbers that the City always exceeded, opining that the City had already seemed to sustain a relationship with a higher number of deer above those established by the DNR.

 

As noted by Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte supported the main focus of this ordinance being one of educating the public as the lead versus burying it within the document as it is now and in an effort to make it more successful in the long-term.

 

In addition to annual deer population counts from Ramsey County, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she also expected a proposal from Ramsey County hot the sites and communities for their annual hunts allowing for a more global look at the deer population beyond Roseville borders; and perhaps even resulting in joint meetings with City Council's and/or Mayors with neighboring communities specific to that issue.

 

Regarding ordinance language stating that the City Council will discuss from time to time safety precautions on a hunt, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not comfortable with that language and suggested removing it entirely from ordinance language. 

 

In the annual report to the City Council, Councilmember Laliberte suggested it include reports from surrounding areas.

 

While generally supportive of the Program and Policy, Councilmember Laliberte suggested it needed further revision and was not yet ready for prime time.

 

With no objections, Mayor Roe directed staff to augment language to include the context of communities and jurisdictions around Roseville; and stated he would work with staff offline on proposed language accordingly.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked Councilmember Laliberte if she had any interest in not having a section for fines, and only an educational component to remove the "tattle tale" concept by working with other communities surrounding Roseville.  Councilmember Laliberte responded that, without some repercussions, the tendency would be to continue doing as you had been to-date.  With Councilmember McGehee noting the cost of enforcement, Councilmember Laliberte responded that if enforcement of this ordinance proved as tricky as some other enforcement efforts by the City, it caused her some hesitation as she looked at it in light of what more the Community Development Department could realistically take on with current staff resources.

 

Specific to Councilmember Laliberte's comments related to deer population counts and getting along up to this point, Councilmember Willmus stated he would push back by responding that he could recall hearing from residents as far back as ten years ago related to the excessive number of deer and damage to their gardens.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this ordinance and policy were both long overdue, and at this point, he would not go so far as to attempt to limit it or any options to physically reduce the number of deer currently within the boundaries of Roseville.

 

Councilmember Laliberte clarified that her comment about options to reduce the herd was intended to suggest leaving it at the discretion of the City Council regarding that method - in both the policy and ordinance - and not indicating any opposition from her as to management of the herd in itself.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would review his notes and the meeting minutes from tonight's discussion in drafting changes as noted to the ordinance and policy, with more emphasis to education, 5' off the ground for feeders depending on the judgment of staff in enforcing things specific to handicapped issues, and any changes related to specificity of wild animal lists and cognizant of addressing potential future wild animal issues (e.g. wild turkeys being experienced in the City of Shoreview).  At that point, Mr. Trudgeon advised staff would return to the City Council with the next iteration.

 

16.                         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming agenda items.

 

Specific to the potential dissolution of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in light of the most recent bylaw changes provided by the HRA moving their authority to the City Council, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to determine if and when to notice a public hearing accordingly or seeking further direction on how to proceed.

 

Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to schedule the public hearing to allow the public to weigh in versus public comment at the time that discussion is held by the City Council; and whether to hold a hearing without a specific intent or conclusion to dissolve the HRA.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that his position had remained clear in his focus on economic development and redevelopment, and rather than backtracking, his intent at this point would be to move forward with dissolution of the HRA with ongoing administration of remaining HRA programs by the Community Development Department.

 

Councilmember Laliberte recalled that the City Council took a vote to initiate the process of dissolution of the HRA and no subsequent vote had been taken not to do so; therefore from a community engagement standpoint, opined that it would disingenuous of the City Council to seek public comment and then pull back without hearing from the community on what was most important to them.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted input had been sought by the City Council many times, but it didn't listen to residents; and further noted that the original HRA had become a very different entity over time, especially with the discussions previously held and restructuring from a non-elected to an elected body that had yet to be discussed by the public but having many public implications.  Councilmember McGehee opined that dissolution of the HRA didn't only affect the residents of Roseville, but the development and metropolitan community as well.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no rush to discuss the issue until the October 19 City Council Worksession to determine whether or not to schedule a public hearing based on additional information from that discussion.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, without having included an item on tonight's agenda to discuss this issue, the most recent discussion was to  consider dissolution on October 26 at a public hearing, and therefore any further preliminary discussion should be held on October 19^th rather than tonight. 

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that the public hearing could also be cancelled depending on the results of that October 19^th discussion.

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

As noted previously tonight, Councilmember McGehee requested some general, strategic plan discussions regarding larger CIP items and cost benefit analyses related to annual budgets and strategic planning and sustainability as part of the PPP discussion.

 

Mayor Roe opined that the City Council discussion needed to first focus on the PPP.

 

City Manager Trudgeon sought clarification as to what staff was being asked to bring forward as part of the PPP; and if it was the whole asset management component, advised that he wasn't sure staff was prepared to discuss those details beyond an overall area of focus.

 

Mayor Roc and Councilmember McGehee concurred with that understanding.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for more discussions about the HRC at a Worksession as well before advertising any vacancies; with Councilmember Etten noting that a broader commission discussion should be part of that.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the October Worksession agenda be reserved for the most part for the HRA and PPP discussion; with the November 16 Worksession agenda scheduled for discussion of the broader commission issues.

 

18.         Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:47 p.m.

                            

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.