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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

July 18, 2016


1.      Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.  Mayor Roe noted that, due to a scheduling conflict, Councilmember Willmus did not expect to be available for tonight's meeting.


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus had requested removal of Items 8.a and 8.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 8.c from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


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


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment

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


5.         Council and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

On a personal note, Mayor Roe offered a message of thanks to the Roseville Police Department for their preparation and planning for and addressing potential contingencies to the planned protest at Rosedale Center last Sunday.  While the protest ended up being cancelled, Mayor Roe noted the professionalism of the Roseville Police Department and their partnering agencies had been very impressive.  Mayor Roe noted the additional strain on police departments around the metropolitan area as well as across the country; and publically thanked public safety personnel for all they do on a daily basis, and in light of current tensions.


Mayor Roe announced an upcoming community engagement meeting next week to gather initial feedback in the process and issues specific to the SE portion of Roseville near the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue intersection.  Mayor Roe noted the intent was to begin conversations and obtain feedback on opportunities, aspirations and the vision for that area moving forward, and how various entities can work together to make that happen.  Mayor Roe noted the City of Roseville was partnering with Ramsey County, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood for these conversations and encouraged residents in all three municipalities to participate in revitalization efforts in this area.  Mayor Roe provided the logistics for the meeting, and sources to gather additional information on line.


With the excessive heat and humidity, Councilmember McGehee reminded neighbors to check on their neighbors, especially the elderly; and noted Police Chief Mathwig had asked that residents contact the Fire or Police Departments if they have any safety concerns.  Councilmember McGehee advised that the Police Department and Fire Station or other public buildings were available to cool off and seek assistance.


Councilmember Laliberte provided an update on the most recent meeting of the Cedarholm Club House Task Force, with ongoing compilation of numerous reports.  Councilmember Laliberte advised a final report would soon be available, at which time a public input meeting would be scheduled to seek feedback from the broader community.  Councilmember Laliberte reported that several more meetings were scheduled before that final report and recommendations were submitted to the City Council.  Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Finance Commission for their ongoing participation and input.


Mayor Roe reminded the task force to make sure those public input opportunities were well publicized as they came up.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that the City of Roseville had the honor to be the first municipality in the country to be certified as a Service Enterprise Organization for its volunteer management efforts.  City Manager Trudgeon noted the pride and elation in having received that recognition of the city's volunteer commitment, and advised that the City Council would be receiving a full report in August.


Councilmember McGehee noted this also said a lot about the community's volunteers.


Mayor Roe noted he had noted during the Park Master Plan process some of the original documentation and efforts put into development of the city's park system and when reviewing some of those volunteers involved in those initial efforts, found it interesting to note some of those names were still involved in volunteer efforts today.  Mayor Roe stated this was a good sign of community interest and commitment.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


7.            Approve Minutes


8.            Approve Consent Agenda


a.            Approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fees Necessary to Implement and Process the Recently-adopted PUD Ordinance (PROJ0017, Amdt.26)



At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the remaining item being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11339 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Creating Application and Escrow Fees Pertaining to the Planned Unit Development Process."


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.            Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated June 20, 2016.


Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item from the Consent Agenda was his concern of the term "marginal" in the third bullet point in that it could have multiple meanings. 


Based on those concerns, Councilmember McGhee stated her agreement to strike the word "marginal" from the proposed resolution.


In order to provide some insight from last week's meeting and City Council decision to deny the minor subdivision request, and subsequent work between his office and city staff, City Attorney Mark Gaughan addressed the intent of the findings as noted.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that staff had expressly meant "marginal" as "additional," not negligible; but in recognizing there may be various ways to interpret that word and since "marginal" was not used in the original motion outlining findings, he agreed that in this instance, striking "marginal" may be appropriate.


Councilmember McGehee suggested changing "marginal" to "additional."

Public Comment

Brad Koland, 1926 Gluek Lane

Written comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to the Mayor and Councilmembers was provided by Mr. Koland as part of the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Koland verbally summarized his letter and calculations and asked the City Council to have a majority voting member from the July 11, 2016 Council meeting move for reconsideration of this denial and subsequently approve this code-compliant subdivision as recommended by staff and supported by facts outlined in his letter.


Mayor Roe duly noted this request; and for clarification, confirmed with City Attorney Gaughan that a simple majority versus super majority vote would suffice for a motion to reconsider.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11337 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "additional."


As highlighted in Mr. Koland's written comments, Councilmember McGehee provided her personal response to her actions of twelve years ago when she supported a motion to support a previous lot subdivision in this locale.  Councilmember McGehee stated that at that time she was not fully aware of all of the water issues and extending beyond the immediate area.  Councilmember McGehee noted homes experiencing basement collapse in the area; and everyone was now much more aware of the drainage issues in that broader area; and many additional developments have occurred since then.  Councilmember McGehee identified that broader area south of Mr. Koland's property and impacts of this subdivision and development area essentially built on a lake based on the 1940-era maps.  Councilmember McGehee noted this drainage issue only became more problematic with heavier rainfall patterns now being experienced.  Councilmember McGehee further advised related to several lot and subdivision discussions, she had been unaware of the large difference in the front and back of the subject parcel and how current city code was written.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated she would hold her position to deny this subdivision request.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Koland for his work in defending his request and bringing it forward to the City Council.  Councilmember Laliberte assured Mr. Koland that she didn't take denial of the request lightly a week ago, nor did she do so now.  Councilmember Laliberte stated her main concern was with the drainage issues with this requested subdivision for this parcel; and further stated this was not the first situation that had come to the city's attention during her tenure; with the city routinely needing to address those existing drainage issues if and when possible.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that, specific for her in this area, was the need to rectify larger and substantial drainage issues in the area before further subdivision.


Councilmember Etten stated he would not support this motion, as he had not supported denial of the request last week, since he found the subdivision request supported by city code.


Mayor Roe noted that he had not supported last week's denial either, and therefore could not support a motion to memorialize that denial.  However, Mayor Roe noted he was less troubled by drainage on this site as he was with drainage on the 1861 site.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her willingness to support a motion to amend the motion deleting the second finding.


Mayor Roe clarified that, procedurally, that was not an option.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe, further clarifying that this resolution is not the official action, but simply an additional step used per city policy to memorialize its findings as per last week's motion denying the subdivision request.  City Attorney Gaughan noted those findings remained as approved by motion July 11th, and if any changes were desired by the Council to be made, then a motion to reconsider that motion would be appropriate.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee and Laliberte. 

Nays: Etten and Roe.

Motion failed for lack of majority.


City Attorney Gaughan sought to further clarify for the City Council the intent of this resolution.  City Attorney Gaughan noted the resolution that by voting "nay" on the resolution, individual Councilmembers were in effect stating they didn't believe these are the actual findings voted on last week.  City Attorney Gaughan noted that was not actually in dispute. 


As having voted against the denial of the subdivision request last week, Mayor Roe stated his lack of support of a resolution memorializing the findings; even while understanding the point made by City Attorney Gaughan.


With two "nay" votes on the prevailing side for the motion to memorialize findings for denial as adopted last week, City Attorney Gaughan noted it would be up to Mayor Roe or Councilmember Etten to bring a motion to reconsider findings next week for the purpose of casting a new vote as to whether or not this new resolution reflects those findings for denial from last week's meeting.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her difficulty in understanding the "nay" votes, when last week the majority vote supported denial in accordance with the findings as stated, and as memorialized in this resolution. Councilmember McGehee stated that to vote against affirmation of that record, seemed to her perplexing and inappropriate.


Mayor Roe noted it was the prerogative for any individual councilmember to vote as they saw fit on any item.


Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Etten if he was clear on the intent of this resolution affirming last week's action.


Councilmember Etten stated his agreement as noted by Mayor Roe; however, he admitted City Attorney Gaughan brought up new thoughts after his "nay" vote tonight.


Discussion ensued as to whether to reconsider the vote; with Mayor Roe clarifying the motion to reconsider could occur at the meeting where action had been taken or the subsequent meeting.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that while he didn't believe it technically came into play under these circumstances, it could be viewed as setting a poor precedent to vote against a resolution such as this in abstract.  If under circumstances where the City Council was bound by particular time constraints for which written action may occur, City Attorney Gaughan stated that would be different than this situation when voting to simply memorialize action taken at a previous meeting; and due to the absence of one Councilmember, defacto action was overturned. 


City Attorney Gaughan again offered his input asking that the City Council keep in mind that this resolution simply memorialized in writing actual events from a previous meeting; and was not asking individual members to confirm the substance of those findings, just the existence of those findings in actuality.  City Attorney Gaughan noted the purpose of having this resolution in place was as a means to make sure the written record was clear so the city could clearly uphold its 60-day requirement for written findings and thereby make the record extraordinarily clear in through written correspondence to the applicant of those findings; and for an abundance of caution, the past practice of the City Council has also been to further memorialize that action via a resolution.


In the spirit of moving forward and in recognition of the legal counsel provided by City Attorney Gaughan, Mayor Roe sought to act so as not obstruct the process.


Motion to reconsider Resolution

Roe moved, McGehee seconded to reconsider the resolution memorializing findings for denial of the minor subdivision request at 1926 Gluek Lane.


Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


Original Motion now under reconsideration and Restated

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11337 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "additional."

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe noted this was a rather unique situation created by not having a full City Council present.


b.            Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 1861 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.


Mayor Roe reiterated Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item from the Consent Agenda due to his similar concern and use of the term "marginal" in the finding, and potential interpretation with multiple meanings. 


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had the same concerns with this subdivision request as she had with the previous request related to water drainage; and questioned why that finding was not also included in this list of findings.


Mayor Roe duly noted Councilmember Laliberte's comment.


While not having reviewed the meeting tape from the July 11, 2016 meeting when this subdivision request was denied, City Attorney Gaughan stated it was his recollection that only one finding was stated in the motion for denial.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that clarification, opining she must be recalling the broader discussion during public comment and discussion with staff and City Council deliberation after public comment.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the recollection of Councilmember Laliberte that staff indicated water issues on this site were even more problematic than the previous subdivision request.


Public Comment

Arlene Mencke, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)


Written comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to Councilmembers was provided by Ms. Mencke as part of the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Similar to Mr. Koland's request, Ms. Mencke requested reconsideration of the denial and a new vote to change that previous decision of the City Council.


Ms. Mencke summarized the points made in her written comment, disputing the "facts" utilized by the City Council in making their determination for denial.


Ms. Mencke introduced her contractor to address drainage issues in support of her request for reconsideration.


Licensed Minnesota Residential Contractor Tony Brown

Having constructed over 600 homes during his career, Mr. Brown noted he had been met with many challenged, but his goal had always been to find resolution with drainage on lots in an area; and noted his success to-date in solving those problems.


Mr. Brown asked the City Council for their expertise with civil engineering in having based their ruling on that expertise.  Mr. Brown further asked if the City's engineer had approved calculations for drainage on this site; and asked that the City Council provide a response or seek additional information to determine a solution.


As noted with the previous item, Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's action was to memorialize action already taken, or a motion to reconsider that previous action to deny.


Ms. Mencke

In recognizing another home currently under construction in their neighborhood with similar issues, Ms. Mencke questioned how that had received approval when theirs had been denied.


Mayor Roe clarified that was not under consideration tonight; and without details of that approval, could not address that.  Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Mencke for her testimony and advised the City Council would take under advisement her request to reconsider previous denial.


Brad Koland

As pointed out by Ms. Mencke, Mr. Koland referenced his written comments (page 6) and calculations he made as a civil engineer, using input provide by the City of Roseville's engineer.  Mr. Koland asked any city professional engineer to perform their own calculations, or offered to hire a third party engineer to do so.


Mr. Koland reiterated his points previously stated, opining that a fact used for denial had not been made public nor shared; and as pointed out by Mayor Roe, these requests were usually handled at the administrative level.  Therefore, Mr. Koland opined that there was no established precedent for such action, or no rules outlined by the city.  If the city wished to create or make rules, Mr. Koland further opined that it should do so before a subdivision application came forward, as it was not appropriate to create ordinances on one individual submission.  While the City Council may recognize there is a drainage issue, Mr. Koland noted there had been no action to prohibit other building within variations of these two requested submissions, and especially with a home currently under construction in the area, he found these denials confusion.


John King, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)

Referring to the public hearing notice map, as displayed, Mr. King addressed runoff to their lot from surrounding lots, with theirs being the lowest lot.  Mr. King questioned how and why they should be held accountable for surrounding runoff but unable to deal with the runoff from their parcel into the established drain due to topography and changes made by those surrounding parcels over the years.  Mr. King noted the whole mitigation point involves 250 houses above their parcel and those surrounding neighbors whose parcels drain into their yard and flooded their yard with each rainfall.  Therefore, Mr. King questioned how any additional impervious surface on their parcel (e.g. driveway) could be deemed excessive, opining such a statement was a complete double standard and misstatement of any reality.  Mr. King questioned how his one lot could possibly mitigate drainage for an entire area; and as a Scientist familiar with flow analysis, had come to the conclusion that there would be zero impact.   Therefore, Mr. King opined the reason stated for denial of the requested subdivision was false and nonsensical.


Motion to Reconsider

Etten moved reconsideration of the previous motion of July 11, 2016.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11338 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "additional."


While appreciating the work put forth by the applicant, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concerns with this particular area.  Also without a full Council at tonight's meeting, Councilmember Laliberte further noted her inability to reconsider any of that information presented last week during public testimony.


Councilmember McGehee seconded the remarks of Councilmember Laliberte; and noted previous discussion for intent of this resolution to memorialize findings established on July 11th.


For the benefit of the public and applicants, Mayor Roe clarified with City Attorney Gaughan that, while city code standards indicate areas for consideration in approval or denial of subdivision requests, city code also provides for some discretion.  Specifically, Mayor Roe noted that discretion included the broader consideration of the entire community's health, safety and welfare.  While not written down, Mayor Roe noted those were standard considerations and taken into account in any circumstances or as a result of public testimony leading the City Council to believe there is a potential issue with a subdivision even if it appeared to meet all other code provisions.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred with that statement; noting there was no mandate that the City Council rubberstamp conclusions and recommendation of city staff.   City Attorney Gaughan noted there was a reason for the City Council to hear such requests and make a determination based on their discretion, even if and when those actions may not be in keeping with staff recommendations.  City Attorney Gaughan stated that as long as the actions of the City Council are not arbitrary or capricious and their actions were based on conviction about certain issues or concerns, those actions were deemed appropriate.


Noting his initial support of denial of this request on July 11, 2016, Mayor Roe stated he would support memorializatoin of that denial in this case as well.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


For applicants at both parcels on Gluek Lane, Mayor Roe noted a subsequent path to follow at their choice, via legal recourse through the court system.


c.            Consideration of the Roseville Environmental Review Worksheet ERW) related to the Java Capital Partners LLC Project at 2700 Cleveland Avenue (PF15-002)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.


Councilmember McGehee noted several areas needing consideration by the City Council in general as well as brought forward during her review of this particular EAW.


Councilmember McGehee referenced numerous items throughout the ERW that stated "pending" and since she considered these items of import, questioning what that term "pending" actually meant and how completion of each was monitored and by whom.  Councilmember McGehee stated her preference that items no longer be "pending" when coming before the City Council, but already approved by other agencies. 


Also in her personal review of this ERW, Councilmember McGehee noted that, while it may not be well known in the community, neither the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) nor the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWSD) agencies have sufficient staff to oversee this type or project or others done in the greater metropolitan area; and that oversight was left to the particular municipality to oversee. 


Also, Councilmember McGehee advised that in referencing various codes listed throughout the ERW (e.g. construction codes) stating review would be performed by an environmental engineer/consultant, typically a consultant hired by the developer/contractor doing the actual building, and not hired by the city whose review would be most concerned with protecting Roseville resident's health, welfare and safety.   Councilmember McGehee submitted that it may be worth the city's consideration as part of its process to escrow funds from the developer/contractor for hiring an independent environmental person reporting back directly to the city to guarantee residents are well protected.


Councilmember McGehee further expressed her disappointment in this specific ERW that the intent was to re-use contaminated soils for a 50/50 mix in referenced documents for use in other places rather than stepping up to clean this area further.  Also, referencing documentation related to fill coming onto the site, Councilmember McGehee noted there was no actual reference to who would review that documentation.  She suggested it would behoove the city to have that information available and reviewed.  Specific to the referenced field technician cited to review soils for potential contamination, Councilmember McGehee stated she was dubious about that accountability.


In general and throughout her review of this documentation, Councilmember McGehee suggested the need moving forward for the City Council to put a policy in place for hiring a consultant approved by the City (and paid for by the developer in an escrow account), a consultant that was accountable and answerable to the city versus only to the contractor/developer.


On the MPCA letter (page 2), Councilmember McGehee referenced their discussion of and encouragement to the city to look at low impact design.  Since 2005, Councilmember McGehee noted mitigation through special ditches, vegetative strips, parking lot swales and other options that were all contributions to the Green Cities efforts and more forward looking building practices.  When time allows, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that the health, welfare and safety of municipal residents would also be incorporated into those MPCA comments and into city policy.


Specific to the referenced engineer, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed for Mayor Roe that the consultant was hired by the developer at this point.


Mayor Roe asked staff to clarify when items are listed as "pending" what that meant: whether they weren't going to happen or simply hadn't happened yet.  Mayor Roe stated his hesitancy in holding up the development in this case, but asked staff to note the need for future discussion as suggested by Councilmember McGehee's review of this ERW.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted the requested discussion for future reference; advising staff would bring forward additional research and ideas at that time.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked Councilmember McGehee for her personal research and comments; and agreed that "pending" could have different meanings creating some confusion.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of Java Capital Partners LLC Environmental Review Worksheet (ERW- Attachment A) and the applicant's responses to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) comments as satisfying the ERW requirements established in City of Roseville Resolution No. 11198; directing staff to approve permits when such necessary information and project details comply with City and State Codes.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


11.        Presentations


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


13.        Budget Items


a.                   Receive 2017 City Manager Recommended Budget

Two bench handouts were provided as part of this presentation, including the slide presentation entitled "City of Roseville City Manager Recommended 2017 Budget" presentation dated July 18, 2016, and revised copies of Attachments A, B and D to the RCA of today's date.


City Manager Trudgeon outlined recommendations, specifically highlighting the proposed Mental Health Liaison Officer was intended as a pilot program for the first year, with additional details still pending for presentation at a later date to the City Council, including specific restrictions on use of Forfeiture Funds for short-term funding.  City Manager Trudgeon further noted the contractual obligations of $105,000 for cost of living adjustments (COLA) increases, reducing the total COLA accordingly for non-union employees.



Councilmember McGehee noted that the recommended use of reserves brought the projected reserves within a hair of the bottom range and balance.  Councilmember McGehee noted proposed reduction or deferral of capital improvement program (CIP) items seemed harsh from her perspective.


City Manager Trudgeon noted the annual need to analyze CIP needs, and simply because it shows up on the spreadsheet, that annual examination identified things that could be deferred or deemed no longer necessary.  Mr. Trudgeon noted a harder part of that conversation involved whether or not a particular CIP need could be accommodated if there was no funding available; also involving whether to defer it when weighed against the broader picture in lieu of no available funding.


Councilmember McGehee requested additional information from City Manager Trudgeon via email those specific CIP items that remained imperative, those deferred, and those discontinued. 


Mayor Roe clarified that could constitute staff checking off those items on the spreadsheet to provide a list of what was being recommended for 2017 from that general spreadsheet.


Mayor Roe noted this provided an annual opportunity to review and understand the CIP with many questions remaining.  While agreeing that each year the review was needed, Mayor Roe noted the ongoing negative funding that would occur in the near future and the need to identify solutions for that funding.  While confident it remained on staff's radar screen, Mayor Roe reiterated the need to develop a plan to deal with those issues.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned the make-up of the ongoing cost for volunteer recognition efforts and how much was involved in one-time database costs or for ongoing support and maintenance of the database.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that there was continuing software support of approximately $2,000 to $3,000; and clarified that in the past this had not been included as a line item, but going forward would be shown as a budget item.  At this point, Mr. Trudgeon noted it was listed under programming costs for the Parks & Recreation Department.  Mr. Trudgeon reported that the remaining volunteer recognition funding was to provide recreational opportunities with staffing/training in several area parks selected to provide segments of the population with recreational opportunities at their location.  Mr. Trudgeon noted typically sign up for programs was provided with participants coming to the site; but in this case, staff would be pursuing bringing staff directly to a particular area (e.g. Karen neighborhood) to serve them.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the bulk of that cost would be for seasonal employees to staff those programs and train them accordingly; and obviously would be driven by the number signed up as to the number of staff needed by ratio of participant to staff person.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon noted the Parks & Recreation Department was very good at communicating with particular neighborhoods to determine their needs and interests, thus indicating a potential need for training in those areas.


Councilmember Laliberte noted such programs may attract youth from surrounding communities as well; and asked how staff was prepared to handle that or how to differentiate residents versus non-resident program use.


City Manager Trudgeon stated he wasn't sure such a decision had made yet, and noted the ultimate goal was to provide such opportunities at a low or no cost option; and didn't think there was a large distinction at this time, but would pursue additional detail with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke.


Since the Mental Health Liaison is proposed as a pilot program the first year, Councilmember Laliberte questioned staff's funding options if it went beyond that first year.


City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the intent for the pilot program was to determine the deliverables and what worked or didn't work; after which alternative financing would be pursued; whether via levy funds or via other revenue resources.  While not having an impact on levy funds in 2017 as proposed, Mr. Trudgeon noted it could very well become a levy factor in the future.  Specifically regarding use of forfeiture funds, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed his understanding that the funds could be used for supplemental operational needs, and clarified he was considering this position as an operation need; but further noted he would continue to review that to make sure use of that fund was being interpreted correctly, prompting ongoing conversation and involving the city's legal counsel.


Councilmember Laliberte noted she had a similar question regarding funding the Assistant City Manager position from the Communications Fund as an ongoing allotment.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that at this time, he felt confident in funding the position through that fund, envisioning the position would oversee the entire communication effort of the city.  However, as time goes on and depending on the status of the Communications Fund with future franchise fees and collections, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that funding resource would need further review, but for the foreseeable future, he thought it was appropriate to use those funds for that position.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for clarification, with City Manager Trudgeon clarifying that the CIP budget for $160,000 as a new levy amount for the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and also an additional$65,000 for pathways and parking lots.


To follow-up with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee suggested partnering with the School District for SE Roseville outreach.  Councilmember McGehee also noted past conversations within the community about the need for adult programming in that area as well with many of those adults in the Karen community feeling more isolated and currently being transported to Fairview Community Center for their educational programming needs.


City Manager Trudgeon noted the city was always open to partnerships, clarifying that this particular provision was specific to youth programming; but agreed to look at adult need and additional partnering opportunities with the School District in the future.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the good relationship to-date between the School District and Karen of Minnesota organization, and while other opportunities and possibilities will always be considered, this particular initiative is focused on youth for the purposes of this budget presentation.


Councilmember McGehee opined there wouldn't be partnerships unless pursued; and asked staff to look into it.


Councilmember McGehee asked staff to pursue the cost for National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) or Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training dollars to provide such training to each police officer.  As an alternative approach, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city and its residents would be much better served by training all officers versus having only one position or one shift person with that training.  Councilmember McGehee further asked staff to determine what funding sources could be used and how much funding was available in the Police Department reserve fund or other areas (e.g. forfeiture funds).


City Manager Trudgeon reiterated that there were restrictions to using forfeiture funds, and they should not be considered permanent funding due to their restricted uses.


Councilmember McGehee noted previous budget discussions indicating seniors were often forgotten, and while staff had been asked to address that issue, there was nothing included as part of this presentation.


City Manager Trudgeon agreed there was nothing new or proposed in this 2017 budget.  However, as noted in a previous report, Mr. Trudgeon noted the existing provisions for senior citizens within the community and numerous things already being done.  While recognizing there was always more to be done, Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council remain aware that not all of its priorities will or can be accomplished in one year.  Similarly with the strategic technology initiative, Mr. Trudgeon noted there wasn't much seen in the 2017 proposed budget, since staff had determined further and a more detailed review was needed to determine the gaps in current programming.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the same was true for the needs of seniors in the community, to determine the areas where they're receiving needed support and to define gaps.  Mr. Trudgeon noted there would be a substantial amount of work in the community to fill some of those gaps; but further noted seniors were being supported in many areas with material costs and with staff presence.  However, at this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent was to continue as is until a more detailed review had been accomplished and future opportunities indicated; therefore he had not recommended anything new in this particular 2017 budget.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that work was already in place, but asked that this senior segment of the population not be forgotten going forward.


Mayor Roe suggested the Parks & Recreation Department also be involved in that discussion based on their outreach to the community and awareness of some of those gaps that the city may know or need to know about.


Specific to partnerships with the School District, Councilmember Laliberte noted the retirement of the RASP person.  Councilmember Laliberte noted this created a need for everyone involved to understand if there were larger gaps with a change to that position than what the School District provided.


Mayor Roe suggested staff obtain a report back from the School District on their plans and any programming gaps from their perspective; with City Manage Trudgeon duly noting that verification request.


Specific to the $65,000 CIP allotment for pathways and trails, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed for Councilmember McGehee that the intent was to fund long-term replacement/rehabilitation to avoid the current conundrum in needing significant dollars to repair existing facilities.


Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for his opportunity to discuss some of these items with City Manager Trudgeon last week.  Specific to the focus on the senior population, as an example Councilmember Etten noted recent Parks & Recreation program focus and response for those seniors, when resurfacing tennis courts by adding Pickleball lines to allow that activity on those courts as well.


As noted at the conclusion of City Manager Trudgeon's presentation, Mayor Roe reviewed next steps and upcoming opportunities for public comment.


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.                   Recycling Service Proposal

Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly introduced the presentation and recognized the incredible amount of work by Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson over the last months and his summarization of an amazing amount of information resulting from four very good proposals received.  Mr. Culver noted the current recycling contract expires the end of 2016; and asked that the City Council would provide guidance to staff on which option(s) to pursue and to authorize final negotiations with those options as indicated.


Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson

Mr. Johnson summarized components of the review, including criteria, proposals, scoring, costs for cart ownership, and actual service costs for curbside recycling, with and without the addition of park recycling service.


Mr. Johnson reviewed each proposal and their various proposals and comparisons of each proposal from a three year or five year contract term, and with or without the park component and/or cart ownership by the city.  Mr. Johnson's presentation included the best value scoring criteria performed without fees addressing project capability, community values, value added for each company, performance reviews; and then review adding their proposed fees and average scores.


Mr. Johnson noted maximum points resulting for each company and their shifts when adding various components.


Mr. Johnson addressed cart ownership for their initial purchase price and investment by the city, and with a ten-year cart life, the addition of a CIP item for purchase of replacement carts after that point, and needed reserves to facilitate that replacement cost.


Mr. Johnson reviewed the various proposal scenarios for each firm for the various services they proposed, including service frequency, cart ownership, contract term, curbside collection, and multi-family collection costs, revenue share if any based on 2015 known data and any potential costs to the city in not meeting the commodity price compared to processing costs, and their total annual collection costs per firm and per proposal within those four firms.  In concluding the top firms based on all criteria was 1) Eureka Recycling followed by 2) Republic.


Mr. Johnson further detailed options for park and/or trail pick-up and frequency, providing a variety of costs depending on the actual park, frequency of use, and locations of trails and their accessibility.


In conclusion, and based on the presented information, Mr. Johnson concluded that Eureka Recycling was staff's recommendation with a five year contract including park collection, and vendor owned carts.


Mr. Johnson asked for City Council feedback and authorization to initiate negotiations with their selected contractor, followed by future City Council approval of a contract in August or September of 2016.


Councilmember Etten asked staff to describe the scenarios listed for organics collection looking to the future, and what they thought may work better based on the submitted proposals from these four firms.


Mr. Johnson noted all proposals, if applicable, considered organic collection as an opt-in program, with the city or contractor chosen to publicize that offering and direct contact with the resident to sign up with the vendor.  Similar to the current waste stream option, Mr. Johnson advised that the intent would be to use smaller vehicles with fewer stops given the lighter load; with the option available should there be sufficient interest among Roseville residents to make it feasible.  If there was enough interest, Mr. Johnson advised that staff would work with the chosen vendor to renegotiate prices if and when that interest became high enough.  Mr. Johnson noted there was a large range of prices in that particular market right now depending on where those organic markets were found.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Johnson noted the various collection options also available depending on the contractor; but confirmed in the short-term organics collection would be a separate bill between the vendor and resident, with no involvement by the city other than the customer service realm, with a list provided to the city by the vendor of those homes participating.


In the scoring area, Councilmember Etten noted the past performance low mark received by the current vendor, Eureka Recycling, and asked if that service issue would be addressed in the future if Eureka was the chosen vendor.


Mr. Johnson advised that staff's rationale in the low rank on the performance sheet was based on a late annual mailing at the time he was performing reviews of the company, with that mailing two months behind schedule.  Mr. Johnson advised that, in all fairness to Eureka and other proposers, he did not seek out the reasons for that delay, but simply noted that as a performance issue without further explanation.


Councilmember McGehee noted the recent community survey asked about organic collection interest, with not much enthusiasm shown.  However, Councilmember McGehee noted the interest in park recycling.  Councilmember McGehee stated her support for a five year contract with Eureka Recycling, with park collection and vendor-owned and stored carts.  Councilmember McGehee agreed staff had done a great job with this difficult RFP, and recognized the huge amount of staff time it required, but noted this was also the most thorough job she'd seen done in a long time.  Councilmember McGehee noted that staff time required was part of her rationale in seeking a longer term contract. 


For future reference, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the reducing of community values percentage and increasing added value percentage was likely not the position of many in the community who strongly favor of recycling.  Knowing where the end product market was for recycling is an important component to the community.


Related to process, Councilmember Laliberte asked about the "blue bag" concept for organic collection, and whether or not that was provide by trash haulers as well as recycling vendors.


Mr. Culver advised that some vendors offered that as part of general waste collection, and offered to further research that option and provide further clarification on the city's website or via the city newsletter at the suggestion of Councilmember Laliberte.


Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee's stated preference; and agreed that recycling in parks was an important and obvious next step for the city to take.  Noting the dramatic differences among bids for park service and recycling, Councilmember Etten asked staff to further elaborate on the highlights of each vendor related specifically to that service.


Mr. Culver noted some vendors offered to provide dumpsters in the park parking lot, and other vendors offered rolling carts to the parking lots, while other vendors offered to walk up to the park buildings and roll carts out to parking lots or use a smaller type vehicle to traverse trails for less impact.  Mr. Culver noted three of the four vendors were offering to go out on pathways and service them accordingly.  Mr. Culver noted that staff would need to determine contamination issues going forward, and dependent on which park and the type of contamination found.  Mr. Culver noted the goal was to eliminate park debris, or to recycle materials versus having them littering the parks and trails.


To further expand, Mr. Culver noted previous Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission discussions about the park component and how it was going to work realistically.  Mr. Culver advised that staff recognized the pricing for this component and logistics of such a vast rollout of carts at parks and on trails; and recognition that each situation may not work as initiated.  Mr. Culver noted one issue involved the safety of having vehicles drive down long pathways along with the wear and tear on those trails that were not designed to support heavy vehicles.  Having heard from a variety of sources, including the public, Mr. Culver noted the interest and goal was to provide better service for recycling in parks.  Mr. Culver noted there were various opportunities available to do so, and multiple tiers or levels of service within those options.  Therefore, Mr. Culver stated the intent was to keep all options available through contract negotiations, but to use care in how carts are rolled out in parks and along trails, to refine their location(s), and work with the Parks & Recreation Department and Commission to determine what made sense and what worked and what didn't work; whether or not they were being used; and what got contaminated; and then to make adjustments accordingly to achieve the best results.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Johnson confirmed there was also a seasonal issue for park recycling, with city staff already addressing that use depending on the type of use a park and/or trail received.  Mr. Johnson advised that where applicable, the vendor would store carts for the winter months, and then coordinate with the Parks & Recreation Department when use ramped up in the spring and which parks to rollout carts in first.


Public Comment

Kathy Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue

Ms. Klink provided her credentials, and for full disclosure noted her former service as a member of the Board of Directors of Eureka Recycling. 


As a faculty member with the University of Minnesota in the Environmental Science and Climatology area, Ms. Klink expressed appreciation as a Roseville resident the services provided by Eureka.  Noting the considerable amount of information on the makeup of recycling collections provided by Eureka and their facility, Ms. Klink opined knowing where that recycling material ended up was a value that was important to the city and its residents, especially given trends over the years.


Mark Jensen, Resident Sales Manager for Walters Refuse and Recycling Services, Blaine, MN

Mr. Jensen testified of Walters commitment to Roseville; and their active service as a second generation firm.  Mr. Jensen provided a history of the firm and current ownership; and provided his personal recognition of the firm's customer-oriented service, including those elderly or handicapped customers receiving customized personal assistance.  Mr. Jensen note that their firm had a number of refuse customers in Roseville already and expressed the firm's willingness to communicate with that customer base as well as with new customers to incentivize reduction of recycling materials entering through the refuse stream as well.


Mayor Roe agreed that park recycling was an important next phase for Roseville, and supported incorporating it into this new contract.  As outlined by staff, Mayor Roe also agreed it made sense to look at the variety of ways to facilitate that service; noting there were no objections from individual Councilmembers as to using that approach.  Based on the top performers and scoring indicated in staff's spreadsheets, Mayor Roe noted it looked favorable for the city for annual costs and with park recycling but without the city owning carts.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember McGehee that the city had enough items on its CIP spreadsheet without adding recycling cart ownership to it.  While it may be a lower cost to the city initially, Mayor Roe opined the benefit to the city long-term was for the vendor to own and maintain the carts.  Regarding a three year versus five year contract, Mayor Roe stated he had no preference, but thought the longer-term contract may prove more beneficial.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in this issue having another week for the community to review and provide input, and then take formal action at next week's City Council meeting.


Discussion ensued regarding the timing for contract negotiation and other logistics between now and year-end; whether additional public comment would be forthcoming; and recognizing the public input provided in the recent community survey supporting the decision at this point.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of taking action tonight, based on the lack of public comment received since the item was initially included on last week's agenda, even though not heard until tonight.


Mayor Roe noted pricing details had not been available to the public before tonight's meeting.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a contract with selected contractor, Eureka Recycling for a five-year contract term including the parks recycling component, and ownership of the carts by the vendor; and further directing staff to return to the City Council for final approval of the contract at a future date.


Councilmember Etten recognized the community survey results; and also noted there was no major change or cost in this contract, while providing increased services. 


Councilmember Laliberte stated she wasn't in disagreement with the recommendation; but was simply asking for a deferred process before approval; and for that reason, would not support the motion based on that process only.


Mayor Roe stated that given the timing and apparent lack of interest in public participation to-date, he would support the motion.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Laliberte.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:52 p.m.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.                   Authorization to Develop a Contract with Accela for a New Permitting, Inspections, Code Enforcement and Licensing System

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced this item, as part of the organizational priorities included in the City Manager Recommended budget for 2017.  Ms. Collins noted staff had spent parts of the last two years reviewing various software programs for e-permitting solutions and to improve workflow.  Ms. Collins deferred to Mr. Koepp for his review of why staff chose this option to recommend and how it would be intended for integration.


GIS Technician Joel Koepp

As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Koepp reviewed the city's current permitting, inspections, and code enforcement software and various ages of those programs.  Mr. Koepp noted the department retained one computer station for historical permit research to access past digital permits.


Mr. Koepp noted there were many vendors in this software realm; and reviewed their benefits and limitations.  Mr. Koepp displayed the City of Rochester, MN as an example of an Accela software user; the recommended vendor of choice by staff.  Mr. Koepp reviewed the potential benefits for the city, residents and contractors in being able to search the status of permits through a web portal.  Mr. Koepp also noted the benefits for those larger permit and land use applications involving multiple departments for review, with the current system providing for no central digitalization of that work flow. 


Mr. Koepp noted that the city's legacy data could be brought into this one system and no longer require maintenance of those older systems, which had spurred staff as a priority to improve overall efficiencies and address the responsiveness - or lack thereof - frequently experienced with those older systems.  Mr. Koepp noted these inefficiencies currently impacted not only Community Development Department staff, but also that of the Information Technology Department staff and future viability concerns with that older software with no appreciable updates or improvements available.


Mr. Koepp reviewed the functionality of the current system and the need to provide modern functions and GIS data as a way of life for most users, as well as fusing mapping and permit systems.  Mr. Koepp also noted the improvements in reporting and data research available with this software, including economic development and housing data that was cumbersome to obtain in the current system, and dramatic improvements with this more superior reporting tool and database that would be available for all departments.


Mr. Koepp provided a comparison table showing various types of software, staff's review, and alternate options as well as upfront costs plus ongoing maintenance.


As noted in the staff report, Ms. Collins noted the recent purchase of Springbrook by Accela that would allow the city's current Springbrook financial system to integrate this software as well.  Ms. Collins referenced other departments providing enforcement (e.g. Fire Department) and the ability with this software for all departments to be on the same page electronically rather than the current phone and/or email communication system.  From that standpoint, Ms. Collins noted the heightened level of communication and transparency it would provide, particularly in the Design Review Committee (DRC) updates and workflow and communication advantages.


Ms. Collins advised that staff's research had provided very favorable comments from users, the City of Rochester and Nicollet County, who both had good things to say about the program, including from an implementation and support side.  Ms. Collins advised that they also gave good reviews for practical community user feedback as well as from other organizations and with nationwide best practices.  Ms. Collins noted that the City's former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta at his new employer, the City of Corvallis, OR also used this software and indicated they were very pleased with its performance.


Mayor Roe asked if business licensing and/or pet licensing were available with this software that could make it even more multi-departmental.


Ms. Collins advised that it has that capability, but she hadn't yet discussed its viability with the Finance Department, while focusing on the land management module, including rental and contractor licenses.


With the variable components in this software, Mr. Koepp noted modules were priced according to the number of users; and this presentation was proposed to recoup costs for installation and maintenance via land use and application fees.  Mr. Koepp advised that other departments could add users at any time, as their departments were able to absorb the related costs to do so.  At this point for the Community Development Department, Mr. Koepp stated the intent would be for an initial 8 to 10 users; and the ability to add other users at any point those other departments were ready to joint into the system.  Mr. Koepp advised that he would suggest at a minimum having the Engineering and Fire Departments have at least one user to be able to participate in interdepartmental reviews for larger projects.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Koepp advised that Accela worked with a third party implementation partner to convert tables and numbers of standard permit and license type templates to the greatest extent possible and included in the initial cost.  After that, Mr. Koepp advised there were different tiers of implementation available and related costs depending on the number of departures from that standard template.  Mr. Koepp clarified that the proposal received earlier today was approximately $40,000 plus for that implementation that could take from 4 to 6 months.  Mr. Koepp stated the intent was to use the remainder of 2016 to load and update those forms and data; and then go live at the beginning of 2017 and modify city fees accordingly to recoup costs.


Mr. Collins advised that $20,000 had been set aside in 2016 for e-government efforts; and noted the request is for an additional $50,000 in 2017 with the remainder of the cost made up through a proposed 1% technology fee applied to commercial fees, a typical practice for communities using this type of software.


Mr. Koepp noted that staff had calculated a revenue source of approximately $15,000 in using that 1% technology fee based on permits issued to-date in 2016.  Mr. Koepp clarified that the intent was to structure any fees to apply to commercial licenses and permits and shield residential permits and fees to recoup as much of that annual cost for the software as possible.


At the request of Councilmember Etten as it related to implementation, Ms. Collins projected that the fees could be absorbed from each department as applicable when coming on as a user of the software with their licenses at the 1% technology fee, anticipating that would make the cost neutral.


Discussion ensued regarding the cost of legacy data transfer and ongoing annual maintenance available through the technology fee; blending of the systems within the department and reality to do so; and options available to download paper applications or electronically as per preferred customer choice.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for their research, information provided and presentation.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt this came out of nowhere, but then heard staff had been researching it over the last two years, which had been new information for her.  Councilmember Laliberte stated staff's presentation made sense, but she wanted to ensure face to face customer was available for those seeking that, noting it was not only important to the City Council, but also Department Heads in making that part of the streamlining process for whatever was decided.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of a per user versus per transaction software program.


For reference, Mr. Koepp noted the variables in that type of application based on each software program reviewed by staff; and substantial costs that could be realized with a per transaction concept versus per user.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Collins addressed how current data would transfer into this new system for rental registrations, eliminating the labor intensive nature of the current system and ability to auto-generate renewal notices and electronic payment options.


Mr. Koepp noted the current $4,0000 cost paid by the city for Pay Pal online payment support, but its inability to provide data reports without custom charges to do so.


Councilmember Laliberte noted in the past there had been some difficulty in getting software to work with other software (e.g. HSI program) and asked if there were any concerns in this case.


City Manager Trudgeon noted with Accela's purchase of Springbrook, it was anticipated this would work much better than past experiences had found.


Sharing those concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the advantages with the less "silo" system among city departments, allowed more vetting by the Information Technology Department on potential software programs, which she found a good improvement.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to start developing a professional services agreement with Accela to implement a new software solution for permits, inspections, licensing and code enforcement.


Mr. Koepp advised staff anticipated having the information available to the City Council at next week's meeting.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


b.                   Receive Update on New Employee Positions Created in the 2016 Budget

As detailed in the RCA and attached department memoranda, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed new positions as adopted in the 2016 City Budget and in accordance with the City Council's request for a mid-year update on their status.


Specific to the License Center, Councilmember Laliberte noted past discussion for agreements with auto dealerships and the city.


Finance Director Chris Miller

Finance Director Miller responded that staff had talked about it internally, and with the State of MN, but had been unable to-date to find any legal authority or incentive to do so.  Mr. Miller opined that dealers would continue to shop around, and have the ability to leave on a whim as they chose.  Mr. Miller suggested the best way to retain their business was to provide them with a level of customer service unavailable to them elsewhere.  Mr. Miller noted the Roseville License Center currently served eleven dealers, higher than at any point in its history.



Mayor Roe thanked City Manager Trudgeon and staff for their feedback; and asked that this mid-year update be retained as standard practice and part of the process for future budgets.


c.                    Fire Department Emergency Management and Safety and Risk Management Presentation

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill introduced tonight's presentations and deferred to Assistant Fire Chief David Brosnahan for this annual update.


Emergency Management

Assistant Chief Brosnahan summarized this aspect new to Fire Department management,


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of nationwide encouragement for infrastructure providers to get these utilities underground.


Safety and Risk Management

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Assistant Chief Brosnahan advised that the Fire Department currently offered hands only CPR training, and in the near future was looking to offer a monthly training for the general public consisting of a 1 to 1.5-hour training format.


City Manager Trudgeon publically thanked the Fire Department for the time, and especially thanked Assistant Chief Brosnahan for taking on the safety mantel and improving it, both the compliance and training aspects.  Mr. Trudgeon personally thanked them for volunteering to take it on, and recognized the amount of paperwork and tracking necessary to address this serious component of management, opining their department was a perfect fit for it.


d.                   Fire Department City Code Update Presentation

As detailed in the RCA, Chief O'Neill noted the need to update all facets of the Department's Prevention and Inspection program and city code as it applied to the area of fire inspections and enforcement.  Chief O'Neill noted this would provide for consistency and compliance with State Fire Code.


Chapter 404 - Air Pollution Control

Chief O'Neill noted Item D related to Institutional Recreational Burning Permits; and with typically only one permit issued annually at Halloween time for the B-Dale Club, recommended discontinuing issuing these permits and limiting them to portable or permanent burning structures as noted. 


As an asthma sufferer, Councilmember McGehee noted all burning made a great difference in her ability to be outside or have the windows open, and recognizing others in the community shared that difficulty, spoke in support of eliminating this option.


Recognizing that on any given weekend in the fall, Chief O'Neill noted there may be hundreds of burns going on, and clarified the intent wasn't to look to change code to prohibit those, only large burns.


Councilmember Etten suggested that staff check with residents around the B-Dale Club who may be disappointed if this is discontinued, as it served as a wonderful community event.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill confirmed there was no permit fee for this type of burn, and therefore no staffing or equipment availability on site by Fire Department staff.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, and with clarification by Chief O'Neill as to specifications for an enclosed ring versus other options depending on size of the burn and location, Mayor Roe asked staff to further clarify language in Section 404.02 (Open Burning) for items 1 and 2 related to permanent and portable enclosures.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that for institutional permits, it might make sense to bring that removed language as proposed remain pending public input.


Chapter 902 - Fire Prevention

At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill defined the difference in the Fire Marshal position (appointed by the Fire Chief) and Fire Inspector position now assigned to each shift.  Chief O'Neill advised that the Marshall addressed enforcement and Inspectors performed inspections (e.g. multi-family units, permits, daycares, etc.).


While this was addressed within the current staffing section, Mayor Roe asked that staff address this distinction in code language or elsewhere to make it more understandable for a layperson and for the benefit of future City Councils.


Motion to Extend Curfew

At 10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting to the conclusion of this item.

Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill advised that trees and brush are not typically considered part of a prairie burn, with a few exceptions.  Chief O'Neill noted there may be a situation where it was not convenience or a homeowner was unable to transport those materials (e.g. a large hill or other encumbrance) and small piles (e.g. Buckthorn) may be permitted by the Fire Department for burning on site.  However, in general, Chief O'Neill noted code did not allow for it, but advised it was currently at the discretion of the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall(s) if and when to make such a permit available, and only on a case by case basis when it made sense. 


Unlike Institutional Burning Permits, and at the request for confirmation by Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill advised that fees would be attached to fireworks, display and sale permits as currently outlined in the city's fee structure and reviewed annually.  However, Chief O'Neill advised that he could find no corresponding line item in city code, apparently inadvertently missed when added to the fee structure.


Mayor Roe recalled approval of such permits following the change in state law; and also thought he recalled there was a specific citation in code.


Chief O'Neill opined it must have been missed when the state law and regulations changed; but agreed to further research other business licenses in Chapter 3 of city code (business licenses).


Mayor Roe noted prairie burns had been approved in the past, and asked staff to make sure other code references were not in place.


As noted by Mayor Roe related to installation or modification of fire alarm detection or signaling systems, Chief O'Neill clarified this didn't apply to a home smoke detector, only commercial systems that required those inspections.  At the request of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte, staff was requested to clarify language that this applied to multi-family buildings as well as commercial applications. Chief O'Neill agreed to research all areas beyond single-family situations.


Specific to Section 902.05 (Explosives and Blasting Agents), Chief O'Neill noted this was no longer referenced in fire code and therefore recommended removal in its entirety.


In Section 902.06 (Storage of Flammable Liquids), and the annual review addressed in Item 3, Chief O'Neill stated he was unaware of it ever having been done, nor was it included in any report generated by the department.  Since Chief O'Neill was also unaware of where the Department could obtain the original permit, he suggested removal of Item 3 as well.


In Item B for New Bulk Plants, Councilmember Etten asked staff to review the geographical boundaries shown, suggesting I-35W may be more appropriate than Cleveland Avenue.


Similarly, with Section 902.10 (Evidence of Compliance with Code), Chief O'Neill recommended removal of this section completely.


As a next step, Chief O'Neill advised that staff would take feedback from tonight and put together a revised document for future City Council review and formal action.


e.                    Discussion regarding High Density Residential Housing (HDR) Housing Districts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process (PROJ0039)


16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.        Adjourn Meeting

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:12 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.