View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon was also
present; with City Attorney Mark Gaughan arriving at approximately 6:12 p.m.
having previously advised he would be delayed.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon requested an additional item for tonight's agenda to schedule a
Special City Council meeting before year-end 2015 for several time-sensitive
objection, Mayor Roe added this addition as Action Item 15.b entitled, "Schedule
a Special Council meeting"
Laliberte advised that she had questions for staff on Consent Items 8.b and f,
but was no reason to remove them from the Consent Agenda.
requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
referenced an earlier e-mail she had sent regarding the notice of an appeal to
staff's administrative decision related to Vogel Sheetmetal and timing for
their installation of a fence between their property and adjacent residential
properties on the north. Given the mild weather this winter, Ms. McCormick
asked that the City Council add this item to their Special Meeting Agenda to consider
installation of the fence yet this winter rather than waiting until next
displayed before and after photos of the easement areas between the properties
over the last 18 months and loss of screening by residents, expressing concern
that they would be subjected to open yards and views throughout the winter,
affecting their quality of life, enjoyment of their backyards, and peace of
Cassie Yunker, 2852 Wheeler Street
concurred with the comments of Ms. McCormick regarding the letter of appeal for
the Vogel parcel. While stating that her property didn't border the Vogel
property, Ms. Yunker offered her support of those adjacent neighbors, speaking
to the view of those neighbors after removal of trees and fencing, stating it
"broke her heart to see what those neighbors are going through and would continue
to experience for the long-term." Ms. Yunker asked the City Council to consider
this situation and side with residents to alleviate this view quickly, and
require Vogel to install the screening fence.
advised that the City would keep citizens notified when this was scheduled to
come before the City Council in their role as the Board of Adjustments and
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe again
thanked this year's sponsors of the holiday lights for the annual OVALumination.
announced the upcoming Red Cross Blood Drive at the Fire Station.
Laliberte reported on her attendance as liaison to the Ramsey County League of
Local Governments (RCLLG) annual meeting; with their focus on initiating ideas
for municipalities and other government agencies to share programs and ideas in
2016, Councilmember Laliberte stated she had received input from Roseville Fire
Chief O'Neill and encouraged other Department Heads to bring forward their
ideas to share. As she announced last year, Councilmember Laliberte noted the
annual dues for each participating government unit in the RCLLG would increase
Donations and Communications
Recognize Outgoing Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board
In a bittersweet
moment for the City of Roseville, Mayor Roe recognized past and present Board
members of the Roseville HRA and thanked them for their service to the
community since its inception in 2003. Mayor Roe noted that, as the HRA
transforms into the Economic Development Authority (EDA) with the City Council
serving in that role, they would do so by building on the foundation
established by those serving on the HRA and the great work and high standards
they had left as a legacy.
On behalf of the
City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe formally recognized and thanked current
outgoing Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board Members for their volunteer
service and many hours donated to the City of Roseville advising Certificates
of Appreciation would be presented to: Members Vicki Lee, Susan Elkins, Bill
Majerus, William Masche, Dean Maschka and Dan Wall.
Mayor Roe also
acknowledged the past service and contributions of former HRA Board members
such as Sam Marks, Jen Jackson-Milanovich, Jeanne Kelsey, Joe Schuenemann,
Kelly Quam, Deborah Battisto, and others.
7. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented
in the Council packet.
November 30, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the November 30, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 4, Line 37 (Roe)
Correct to strike
the word: "released"
Page 21, Line 22 (McGehee)
read: "of their levy and [recorded] consumption separately."
Page 33, Line 13 (Laliberte)
read: "commission" rather than "CEC"
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
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 December 7, 2015.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
79712 - 79731
Approve 2016 Business Licenses
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller clarified that
refuse/recycling licenses were annual renewals, but not all were renewed at the
same time and could come in any time during the year and be renewed on that
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the license
for Randy's Sanitation was for commercial, not residential, service.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that this firm offered residential customers an
organic pick-up program in other communities, and suggested the Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) research whether other solid
waste haulers were interested in offering that Ramsey County initiated service
in the Roseville community.
Trudgeon advised that in February of 2016, the PWETC and staff would begin
discussions in preparation for soliciting Requests for Proposals for a new
Recycling Contract, including an option for organic recycling, as the current
three-year contract with Eureka Recycling expires the end of 2016.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Laliberte noted the LED lighting conversion was specific to City Hall and the
Public Works building, and asked if other facilities would be undergoing this
conversion as well in the future.
Manager Trudgeon advised that other facilities may be converted later as applicable
and as new technologies allow for ease of that transition in a cost-effective
moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services
as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan
Summary," updated November 30, 2015.
Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2016
moved, Etten seconded, NOT waiving the Statutory Liability Limits for 2016.
Approve Rosedale Public Improvement Contract
the potential scheduling of a Special Council meeting to consider revisions to
the final plat for this Rosedale Expansion, Councilmember Willmus asked City
Attorney Gaughan if this particular action tonight needed deferral until that
revision had been addressed.
Attorney Gaughan advised that there was no issue in approving the Public
Improvement Contract at this time through this action item. Mr. Gaughan noted
that approval of this contract was a condition of Final Plat approval, with its
contents pertaining to the City's interest, and was separate from consideration
of any amendments to that Final Plat.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Public Improvement Contract for the
Rosedale Expansion Site (Attachment A).
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Accept Donation to Police Department - Leola Rempel
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA dated December 7, 2015.
Etten thanked Ms. Rempel for her generous donation, and thanked the League of
Women Voters for bringing this discussion forward in a public forum.
Councilmember Etten noted there were several larger issues associated with this
RCA based on reports from Roseville Police Chief Mathwig: development of a
comprehensive policy on the collection and use of private data and use of body
cameras; a pending status report on the testing of their use over of a period of
time as a pilot program; and storage and retention of private and public data.
Chief Rick Mathwig reported that a comprehensive policy on use of body cameras
was nationwide, noting it was a large issue and would be for many years to
come. As part of that, Chief Mathwig noted that each state's data privacy laws
differed; and advised that the state legislature was being advocated by the
Minnesota Police Chief's Association to talk about the issue this session and
clarify language in the State of Minnesota's data privacy laws, although he
expressed doubt that would happen.
Mathwig noted that the results of a federal and state policy would impact that
of the City of Roseville, and was still being studies. Chief Mathwig reported
that the Roseville Department was working with two manufacturers/vendors at
this time, with their technicians continuing to test and trouble-shoot this new
product in the market.
to data storage, Chief Mathwig further reported on the cost between vendors for
data storage per unit and software compatibility with current squad cameras,
both under continuing evaluation by the Roseville Police Department. Until the
at least another year, Chief Mathwig reported that the Roseville Police Department
would continue to test the equipment unless directed otherwise by the City
Laliberte also thanked Ms. Rempel for the donation and the League of Women
Voters for having this conversation. Councilmember Laliberte advised that many
of her concerns had been shared by Councilmember Etten with overarching
policies being tested. Councilmember Laliberte asked Chief Mathwig if there
were certain types of calls where cameras could be turned off, such as being
sensitive when entering someone's home to protect their privacy while not
affecting the safety of the general public; and also asked how files were
stored and who could access them and when.
Mathwig referenced his memorandum distributed over a year ago, outlining
situations when officers turned off cameras. Chief Mathwig further referenced
State of MN laws indicating that as long as one party was aware of taping, it
was legal to do so. However, while not typically mandating turning off cameras
when entering someone's home depending on the situation, Chief Mathwig reported
that the cameras were turned off at the hospital and/or jail, and also at the
request of a person, again depending on the situation. Chief Mathwig advised
that the biggest issue would be if and when someone makes a request for that
data, and the need to redact their face and identity, which would require
considerable work to redact that on a moving target.
Laliberte opined that was something the City of Roseville needed to have a
good, transparent conversation about, especially in "he said, she said"
situations. Councilmember Laliberte further opined that costs were going to be
something needing planning and budgeting, including storage and equipment,
which she anticipated would be coming forward in future budgets. Councilmember
Laliberte noted the other good thing was to have that conversation openly at a
public meeting to let the community know of that dialogue and rationale.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief Mathwig advised that there may be
in-house training from camera footage, as is currently done from squad video.
McGehee asked Chief Mathwig to share the Memorandum of Understanding with the
Roe opined that discussion about privacy is the key issue due to people's
expectations, especially in their own homes with current Minnesota data privacy
laws not addressing what private information may not become available to the
public. Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation in hearing the Roseville Police
Department was being sensitive to that privacy; and asked that they err on the
side of caution; and thanked Chief Mathwig in advance for sharing the policy
with the City Council. Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Rempel for her donation for this
use and having those funds available as costs come up. Mayor Roe also thanked
Chief Mathwig for his participation in the League of Women Voters Forum, and
area police chiefs, in informing the public of issues related to this
moved, McGehee seconded, acceptance of funds donated by Roseville resident
Leola Rempel for the Roseville Police Department in the amount of $3,000 to further
expand the Department's body-worn camera program.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Public Hearing to Consider Pawn Approving 2016 Liquor License
Renewals and Issuance of a New On-Sale Wine License and an On-Sale 3.2% Liquor
License for the Remainder of 2015 and all of 2016 for Friends Thai Business
Restaurant, located at 1711 Rice Street
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the purpose of the public hearing to
consider approving liquor license renewals for the following calendar year, and
new applications for the current year, as detailed in the RCA dated December 7,
Miller noted there were no representatives in the audience from the newest licensee,
Burmese Friends LLC, d/b/a Friends Thai Burmese Restaurant at 1711 Rice Street
(on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2% liquor licenses).
noted in the RCA, and at the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director
Miller confirmed receipt of Bent Brewstillery application materials.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:39 p.m.; with no
one appearing for or against.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Liquor License Applications for both
new applicants and renewals as detailed in the RCA dated December 7, 2015.
Adopt a Final 2016 Tax Levy and Budget
Director Miller briefly summarized the requested action tonight culminating
from over fifteen discussions to-date on the 2016 tax levy and budget. Mr.
Miller referenced his latest analysis via an email dated December 4, 2017, entitled
"2015 Projected General Fund Surplus," and provided as a bench handout for tonight's
meeting, and made a part of the RCA and attachments dated December 7, 2015.
Related to projected surpluses in the General Fund, Mr. Miller cautioned the
City Council that these represented aggregate trends, and there remained another
month in 2015.
Willmus thanked Mr. Miller for his latest analysis and projection for a surplus
in the General Fund, and referenced the reliance of approximately $365,000 in
reserves for 2015 from 2014, asking if there was a correlation between this
projected surplus and use of those reserves.
Miller responded that assumptions were anticipated for using General Fund
reserves of $375,000 based on a situation with full employment and other trends
and assumptions. Mr. Miller noted that further impacts resulted from an
unusual high employee turnover (approximately 14 positions) in 2015, saving on
wages and benefits and compounded for each of those positions. Mr. Miller
noted this resulted in a higher budgetary savings than projected, as well as
Fire Department personnel changes as it transitioned into a different staffing
structure, and come contractual service and supplies coming in less than
projected. Mr. Miller noted that the mild winter to-date was also providing
some financial relief.
new positions anticipated and employee turnover, Councilmember Etten questioned
if it made sense to reduce the 2016 budget to reflect that.
Director Miller advised that he would not advocate doing so, noting he tried to
maintain a conservative approach in budgeting and projecting; with assumptions
built into his analysis that all positions would be filed except for unanticipated
retirements, thereby budgeting for that full employment for sustainability.
Mr. Miller advised that, if there were operating surpluses, there may also be
revenues coming in less than anticipated (e.g. property tax collections and
their variables). Mr. Miller stated that staff would of course defer to the
City Council for that decision, but recommended they budget for full employment
For the benefit
of the public and City Council, Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to
address what typically accounted for the City not receiving a full certified
levy from Ramsey County in a given year.
Director Miller noted that Ramsey County had a good payment record to
municipalities, typically dispersing 99% of anticipated collections. However,
Mr. Miller noted when a property owner filed an appeal on their property
valuation, especially larger retail/commercial entities, the County could
withhold three years of payments and delay distribution until that appeal was
settled. Mr. Miller noted that eventually the City would receive some of that
revenue, but if the appeal was successful, it could be reduced for three years
worth of anticipated tax revenue.
Mayor Roe noted
that, while the public hearing was held last week, he would receive public
comment at this time; with no one appearing to speak to the 2016 budget and tax
moved, Laliberte seconded, reducing the 2016 preliminary tax levy by $150,000
to $517,818, using the anticipated surplus carried forward as indicated in
Finance Director Miller's latest analysis dated December 4, 2015.
Willmus stated it was important to draw a distinction between the Finance
Commission's recommended safe reserve level and the City's historical record of
exceeding that target. Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was not
advocating to dip below that target, but as the City continued to run a surplus
he viewed that as tax dollars not expended. Councilmember Willmus noted that,
in the past, the City had a pattern of building that surplus into the next
year's tax base and increasing them yet further. Expressing appreciation of
Finance Director Miller's analysis and explanation; and subsequent to the
actions taken by the City Council for the 2015 budget and levy, Councilmember
Willmus opined it was prudent for the City Council for Roseville taxpayers to
hold down the 2016 levy and budget.
Laliberte noted her concerns as voiced in September about the 2016 budget and
levy as proposed preliminarily. Similar to the comments of Councilmember
Willmus, Councilmember Laliberte concurred that the City Council not build the
next year's budget on that of the previous year and unexpended reserves; but
when possible reduce the budget and levy accordingly.
Etten asked Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte, as makers of the motion, if
they were seeking to amend the budget as well as reducing the levy, since that
budget would need to be addressed accordingly in 2016.
Willmus clarified that he was currently speaking to the levy side of the
equation; and would consider the budget with the next requested action item,
and expressed his willingness to have that conversation.
In response to
Councilmember Etten and as she had already stated, Councilmember Laliberte
expressed her willingness to look at the 2016 budget as well.
McGehee stated that she had looked at the budget and was happy with it as
presented by staff. Specific to staffing issues, which were not tied directly
to the budget for most issues, Councilmember McGehee noted they were not
significant compared to other things she was concerned with in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). If there were extra monies available, Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of applying those funds toward capital expenditures.
Given the uncertainty of financial times, Councilmember McGehee opined that
$150,000 wasn't that much to work with and with another month of 2015 yet to
go, whether or not it was available remained an unknown. In this case, Councilmember
McGehee stated that she would support the recommendations of Finance Director
Miller as the city's chief financial officer, and his conservative view of city
referred to Finance Director Miller's projected citywide average value for
median-valued homes at $1.90 for the levy as proposed (RCA, page 15-17) and
asked him for an updated net effect based on the pending motion to reduce the levy
by $150,000, and the HRA levy at zero.
Director Miller estimated with the HRA levy reduced by $3.00 for that
median-valued home, this pending action would reduce that to approximately
$1.25, or a $.65 reduction per month.
Mayor Roe spoke
in opposition to the motion, expressing his confidence in Finance Director
Miller's projections for year-end 2015. Mayor Roe stated he would be more
comfortable taking action once final numbers were available, and was amenable
to helping cap reserve or operating funds especially with the reduced HRA levy,
but as a separate issue and not impacting the proposed 2016 levy.
Laliberte clarified that her support for this motion was not a reflection of
the numbers presented by staff, given her confidence in their analyses; but
simply her reaction to previously voiced concerns with the operating side of
the budget and escalating operating costs in general. Councilmember Laliberte
stated she was cognizant that the budget was tied to the annual levy approved
by the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte reported that she had held
conversations with several residents over the last few weeks who expressed
their concern with their house values as assessed in their Ramsey County
Property Tax Statements, some seeing an increase of over 20%. Councilmember
Laliberte asked Finance Director Miller if he had any idea of how residential
assessments came in for the majority of Roseville residents, or if this was the
average picture for them.
Director Miller responded that, for the median valued home in Roseville, values
were virtually unchanged, with approximately half of those homes seeing no
impact or even a reduced value, while the other half of Roseville residents may
see something higher, split down the middle at this time. Mr. Miller reported
that this was based on the report received by the City from the Ramsey County
Assessor received in mid- to late-March of 2015 and forwarded to the City
Council at that time. Mr. Miller offered to redistribute that report to the
City Council at their direction.
In addition to
staff providing that report, Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to provide
the bar graph from Ramsey County showing a breakdown of the range of value
changes within Roseville for comparison as well, that could serve to inform
City Council consideration going forward.
McGehee stated that she had also received calls from Roseville residents, some
of whom were under the impression that the City of Roseville was somehow involved
in assessing homes. However, Councilmember McGehee clarified that the process
differed significantly between Ramsey County and Hennepin County, with the City
of Roseville having nothing whatever to do with assessing home values. For the
benefit of Roseville taxpayers, Councilmember McGehee referred them to their
Ramsey County property tax statement and line items defining the City's portion
of the tax listed separately, as well as that of their particular school
district, their watershed district, library and other taxing jurisdictions, and
how each was calculated form Ramsey County's assessed valuation.
thanked Councilmember McGehee for that well-stated clarification.
Etten asked Finance Director Miller how this pending motion fit with the City's
target reserve based on his best year-end target estimate.
Director Miller responded that going into 2015, that General Fund reserve
target averaged approximately 42%, and was ending at approximately 43% before
this pending action; with the proposed motion dropping it back down to around
42% from his best estimate at this point.
Etten asked if the City Council could direct that any surplus funds be
specifically directed towards capital projects.
Mayor Roe responded
that would require City Council action, otherwise any surplus would
automatically go into the General Fund balance.
Willmus and Laliberte.
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11279 (Attachment B)
entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax
Levy for 2016 Bonded Debt;" at $3,330,000.00
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11280 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to
the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2016;" as presented.
McGehee stated her appreciation for this year's budget process and the material
provided by staff for the City Council's decision-making and for public
that the 2016 budget already relied on using reserve funds, Councilmember Etten
stated he was more comfortable after tonight's discussion to use those 2015
reserves for capital needs, given that 2015 was an unusual year for reduced
personnel costs. Councilmember Etten stated he was comfortable moving forward
with the 2016 levy as presented, especially in light of the HRA levy coming
off, and providing a net negative for the average taxpayer.
McGehee and Roe.
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11281 (Attachment C) entitled,
"Resolution Adopting the Final 2016 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;"
in the total amount of $52,112,620, of which $28,745,490 is designed for
property tax-supported programs.
spoke in support of moving this conservative budget forward, in addition to use
of reserves as presented allowing some room for flexibility, but whose use he
wouldn't typically support.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten. However, Councilmember McGehee stated
that she had some issues with some positions proposed in the 2016 budget that
she would like to make adjustments to or at least to discuss those proposed
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee conformed that some of the positions were
budget related while others were purported not to be.
McGehee proposed moving to amend and uncouple the staffing budget proposal as
presented from the 2016 budget itself unless extra funds could be found or
questioned if that was feasible.
McGehee stated her concurrence with the budget as is; with the caveat that if
there is any surplus, it remains the same and if changes were made that cost
more money - or provided any savings - based on personnel changes, she sought to
discuss what if any impacts her proposed changes would make.
clarified that the projected surplus was for 2015; and the 2016 balanced budget
was achieved through use of those reserves but providing no 2016 surplus as
currently laid out.
Willmus sought feedback from his colleagues if they would be amenable to take
the projected 2015 surplus into 2016 and apply it to capital needs as suggested
by Councilmember Etten.
clarified that because that query was not related to approval of the 2016
budget itself, it was not in order at this time, but could be taken up as a subsequent
action after resolution of the motion currently before and under discussion by
the City Council.
Laliberte thanked staff for the information provided as a follow-up between the
last meeting and tonight's agenda materials.
McGehee stated she would still like to separate staffing proposals from the
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Willmus and Laliberte
moved, Etten seconded, that any General Fund surplus from 2015 be directed
going forward to capital needs.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Willmus clarified that, once a dollar
value was available for any surplus, the appropriate next step would be for
staff to return to the City Council for direction on where to apply those surplus
Laliberte spoke in support of the motion, and expressed her appreciation for
having the opportunity to have that future discussion of where to apply surplus
As a point of
information and for clarification going forward, Councilmember Willmus asked
that any cost of living adjustment (COLA) discussions provide a specific and
consistent period of time from year to year and a defined parameter of that
Director Miller advised that staff consistently used the proscribed index
annual data from July to July.
Willmus sought further clarification that staff would use that same focus
period for 2017.
Director Miller advised that, as with past time periods, staff would use the
latest data available from July 1 to June 30 (e.g. July 1, 2015 to June 30,
2016 for the year 2017).
Mayor Roe noted
that the City Council's policy for the annual COLA review specifies July to
June as a default as that provided the most recent information available.
In his review
of the October 2013 City Council meeting minutes when the policy was adopted,
Finance Director Miller reported that the benchmark period and advance
information available to inform the City Manager's recommended budget was
initially that available in May, noting that the information may change from
one quarter to the next.
Willmus stated his concern was to ensure when compiling data that it be for a
consistent twelve month period, and not represent 11 or 13 months; and
therefore had asked that a second look be given to the actual time period.
clarified that the period was specified as July 1 to June 30, but would also be
dependent on when the Labor Department compiled and released the data to
provide a true picture.
Director Miller advised that the intent was to provide a full 12-month period,
from the end of the second quarter from one year to the next.
Specific to the
documentation provided for this year's budget process, Mayor Roe commended
staff on that material throughout the process, opining the process was reaching
the high 90% toward where the City Council has been trying to go with the
process. Barring some minor tweaking for next year's process, Mayor Roe stated
he had great expectations that the goal would be met. Specific to the report on
COLA indices, Mayor Roe opined that it was good to have that information as
part of the City Manager recommended budget packet for discussion, along with
the plus/minus report summarizing in broad categories at the time of release of
that recommended budget, including tables and details. Mayor Roe expressed his
appreciation in seeing that detail provided as needed. Mayor Roe opined that
the next step was to define how to package the material to make it more
consumer-friendly throughout the budget process, and his anticipation of staff
and the Finance Commission continuing to work on that process, but commended
staff for their improved documentation during this year's process. Mayor Roe
referenced Finance Director Miller's "projected surplus carried forward"
memorandum provide as a bench handout tonight, and asked that he include it in
the annual budget documentation going forward, noting that the City Council
consistently asked for that information anyway.
Laliberte concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe, and thanked staff for their
flexibility and responsiveness with information requests throughout the
process. Councilmember Laliberte also thanked the public for their feedback on
the post cards, and to staff for implementing that suggestion of Councilmember
McGehee's as quickly as they did.
McGehee opined that people liked being asked for their opinion and being heard;
and stated how helpful she had found those thoughts provided by residents.
Related to the value of the post cards feedback, Councilmember McGehee noted
that allowed those not typically using or having internet access an ability to
provide their feedback. While an accurate summary of the data was not able to
be compiled from over 200 responses, Councilmember McGehee noted that feedback
was invaluable to inform the budget process as well as a broad range of topics
from those residents not usually heard from.
suggested that dialogue would be a good topic on Speak Up! Roseville for next
year's budget process.
sake, and duly noted by Mayor Roe and Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus
suggested the surplus funds memorandum be provided later in the year rather
agreed that post card feedback was a helpful part of the process.
Laliberte thanked Finance Director Miller and the Finance Commission for the
data they provided throughout the year.
Adopt the 2016 Final HRA Tax Levy
Director Miller briefly referenced the requested action in the RCA dated
December 7, 2016.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11282 (Attachment A) entitled, "A
Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and for the
City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey
County Auditor for the Fiscal year of 2016;"
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe noted that this action for average tax payers in
Roseville, this would reduce their tax levy by approximately $3 per month.
Adopt the 2016 Utility Rates
Director Miller briefly reviewed the requested action as detailed in the RCA dated
December 7, 2015; noting that the rate adjustments would average a net increase
of approximately $.80/month.
Laliberte expressed appreciation for staff's presentation of the proposed 2016
utility rate adjustments a meeting before taking action to allow the City
Council and Roseville residents to review and make comment.
increased sanitary sewer rates due to increased rates from the Metropolitan
Council, and based on a question she received from a Roseville resident,
Councilmember Laliberte asked Finance Director Miller to illuminate her on a
process for a taxpayer to appeal that rate; or if there was any opportunity for
the public to react at all.
Director Miller responded that, while he wasn't sure of any way to appeal other
than directly to the Metropolitan Council, who typically held open meetings
regarding their rate structure. However, Mr. Miller advised he wasn't sure how
widely advertised those meetings were, but thought it would be appropriate for
a taxpayer to provide verbal or written comment accordingly. Aside from that option,
Mr. Miller advised he wasn't sure of any appeal process the Metropolitan
Council had available.
Laliberte noted that residents weren't even aware of receiving the increase,
and therefore felt it was a failure of the City's system; and sought a way for
the City to inform the public earlier on in the process or if there was another
suggested getting those discussions out to the process earlier in the public.
Director Miller clarified that the Metropolitan Council didn't notify municipalities
of the next year's rate structure until August of the current year. While Mr.
Miller suggested there may be other ways for Roseville residents to get word,
it probably wouldn't be from the Metropolitan Council based on that schedule.
Mr. Miller suggested that may be an extra step the City could consider in their
annual budget process, since the Metropolitan Council typically held their rate
discussions in the spring at which time it may provide a better opportunity for
residents to voice their thoughts.
Mayor Roe asked
staff to follow-up with the Finance Commission on that, and make that part of
the City website's utility information, specifically process and time points
similar to the property tax process, even though not part of the City Council's
Laliberte asked that City Manager Trudgeon follow-up with the City's
Metropolitan Council representative, such as an after business opportunity for
the representative to come to the City Council with a snapshot of their proposed
rate structure for the next year or to provide an idea of other things going
forward that may affect Roseville taxpayers.
Mayor Roe stated his preference to have that representative contact earlier in
the year; with Councilmember Laliberte clarifying her preference that the
presentation go beyond the typical "feel good" presentation and provide
specific areas of interest.
Trudgeon duly noted the City Council's request.
McGehee questioned if this Metropolitan Council increase was for general
operations and process fees, or if it was specifically tied to the City's
inflow and infiltration (I & I) issues.
Director Miller reported that this was a simple pass-through increase, an
historic role of the City for the Metropolitan Council; and clarified that the
City had not had to pay an I & I surcharge to-date, and continued to make
great progress on that issue.
Public Works Director
Marc Culver reported that the City of Roseville continued to experience I &
I issues, especially with water getting into stormwater pipes and groundwater,
with a potential surcharge notice of several hundred thousand dollars over a
3-4 year period being received. However, to-date, Mr. Culver clarified that
the City had been provided an opportunity to apply that amount to address its I
& I issues, with its aggressive program of lining sewers and other programs
implemented as examples used to offset that surcharge.
McGehee noted the need for residents to have a better understanding of the
City's rationale in lining pipes and the benefits received in doing so.
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed 2016 utility rate fees at
this time, with no one appearing to speak.
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11283 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Establishing the 2016 Utility Rates" as presented.
McGehee stated she felt compelled to again suggest bonding versus fees to
address needs, even though recognizing she was unable to get any traction with
her frequent suggestion for that option, but grudgingly spoke in support of the
motion. Recognizing the importance of continuing to improve the city infrastructure,
Councilmember McGehee asked that City Manager Trudgeon and Public Works
Director Culver research a program such as that of the Pavement Management
Program (PMP) for residents to line their lateral service lines during the construction
Laliberte stated the need for the City Council and staff to remind and
communicate with residents as often as possible that they are not assessed for
infrastructure repairs, setting the City of Roseville apart from many communities
that do asses for those repairs.
concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's comments, noting that the fact that
the base rates are not proposed to change this year provided an indication that
improvements were being made and that the difficult decision made by the City
Council several years ago and representing a fairly substantial increase in
those base rates to address infrastructure upgrades, had been the correct
McGehee clarified that her bonding suggestion was not intended to propose the
city not pursue lining sewers, but just her thoughts for a different option to
distribute those costs, as she found the utility rates painful to pay as did
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve/Deny Liquor License Applications for both New Applicants
Approve Newly Created Positions in the 2016 City Budget
Trudgeon reviewed the proposed creation of each of the 6.5 new positions as
detailed in the RCA dated December 7, 2015.
McGehee stated that some of her questions were specific to a position while
more were of a broader nature. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this
forum may not be the best venue to discuss all of them, and therefore would
keep her questions more general. Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal
interest in a more in-depth discussion of financial impacts as well as
personnel discussions at a later date.
License Representative (full-time)
Specific to the
Passport Supervisor job summary and previous discussion about that position,
Mayor Roe questioned the separate of function from other license functions
based on federal agency requirements. However, Mayor Roe noted that the
proposed job description didn't exclude auto dealer transactions; and asked how
the functionality of the position was defined based on those federal requirements.
Trudgeon responded, with concurrence by Finance Director Miller, that the
passport function needed to be exclusively separated from staff issuing drivers
licenses, but not from other supervisory functions.
Fire Chief Position (full-time)
McGehee stated her understanding that this position was budget-neutral but
stated she would like a more in-depth discussion for this proposed position and
structure and how that improved the transition to a full-time staffing model
going forward. Councilmember McGehee stated that she had yet to see that
recalled that financial analysis provided by staff in earlier discussions and
savings related to equipment and in other areas as the department transitions
to full-time firefighters and part-time costs generating savings to pay for the
Fire Chief Tim
O'Neill advised that when looking at how to address step two in 2016 to
transition from part-time a combined part- and full-time staffing model, or
full-time department, the biggest need was found to be in supervision. Thus,
while there are numerous ways to consider, in moving into the 2016 budget
cycle, Chief O'Neill advised that the direction from the City Manager and City
Council had been to come as close as possible to a budget-neutral scenario.
Chief O'Neill noted that this plan and stepped process had been submitted to
the City Council several years ago for their support and providing options to
keep the three existing battalion chiefs in their existing roles and hiring
three new supervisor positions.
O'Neill noted that plan would have cost the City an additional $220,000
estimated, and the department didn't think the City Council would support that
recommendation. Therefore, Chief O'Neill advised that staff returned to the
drawing board with their plan, as submitted to the City Council, and after further
discussion, repositioned the battalion chiefs to work shifts and propose hiring
only one additional position, that of the Assistant Fire Chief.
reviewed how that would work, with three of the positions (battalion chiefs)
already in the budget; and revising their job descriptions to supervise
firefighters on the street and taking the position previously occupied by a
part-time supervisor, thus changing next year's staffing model structure. Chief
O'Neill clarified that the savings from the part-time supervisor position was
not part of that structure, but replaced funding for the Assistant Chief
position as calculated for that model.
clarified that the savings would result from not paying a part-time supervisor
position, or as noted by Chief O'Neill, reducing that from three to
two-part-time supervisor positions.
Based on her
personal analysis performed with the City Manager Trudgeon, Councilmember
McGehee noted that by taking the giant leap of hiring six full-time
firefighters at the front end versus this stepped approach, it would prove more
cost-effective. As an example, Councilmember McGehee noted last week's payment
request for extra gear totaling $128,000. Councilmember McGehee opined that
the City Council had not seen all the alternatives and their cost analyses, but
was only hearing options based on staff's assumptions of what it would or would
not approve rather than giving the City Council the opportunity to respond to
succession planning discussions and one planned retirement next year leaving
the City with two rather than three battalion chiefs, Councilmember McGehee
questioned why not keep those positions in their two distinct foci areas of
expertise. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference would be to leave the
positions as they are and increase their administrative role and move others into
full-time staff positions by providing them the opportunity to be shift
captains, ultimately providing more administrative depth than currently
available. Without having personal access to financial information,
Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment that those alternatives were
not presented to the City Council based on those financial considerations
long-term, not just short-term.
McGehee stated she was not speaking against having an Assistant Fire Chief, but
opined that it seemed like just another administrative layer; and she would prefer
to see both battalion chiefs remain in their roles come spring of 2016.
recalled staff presenting alternatives and analyses of each at a prior meeting.
advised that the department had considered different options, and agreed with
Councilmember McGehee that there were many different approaches. However,
Chief O'Neill reiterated that staff had presented the best option they felt
would provide a budget-neutral opportunity, while holding two battalion chiefs
in their positions and moving three other firefighters up from the ranks.
Chief O'Neill advised that this model also had additional costs, but would
basically come out in the end. Chief O'Neill agreed with Councilmember
McGehee that this option was not presented to the City Council in the 2016
budget, but had been incorporated with the overall transition plan for
restructuring as presented in 2014 and moved forward into 2015. Chief O'Neill
advised that, other than his attempt to be as fiscally responsible as possible,
he could offer no other reason for the decision to offer this suggestion.
recalled that the City Council did receive some of that analysis earlier in
2015 from staff, and a decision had been made to not incur additional current
year costs even though there may be some long-term savings. Mayor Roe stated
that his support was based on that structure, as presented by staff, making
more sense to consolidate functions into one position and allow shift
supervision by battalion chiefs. Mayor Roe opined that he saw that model in no
way conflicting with succession planning and staff supervision.
offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one coming
forward to speak on the issues.
McGehee opined that she didn't feel the options had yet been fully vetted; and
sought more transparent public discussion. While understanding the rationale
in not wanting more expense, Councilmember McGehee opined that she had found in
the past when looking out a few years, the City actually saved money rather
than simply looking short-term from one budget cycle to the next.
Facility Coordinator (half-time)
McGehee noted that current staff, Jeff Evenson and Ryan Johnson, both had horticultural
expertise, in addition to the consultant under contract with the City, and were
available to take over tree health issues for the city as well as address
specific tree questions of residents. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined
that the part-time Forester position should be eliminated and those funds
applied to the Recreation Facility Coordinator's part-time position.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approving the proposed Recreation Facility
Coordinator's half-time position by eliminating the half-time forester position
be eliminated, thereby making the new position budget-neutral.
McGehee noted that the emerald ash borer (EAB) situation was well-known and
would most likely conclude similarly to that of Dutch Elm disease, but
requiring no heroic effort on the part of the city beyond education and
communication. Councilmember McGehee opined that having someone readily
available in-house as a forester was not a service the city needed to provide,
and that information was available to the public through the extension program.
Laliberte noted her seconding the motion had been to facilitate discussion, and
noted her questioning of that forestry position at last week's meeting. Since
that meeting, Councilmember Laliberte reported that she had spoken to several leadership
staff members to answer her questions. Councilmember Laliberte noted that a
year ago, everyone appeared to be on the same page in approving an internal,
full-time Forester position to provide consistent service to the public and the
Public Works, Parks & Recreation and Community Development Department.
Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for that consistency goal and
that time, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the position had not been filled
and status quo retained, causing her to assume it would be revisited in tandem
with the outside consultant now under contract. Going forward, Councilmember
Laliberte stated her concerns were still as she originally expressed, that a
consistent message among departments was available and imparted to residents to
avoid customer service issues. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would
follow-up with staff on her concerns outside of meeting confines.
Etten pointed out, in City Manager Trudgeon's budget memorandum the potential
significant increased costs for contracting all services compared with the cost
for a half-time forester position. Councilmember Etten noted that depending on
the third party contractor's rate schedule for a particular service and other
concerns he had in getting rid of the forester position, he saw an even more
significant issue with consistency.
McGehee responded that while rates may prove higher for a specific service,
there may not be as much demand for a particular service, creating cost savings
versus an in-house position.
subsequent conversations with staff to address her remaining concerns,
Councilmember Laliberte stated she had no definite preference at this time.
Mayor Roe noted
the different roles among departments for this expertise, and his understanding
that the part-time forester position didn't deal with many of those areas.
However, Mayor Roe stated that he needed to better understand the functions of
the forester position and potential implications if eliminating the positions
before he could make an informed decision.
Trudgeon reviewed the various roles with the third party consultant addressing
Community Development issues (e.g. tree preservation and replacement); while
the part-time forestry position coordinated the city's diseased and hazardous
tree program, parks and rights-of-way issues, and consulted with residents
about those specific concerns, as well as active involvement with EAB
management (e.g. grant applications and field work), and oversight of the
city's side of forestry management. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the two positions
didn't necessarily interact, but were two distinct positions. If eliminating
the forestry position, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the city lost all that service
and coordination, and while current staff may be able to absorb that function
in-house it would be on top of their already full workloads, and not avail
itself to providing much if any customer service to residents beyond emergency
responses as applicable. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon reiterated his recommendation
to continue as outlined in his memorandum, with the half-time forester
position, at 1,040 hours per year.
As outlined in
City Manager Trudgeon's memorandum of December 2, 2015 (page 2), Mayor Roe
noted the budgeted total of $68,000 for the full-time position, and some
portion paid among all three departments, some by fee, but representing more
than originally budgeted for if assuming the same number of hours and at that
rate. Mayor Roe questioned if the goal was being achieved and taxpayer value
was realized, based on his initial analysis.
McGehee stated she found the information useful, but if incorrect it didn't matter.
Given the concerns she and Councilmember McGehee had expressed separately and
as brought up by residents, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the purported
service to residents is really a service, and suggested a better arrangement
for rights-of-way and dead boulevard tree issues.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the newly-created positions as presented and
detailed in the RCA dated December 7, 2015, authorizing staff to begin the
process of recruiting and filling those positions.
Laliberte expressed her appreciation to City Manager Trudgeon for recommending
revenue-neutral positions, even though she retained some concerns with some of
those initiatives, particularly in appearing to randomly hire based on variable
skill sets. Councilmember Laliberte opined that further discussion was needed
to make sure potential employees are comfortable in those positions with the
skill set being requested of them. Under that scenario, Councilmember
Laliberte asked staff to annually assess those new positions, or whenever a new
position is created (e.g. Volunteer Coordinator position created a year ago) to
provide a touchback.
Councilmember Laliberte noted her discussions with Human Resources Director
Eldona Bacon, and asked that staff provide a report on reasons staff are
leaving the City to keep the City Council up-to-date, especially in light of
the fourteen positions opened up on 2015, and rationale for those moves as
gleaned through exit interviews. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would find
it helpful for departments at some point during 2016 to provide any
organizational plan changes for their specific department rather than just when
vacancies need to be filled or positions redesigned.
McGehee expressed her appreciation to staff for providing the specific job
position information and their descriptions; and concurred with Councilmember
Laliberte's request to have a review after a year for new positions and whether
or not they generated any additional revenue.
Approve Hillcrest Animal Hospital Service Agreement
Lt. Lorne Rosand briefly summarized additional research and revisions to the
proposed contract with Hillcrest Animal Hospital, as detailed in the RCA dated
December 7, 2015 and attached draft service agreement.
Rosand noted concerns raised about specific language had been addressed since
the last meeting and revised accordingly; and proceeded to introduce Dr.
Bouthilet, DVM, owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital for 23 years, and in tonight's
audience. Lt. Rosand noted that Dr. Bouthilet had readily agreed to the changes
requested by the City Council; and as part of staff's research, reported that
Brighton Vet Clinic had impounded 42 animals to-date while under contract with
the city, with only seven euthanized, or what was called at 17% "kill rate."
McGehee thanked staff for that additional information, a point of concern for
her; and expressed her appreciation of contract revisions. Councilmember
McGehee clarified that she not as concerned with possible euthanizing of
animals, but of selling them for research, and her desire to address notifying
residents of four business days, which was a short time frame for cat owners
compared to dog owners.
Bouthilet agreed that the vast majority of dogs were claimed by their owners;
and advised that their clinic provided impound services for approximately 35 cities
at this time. Dr. Bouthilet advised that the State minimum for notification is
five days, and most cities retained that schedule due to budgetary implications
with impounded animals. Dr. Bouthilet clarified that there was never any questions
of selling animals for research as that wasn't going to happen on her watch,
but was fine revising contract language accordingly. Dr. Bouthilet opined that
it was nice of the City of Roseville not to charge its residents an impound
fee, with her being aware of only one other city not doing so, with impound
fees typically charged to pet owners upon pick-up. While the money didn't
affect her operation at all, Dr. Bouthilet advised that it did count as a
credit for cities on invoicing for their services and helped defray costs of
having city staff bringing in animals.
McGehee stated she was unaware that the City didn't have an impound fee, and
suggested it be addressed in the next fee schedule. Councilmember McGehee
clarified that the five-day period was not intended due to any concern she had
with Dr. Bouthilet or her services, but just to ensure residents were aware of
the time limit and where the intake clinic was located.
Laliberte expressed her appreciation to Dr. Bouthilet for providing the service
and her agreement to revising the contract language to address City Council
stated in the contract, Mayor Roe asked Dr. Bouthilet what the typical time period
was that applied: redemption or quarantine periods.
Bouthilet responded that if an animal had bitten someone, the quarantine was 10
days, and noted some situations where animals had been removed from an owner's
home due to health or hoarding concerns, advising that did take some time to
get through the court system. Under those circumstances, Dr. Bouthilet advised
that they would keep those animals as long as the city told them to, but they
did expect to get paid for that impound days. Dr. Bouthilet stated she had
worked with Hillcrest for over 25 years, and their impound service had been provided
for a longer period than her tenure with them, she opined that they had a good
system in place.
the request of Mayor Roe, Dr. Bouthilet confirmed that the usual situation is a
five-day impound, and need to remove animals represented less than 10% of animals
impounded. Dr. Bouthilet advised that it's typical for Hillcrest to keep animals
until a rescue opportunity became available, and based on their networking with
a number of different rescue resources, they were able to get animals adopted
to new homes. Dr. Bouthilet stated that euthanasia typically involved feral
cats, aggressive dogs, or animals so sick or injured it was kinder to put them
down, and was only done on rare occasion for a healthy animal.
Roe asked if Dr. Bouthilet would be willing to provide an annual report to the
City on the number and type of animals brought to Hillcrest and those euthanized,
suggesting that could be added to contract language.
Bouthilet agreed to provide that report via staff; and offered her willingness
to change the number of days, impound fees, or any other changes during the
term of the contract at the City Council's prompting.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2016 Hillcrest Animal Control Service
Agreement (Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute
Mayor Roe asked
staff to bring future discussion of impound fees forward in the future, duly
noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
Adopt 2016 City Council Priority Plan
Manager Trudgeon highlighted changes made to the Priority Planning document as
a result of past discussions, and as detailed in the RCA and Attachment A, dated
December 7, 2015. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed those revisions as outlined in lines 7
- 23 of the RCA (page 1). While representing an ambitious undertaking, City
Manager Trudgeon advised that staff was ready and eager to begin.
Roe noted the need to include page and line numbers on the document on the next
Etten and McGehee thanked City Manager Trudgeon for this format that he found
Etten referenced the third goal in the Housing and Economic Development
Strategic Priority entitled, "Foster Twin Lake Redevelopment;" opining it was
missing something, and suggested shifting the quarterly initiative programs in
a more realistic manner.
further discussion, without objection, the consensus was to move the timetable
forward to the first quarter.
Laliberte thanked staff for deferring this item to this week's agenda to make
sure it had one more review before formal adoption. Councilmember Laliberte
stated she saw this as a working document undergoing continual changes
throughout the next year, opining she thought it would serve as a learning
process for this and future City Council's in how to approach an annual set of
goals. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with those items removed and those
revised areas of focus as presented.
Etten stated his interest in updates provided to the City Council, at a minimum
of quarterly if not more frequent, from groups outside the City itself (e.g. SE
Roseville, Karen organization, etc.).
Manager Trudgeon suggested covering all of them quarterly or if more important
more frequently and sooner rather than later; and thanked the City Council for
reinforcing that effort to hold everyone accountable.
Roe concurred with Councilmember Etten for aligning those reports with those
already received by the City Council, noting this document may supersede the
former Imagine Roseville 2025 reports.
Laliberte expressed concern with the logistics of reporting to the City Council
at each work session or quarterly, especially in areas where staff needed more
immediate action on an item; and suggested putting a standing item on each City
Council work session to receive that report.
Manager Trudgeon suggested receipt of a memorandum from him if there was
something needing discussion before the quarterly report, noting that work
sessions were not necessarily held quarterly.
McGehee noted she was going to call this an experiment, and had wanted
something like it for focus since she originally came aboard the City Council,
and expressed appreciation that staff is as excited as the City Council to get
going on it, opining they'd keep each other accountable. Councilmember McGehee
stated she was happy with an update no less than quarterly, and based on the
feedback she heard from her colleagues tonight, having a week between receiving
materials and taking action tonight had made for a more productive conversation,
and should serve to inform the process moving forward. Using this an example
of cooperative efforts, Councilmember McGehee noted this allowed the City
Council to facilitate its own plan and for staff to provide a heads up.
Roe spoke in support of Councilmember Laliberte's proposal to receive an update
at each City Council work session, opining frequency would be better; and spoke
in support of Councilmember Etten's comments to get an update not necessarily
due to what the City Council needs to accomplish, but to keep track of what
others have been doing providing a routine and frequent report. However, Mayor
Roe questioned if there was across-the-board support for that frequency, and addressed
the need to be clear to staff on that routine.
Etten clarified that every issue didn't need to be dug up each time, with most
of the effort on the City Council's plat in that role or that of their EDA role
anyway, and only a small portion outside that domain. Therefore, Councilmember
Etten opined that a short memorandum from staff on the other items should
suffice most of the time and move it forward to inform the City Council.
Laliberte opined that another reason to have a memorandum presented at a work
session was to allow the public to be aware of what the City Council was
working on to provide ongoing input as individual Councilmembers and/or staff
were out in the broader community and what meetings were taking place or the
status of projects.
Roe suggested a webpage dedicated to PPP with periodic updates.
McGehee suggested including that information as a summary in the City News
newsletter as well.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of the 2016 City Priority Plan (Attachment A) as
amended to add a bullet point under "Foster Twin lake Redevelopment" under the
City of Roseville Request to Amend Tree Preservation and
Restoration Ordinance, City Code Chapter 1011.04 for all Districts
Thomas Paschke briefly summarized modifications made to the proposed ordinance
as a result of previous discussions, and detailed in the RCA and attachments
dated December 7, 2015.
McGehee thanked staff for incorporating the changes she'd requested in this
iteration; and opined it would provide a well-done addition to city code.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1490 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Chapter 1011 (Introduction), Section
1001.10 (Definitions) and Chapter 1011 (Property Performance Standards),
Section 1011.04 (Tree Preservation and Restoration) in all Districts."
Laliberte, with concurrence of her colleagues, thanked staff for persevering in
working through this with the City Council.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1490 (Attachment B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Chapters 1001 and 1011, Related to Tree
Roll Call (Super
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Receive Update on Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Thomas Paschke and Sambatec Consultant Ben Gozola were available to receive
feedback on the most recent update on the proposed PUD ordinance prior to
moving forward with a draft to the Planning Commission as modified and detailed
in the RCA and draft PUD regulations dated December 7, 2015.
reviewed the revisions since the original November draft and subsequent City
Council feedback to-date; with comments specifically addressed via Attachment C.
Councilmember Willmus stated he found the draft to be on the right track.
Qualifications (Section A, (5) - Page 3, line 64
Willmus asked if there was a need to have all land area controlled under single
ownership, which he found an area of concern.
ownership and establishment of PUD's for areas of a plan under single ownership
or control, Councilmember Willmus stated his concern, since there could be a
partnership or corporation situation, or multiple controlling parties. However
it was decided, Councilmember Willmus noted the need to be clear and consistent
throughout the document, noting a contradiction from page 3 to page 12 as
Procedure (Section 9, pages 5 and 6)
Willmus noted issues in the past with PUD's and the design review committee's
closed door approach, and suggested revised language beyond "unless waived by
staff", allowing for decision-points in a more open, transparent process for
the Planning Commission and/or City Council through a public body to allow
people to see what was happening from the front end of a project.
Page 12, #7
maintenance of common areas, Councilmember Willmus opined that appeared to
address residential settings, and his preference was that this also easily
apply to commercial settings too. Councilmember Willmus also noted that no
matter the ownership of a property, it was important to define who would be the
holder of the documents, whether or not it was the city, but expressed his lack
of interest in the city becoming an arbitrator for snow plowing, etc. with
preference that those things be recorded with the property title for those
parties involved in the PUD and outside the city's role.
agreed she thought this was on the right track, but expressed some confusion in
line with those comments of Councilmember Willmus about sharing common
ownership by entities and how to interpret those entities or individual contracts.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her need to more clearly understand what is
being proposed; and if the goal was to avoid the city arbitrating how something
worked in a variety of scenarios, especially in commercial areas, she was in
agreement with that.
As touched upon
by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee noted her concern with the
design review committee consisting of staff, opining that she would like to
hear the consultant address what triggers were in place to move that from an
administrative review to one in a more public or transparent arena to inform
the public and the process itself. From her personal point of view, Councilmember
McGehee stated there was more visibility needed beyond the Planning Commission,
but was unsure of the trigger or threshold to bring that potential waiver to
the City Council for more review.
Mayor Roe noted
that related to the PUD submittal requirements (page 6) and needed further
Page 6, Item
Specific to PUD
submittal plan requirements brought up by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember
Etten stated his interpretation was that these items should be part of the
public meeting and public application process, but anything waived by staff was
determined not to be specific requirements and not material to that particular
noted that at that point it would only be a concept plan going before the
Planning Commission and City Council; and if more information was needed the
applicant needed to provide that to staff and include it with any preliminary
cancellation, page 12
city having the sole right to cancel a PUD, Councilmember Etten questioned if
that included after development.
responded that he had yet to see one cancelled, and had pulled this language
from that of another city. However, Mr. Gozola suggested the City should have
that cancellation ability should it ever find itself in a position needing it.
Laliberte also expressed concerns in the lack of transparency in a quasi-review
process behind closed doors.
Laliberte opined the difference in clauses about 365 days and 3 months, and
questioned that rationale.
noted that the 365 days related to when the concept plan was submitted, and
typical timeline between concept and preliminary plat states; with the developer
required to set an open house within 3 months to keep plans relevant. Mr.
Gozola noted the potential for someone to do quicker or wait longer, and if longer,
a second open house would be required.
intent (Page 1, paragraph 1.1.a)
While a minor
point, Mayor Roe noted the need to retain flexibility for development of neighborhoods
and in non-residential areas, and suggested stating "residential and
Buffering (Page 5, paragraph 3)
Mayor Roe noted
along property lines abutting different use types, this was more specific from
the City Council's point of view (e.g. single-family, medium density
residential or parks/open space) and specific areas needing more focus on
buffers and adjacencies. Mayor Roe suggested talking about those specific
districts as a starting point, but still stating the possibility for more or
Meeting Requirement (Page 8)
stated he was not aware of a slightly different requirement in several areas;
and asked that code be reviewed for consistency to provide a single open house process
for all, an area of organizational consideration for staff and the City
Plan and Timeframe
Mayor Roe noted
the 365 day and 3 month issue had already been addressed. In other land use
issues, Mayor Roe recalled language of not less than 15 days and not more than
45 days, and for consistency, suggested justifying one or the other, based on
that previous detailed discussion.
cancellation of a PUD, Councilmember McGehee stated she found that strange,
since the City could amend PUD's, but didn't have the ability to do anything
else according to this document to restrict a PUD, expressed her confusion as
to why the City Council had the ability to cancel a PUD, and asked that the
next discussion would provide more background on that point.
Entities (page 3)
advised that he understood the questioned raised, and the City Council needed
to be comfortable with the language of their ordinance and that it met the
needs of the applicant process in Roseville.
Center as an example, Mr. Gozola questioned how to address and avoid separate
agreements with separate entities.
Development Director Paul Bilotta suggested language indicating that all
parties, who are owners, have to be part of the PUD contract.
Gaughan advised, if the City Council wasn't comfortable in requiring some
formal partnership, a similar approval process to that of Rosedale Center could
be used requiring consent from all ownership interests; with that provision
made rather than the City acquiring partnership interests on a PUD.
objection, this language was agreed to by City Council consensus.
clarified that he had no objection of working with a single conglomerate or
document, simply how best to express it.
versus other sizes
Mayor Roe suggested
that because any parcels smaller than 2 acres could be combined, this would
effectively cover the entire city.
discussion, without objection, the City Council agreed to the 2 acre language.
specific districts (Page 5)
Willmus suggested more specificity with other city documents, naming specific
districts (e.g. LDR, MDR, Parks/Open Space) as suggested by Mayor Roe as a good
starting point, and providing protections to residential districts.
objection, the City Council agreed.
and public participation (page 6)
perspective, Mayor Roe opined this made sense from a transparency and early involvement
of the public in the process, moving the concept plan before the open house,
but still maintaining notification of those within 500'. Even if it comes
before the City Council and proceeds no further, Mayor Roe noted this at least
provided an opportunity for the public to comment, as well as during preliminary
and final plat approval; using the same notification process and open house
requirements. Mayor Roe opined this accomplished the goal consistent with
McGehee agreed, but questioned the trigger for that public review versus
Mayor Roe noted
that was the next part of the discussion.
Councilmember Willmus agreed with where it fell in this document, but noted
some of the details were important for the public to know (e.g. density,
development schedules, etc.) and if staff deemed that information wasn't important
or pertinent, there may be others in the community that felt it was and wanted
that information early on in the process to provide their feedback before the
formal public hearing at the Planning Commission. Councilmember Willmus stated
his preference to have that on the table and not give staff an opportunity to
waive any of those items.
noted that by bringing the concept to the City Council for a first look without
any decision-making, provided an opportunity for staff to justify why they were
waiving anything; and if the RCA came forward for consideration of a concept
plan, and staff waived any items, the City Council would then have the right to
Willmus agreed to that as long as attention was called to it and it wasn't
clarified that any waiving by staff had to be justified by them.
Etten agreed with that process, if the RCA clearly stated why staff waived any
items from the standard list; with Mayor Roe opining it seemed consistent with
other items received by the City Council.
used wetland delineation as an example with Rosedale Center and depending on
soil types, at the early stage it may be an important piece, but at the concept
level, would provide an opportunity for City Council and public comment before
soil borings were done. While this may serve as only a caution from staff and
no costs were yet incurred, Mr. Bilotta noted this provided an opportunity for
feedback from the City Council and public for the applicant.
McGehee stated she found this list similar to that used for past Environmental
Assessment Worksheet forms, as a checklist, with "not applicable" for boxes as
appropriate, and as her preference for such a checklist to come before the City
Mayor Roe requested
the consultant, by general consensus, to add staff justification of
administrative waivers of requirements as part of the process and reflected in
noted that typically in ordinance the timeframes were one year and 180 days.
However, realistically with Minnesota weather, Mr. Bilotta noted how that could
impact development and construction cycles, resulting in the 365 day time
period depending on when the process was initiated and how long analysis
required, with the ultimate goal of developers with a contract to get through
the process as quickly as possible.
consistent, Councilmember Laliberte asked that the 15/45 day period be
followed. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted current work by two advisory
commissions on notification process and their task force recommendations,
asking that the consultant acknowledge their work and recommendations as they
related to this document.
and maintenance requirements for common area - single ownership (Page 12)
agreed that the city didn't want to get into dispute resolution.
agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the documents should be recorded between
parties, but somehow injecting the city as an intervening party in case one of
the other parties defaulted (e.g. snow removal) to resolve any issues.
questioned if the city would be enforcing the terms of any PUD.
As an example,
Councilmember Willmus, noted cross titles of properties.
noted the need for the city to be third party to a PUD agreement so other
parties couldn't undo any situation.
opined there was a viable role for the City to have cancellation authority
should a PUD at some point in the future come forward for rezoning or redevelopment,
and retain the ability to terminate any agreement in place.
McGehee expressed interest in better understanding that.
Paschke used the 1980's era Center Pointe development as an example; and
current issues specific to uses, with that PUD amended two separate times
already, and difficulties in selling one vacant lot because uses for it were
currently so narrowly defined. Mr. Paschke opined that the only option to
address that was to cancel the PUD or modify/amend the PUD. By having the
ability for the City to cancel the entire PUD, Mr. Paschke advised that it
would allow them to look at the entire PUD and determine whether or not the
conditions of approval were still applicable to the agreement of if rezoning
was a better tool to move forward beyond canceling the PUD.
noted other similar actions, such as moving from Industrial to Medium Density
Residential zoning, and having the same controls over a PUD and not being
locked into place, but having the ability to cancel a PUD versus amending them
if multiple issues were found. In response to Councilmember McGehee, Mr.
Bilotta advised this would allow cancelation of a PUD versus having a whole
series of PUD's on top of other PUD's, by rescinding all of them and creating a
McGehee noted this clarified that it was a collaborative effort versus her
initial understanding that it would be the City pulling a PUD out from under a
developer or property owner.
advised that his only remaining questions were about overarching goals (page 1)
and PUD review criteria (page 4); and thanked the City Council for their
thanked Mr. Gozola for the fantastic job with the draft to-date. Mayor Roe
noted the next step would be the consultant redrafting the document for
presentation at the Planning Commission and the subsequent process to follow.
Page 3, Section
noted current language of "substantially similar" and for some reason that
caught her attention in questioning how that would be judged. Ms. McCormick
stated she was unclear as to whether that was a staff decision, but she would
prefer it earlier on in the process.
clarified that it would be the public part of the process if not on the list
explained in the process.
Page 8, Section
several open houses, Ms. McCormick suggested the need for a standardized form
or checklist for applicants and for those attending to know what type of
information was expected of the applicant.
Based on her
personal experience, Ms. McCormick encouraged the City Council to adopt a
policy of having development agreements recorded, especially related to older
PUD's and land acquisition to determine easily what private agreements were in
place. Ms. McCormick opined this would provide another checkpoint to know
requirements for maintenance required by the City.
concept proposal review, Ms. McCormick stated that she was a proponent of
minimum 500' notification area, as being reviewed by the task force as they
review current zoning notification areas. Ms. McCormick noted the PIK situation
was a good case in point, as she was clearly interested in that parcel, but not
being within 500' had not received any notice, and suggested the need to involve
interested parties via the website for public awareness of significant projects.
Specific to Ms.
McCormick's comments, Mayor Roe asked staff to respond.
advised that any documents, including development agreements that ran with the
land were recorded by the city, including all previous PUD's.
Mayor Roe asked
that the consultant review specific language of the proposed ordinance compared
to state statute.
Willmus noted that Ramsey County was obligated to record any document presented
permitted uses, Mr. Bilotta advised that every day staff was required to
interpret what is considered "similar," and needed to distinguish various items
based on previous City Council action and direction. Mr. Bilotta assured the
City Council and public that staff was not attempting to gain any additional
powers beyond what had already been delegated to them.
McGehee opined that the 500' notification issue brought forward by Ms.
McCormick was a valid concern, especially when there was a large piece of
undeveloped land that people in that area may be interested in; and suggested
some way to address those particular situations.
Mayor Roe noted
the task force was currently reviewing that for recommendation; and reiterated
his long-ago proposal that hadn't gained any traction, but suggested basing
notices on the longest dimension of a property.
noted that was one piece missing from current procedure, and advised that a
recommendation coming from the notifications task force would solve 80-90% of
the problem. Mr. Bilotta reported that their recommendation was, when there
was a big land use action, a large sign would be placed to provide notice to
those in the area or driving by.
McGehee expressed her support of the sign concept.
Trudgeon reviewed the request to schedule a Special City Council meeting for
two specific topics: revision of the Rosedale Center Final Plat to amend the
lot line due to lot line issues raised by J. C. Penney at the corporate level
and subsequent to previous final plat approval and relative to the location of
the parking ramp; and to approve the Outdoor Conditional Use for Calyxt for redevelopment
of the PIK parcel in order to facilitate their closing on the property before
year-end 2015. Mr. Trudgeon anticipated a short meeting, but noted the 3-day
notice requirement, suggesting a date next week to meet.
Gaughan reviewed the process for the special meeting and motion to suspend the
rules according to Rosenberg's Rules of Order, requiring a super majority vote
of the City Council.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, suspend the Rules of Order for the purpose of permitting a motion to
reconsider the final plat approval for the Rosedale Center redevelopment at a meeting
other than the meeting immediately following the original action.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, to reconsider the final plat approval for the Rosedale Center
redevelopment at a special meeting.
moved, Willmus seconded, scheduling a special meeting for Wednesday, December
16, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., directing staff to provide duly posted notice per
statutory requirements for the specific purpose of reconsidering the Rosedale
Center Final Plat and minor change to that Plat; and to consider approval of
the Outdoor Conditional Use for Calyxt.
Trudgeon advised that staff had extended the timeframe for Vogel Sheetmetal for
compliance in installing a fence due to the winter season; and noted an appeal
had been filed to that administrative decision. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the
Vogel's had requested additional time to gather additional information to
respond to that appeal, he had not been able to consult with them prior to
tonight's meeting to fairly address whether or not to include that as an
additional request before year-end. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would be
the final step for parties before moving to the next step in civil litigation,
and advised that staff was attempting to be cognizant of a preferred resolution
before taking that next step.
In response to
Councilmember McGehee's question of how much latitude was required, Mayor Roe
advised that the extension had already been agreed to, and the Vogel's waived
the 30-day time limit.
to add the appeal to the Vogel condition to the December 16, 2016 special
Mayor Roe ruled
the motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Call (Original motion)
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon distributed upcoming preliminary agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:59 p.m.