City
Council Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:18 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and
City Attorney Erich Hartmann were also present.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
City Manager
Trudgeon requested removal of Item 8.b and Councilmember Etten requested
removal of Items 8.d and 8.k from the Consent Agenda, all for separate consideration.
Etten moved,
McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a.
Mary Englund, 224 N McCarrons Boulevard
Ms. Englund
spoke on the City Council's recent action to not exercise its first right of
refusal purchase opportunity for the former National Guard Armory property.
Ms. Englund, as a resident directly across the street from this parcel, noted
her special interest in the future of this site. While being aware the
building was vacant, Ms. Englund noted her surprise when initially seeing the
building boarded up. Ms. Englund recognized that meetings had taken place
hosted by the city to discuss potential rezoning and the preference of the
neighborhood. However, even though there appeared to have been a good turnout,
Ms. Englund noted her awareness of those not present but interested in the
future of the parcel. Therefore, Ms. Englund reported to the City Council that
she had taken it upon herself to perform a door-to-door canvass of the
neighborhood with a survey after that community meeting to ensure their voices
had been heard. Ms. Englund deferred to Tom Wiseski, an architect assisting
the neighborhood on this nine-acre parcel. Ms. Englund advised that she had
taken the site plan showing the different possibilities for the parcel and, for
the record, submitted it and a list of approximately 60 signatories in support
of such a proposal, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Wiseski displayed
the informal site plan he had developed showing those different possibilities,
including retaining the most historic former school building, and potential for
a park/playground on the south side, an outside pool, parking areas, and
potentially a community center. Mr. Wiseski noted the community center concept
appeared to keep coming up; and further noted that the north side of the parcel
was a wetland area that couldn't be developed.
Ms. Englund
noted, as she went around the neighborhood seeking feedback, the prevailing
thought seemed to be to consider the parcel as different zones versus one
zone. Ms. Englund reported that only two of those residents were unwilling to
sign the petition, and those signing were individuals in the immediately adjoining
neighborhood to the subject parcel. Ms. Englund reported that in general,
those residents didn't support any further encroachment for high-density residential
uses; and were concerned that even if zoned low-density residential, there
could be up to fifty new homes constructed on the parcel; while residents were
not supportive of any more than six new homes.
Ms. Englund
asked that the City Council return to the Department of the Military with a
counter offer or negotiation of the price that would make it a possible acquisition
for the community. Ms. Englund noted some communities were able to acquire a
parcel for $1.00; and asked that the city seek to negotiate the original price
to preserve this parcel as more open space or even a wild area, whether or not
the 1936 building was able to be salvaged. However, Ms. Englund stated that
the prevailing thought was that residents did not want a ton of homes
constructed on the site due to negative impacts on the immediate area,
including but not limited to traffic congestion.
5. Council
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe
announced upcoming events, including a Roseville Business Exchange; and the
second of three community meetings scheduled in response to events over last summer,
and entitled "Imagine Roseville - Community, Policing, and Race in Roseville."
Mayor Roe noted the first meeting focused on "reaction" and to hear initial
responses with approximately 200 attending. Mayor Roe reported that this
second meeting was the next step to further expand on "ideas" on several topics
identified from that first discussion and to synthesize ideas that the
community could approach, including: state, county and local police
accountability, traffic stops, profiling, living in a diverse community, and
other areas of interest. Mayor Roe advised this was a free meeting and invited
community attendance and participation; also noting a third community
conversation was scheduled to consider "action."
Mayor Roe
reported that earlier today, he, Councilmember McGehee, Community Development
Director Collins and Jeanne Kelsey had performed their first ambassador visit
as part of the city's Business Expansion and Retention Program. Mayor Roe
noted the first visit was to J. R. Johnson, a wholesale floral distributor and
spin-off industries involved with that operation. Mayor Roe noted it was a
very impressive tour and discussion; and publically thanked the company for
their hospitality; and expressed his interest in future business tours.
Councilmember
Laliberte announced the upcoming Friends of Roseville Parks holiday craft fair
at City Hall, with proceeds going to Harriet Alexander Nature Center; and related
bake sale by the Roseville Historical Society.
In conjunction
with Mayor Roe's business tour comments, City Manager Trudgeon noted that the
J. R. Johnson firm had located in their Roseville building in 1958; and had
initially started their business in 1915 in the Village of St. Anthony, and
recognized the company's great history in the Roseville area.
6. Recognitions,
Donations and Communications
a.
Human Rights Commission 2016 RV (HRC) Award Presentation
HRC Chair Wayne
Groff briefly reviewed its creation and opportunity to recognize meritorious
service in the pursuit of advocacy for human rights through nomination for this
HRC annual award. Chair Groff introduced HRC Commissioners Nicole Dailey and
Lauren Peterson for public presentation of this year's recipients.
Commissioner
Dailey provided a brief biography of Ms. Angie McGaster-Woods, currently
Assistant Principal at Roseville Area High School, nominated by RAHS Principal
Jenny Loeck; and presented the award.
Ms.
McGaster-Woods thanked the City Council and HRC for this honor.
Commissioner
Peterson provided a brief biography of Ms. Sherry Sanders and her various roles
in the community, nominated by Tammy McGehee, and presented the award.
Ms. Sanders
also thanked the City Council and HRC for this honor.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:40 p.m. for a photo opportunity with the award recipients, and
reconvened at approximately 6:43 p.m.
7. Approve Minutes
Comments and
corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to
tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented
in the Council packet.
b.
Approve November 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved,
Willmus seconded, approval of the November 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 17, Lines 11 - 12 (McGehee)
Correct to
read: "may not fit the goal [making] [thus] structuring
a project [for a special grant may not be worth it] if the idea
and "
·
Page 19, Line 11 (McGehee)
Correct to
read: "it may not represent those now [present] having a role
to play."
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve November 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved,
Willmus seconded, approval of the November 14, 2016 City Council Meeting
Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 5, Line 31 (Roe)
Correct to
read: "given [the] number of such uses"
·
Page 22, Lines 39 - 40 (Roe)
Staff verify
and add Mr. Christianson's first name
·
Page 28, Lines 20-21 (McGehee/Roe)
At the
suggestion of Councilmember McGehee, and without objection, Mayor Roe directed
that future minutes advise the public where and how to reference staff or
council bench handouts, with a statement such as "attached to the meeting
packet."
·
Page 29, Line 12 (McGehee)
Identify "her"
as Councilmember McGehee for reference.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) dated November 28, 2016 and related attachments.
a.
Approve Payments
Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
detailed.
|
ACH Payments
|
$989,490.80
|
|
83646 - 83869
|
1,016,608.04
|
|
TOTAL
|
$2,006,098.84
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve
General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus Items
Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Summary of Scheduled CIP
Items," updated October 31, 2016.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as detailed
in the RCA.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvement
Project
Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11376 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Awarding Bids for South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvement Project;"
awarding the contract to the firm of Ramsey Excavating, Inc., in an amount not
to exceed $346,324.00.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for 2017 Sanitary Sewer Main
Lining
Referencing
Consent Items f and e, Councilmember McGehee observed that, when performing capital
improvement projects, engineer's estimates seemed to be coming in low
frequently, making it difficult to project costs for planning purposes.
Public
Works Director Mark Culver agreed with Councilmember McGehee that it was true
that some actual project costs were exceeding the initial engineer's estimates.
However, Mr. Culver advised that frequently this was due to extenuating
circumstances that made a given project more challenging for the contractor.
In the case of the Cleveland Avenue lift station and South Lake Owasso
Stormsewer projects, Mr. Culver reviewed specifics of those projects
representing unknown risks for the contractor going into the project. Mr.
Culver advised that staff would continue to refine estimates, and perhaps
increase contingencies for projects to address those challenges. While some
estimates have not been accurate, Mayor Roe recognized the Public Works
Department for their accuracies over the long term, opining those higher
estimates more than balance out the lower estimates.
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11377 Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Awarding Bids for 2017 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining;" awarding Bid
Total B to the firm of Insituform Technologies USA, LLC, in an amount not to
exceed $759,641.00.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Approve Resolution Awarding Contract for the Cleveland Avenue
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Project
Councilmember
McGehee noted that in the overall final cost breakdown, Meyer Contracting had
come out with the highest technical score even though their adjusted price was
higher than Minger Construction, who was ultimately recommended for bid award.
Public
Works Director Culver reviewed the Best Value Procurement Process used and how
the technical scores were intentionally kept independent of the bid prices
until subsequently combined at the end of the process. Mr. Culver noted that
this was the benefit of this method to ensure the best project and contractor
for the city by combining those two components.
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11378 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Awarding Best Value Proposal for Project 16-14, Cleveland Avenue
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Project;" awarding a contract to the firm of Minger
Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $515,000.00.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
h.
Approve Railroad Agreement with Minnesota Commercial
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, approval of three (3) Crossing Surface Installation
Agreements with Minnesota Commercial Railroad to replace three existing
crossings at: Terminal Road near St. Croix Street (Attachment A - DOT No.
463568P; Terminal Road near Walnut Street (Attachment B - DOT No. 463560K); and
Walnut Street (Attachment C - DOT No. 061338C).
Related
to these types of projects, Councilmember Etten sought to raise the city's
awareness when near railroad intersections, consideration be given to incorporating
a bicycle amenity or safer connection in these industrial areas especially.
Councilmember Etten noted the Walnut Street area had been brought up by four to
five bicyclists as an area needing a safer connection with the NW Diagonal
route into Minneapolis between County Road C at that intersection.
Public
Works Director Culver responded that Ramsey County continues to apply for
federal funding to reconstruct County Road C in that area; and if awarded,
would include a trail along I-35W where the existing trail ends and making the
connection. Mr. Culver reported that it would not be easy, as there was a lack
of right-of-way and it would require reconfiguring the roadway, perhaps with an
on-road bike lane. Mr. Culver advised that all components of the area would be
reviewed in more detail at that time.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
i.
2017 SCORE Grant Agreement
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Grant Agreement between the City of
Roseville and Ramsey County for a Governor's Select Committee on Recycling and
the Environment (SCORE) in the amount of $87,478.00; and authorizing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute the agreement.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
j.
Accept Donation from the Roseville Police Foundation
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, acceptance of a donation in the amount of $2,000 from
the Roseville Police Foundation for the Department's Overtime Fund to allow
officers to interact and play with students during recess and activity breaks
during school days at Central Park Elementary School, expanding positive
connections with the community.
Councilmember
Etten thanked the Police Department and Police Foundation for providing this
exciting way for officers to interact with students; with Mayor Roe seconding
those sentiments.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
City Manager
Trudgeon noted staff's removal of this item to exclude the Gambling Premise
Permit as addressed by city code. Mr. Trudgeon reported that all other permits
and licenses as listed in the RCA were appropriate for approval tonight with
this action.
Etten moved,
Willmus seconded, approval of various licenses as detailed, dependent on
completion of successful background checks for massage licenses; and
amended to exclude the Gambling Premise Permit.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve 2017 City Council Calendar
Councilmember
Etten suggested several changes to facilitate school calendar and summer
vacation schedules by eliminating the proposed August 21 Work Session, adding a
December 11 Work Session, and balancing out meetings in December of 2017 and
January of 2018 without such a large gap between meetings.
Councilmember
McGehee spoke strongly against the changes in August and December from a
personal perspective, noting this impacted her vacation timing in December,
especially when December typically wasn't an active time in terms of city
business due to holidays during that period and other events. Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of the schedule as presented by staff.
Mayor
Roe and Councilmember Laliberte noted conflicts they had with June 12,
suggesting changing from June 12 to June 5.
Councilmember
Laliberte advised that while she would potentially be unavailable during part
of the month of March, she was not concerned with the schedule as presented by
staff.
Councilmember
Willmus opined that throughout the year, there may be meetings individual
council members need to miss; but overall meeting agendas and schedules could
be accommodated accordingly. If a particular item was anticipated to need a
full council, Councilmember Willmus noted the schedule could be reviewed and
adjusted at that time. However, in general, Councilmember Willmus stated he
didn't like to see the annual schedule adjusted to any great degree.
Councilmember Willmus conceded that he would be willing to consider
Councilmember Etten's suggestion to move the August Work Session to December.
Etten
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the 2017 City Council Meeting Schedule as
amended to move the proposed June 12 meeting to June 5; and moving the August
21 Work Session; to December 11, 2017; with Final 2018 Budget and Levy approval
scheduled for action on December 4, 2017.
Discussion
ensued regarding proposed levy adoption in December of 2017; and variables in
whether or not a meeting is considered a regular business meeting or work
session.
Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City Council typically had more work during the summer
than in December, and she saw no reason to drag out December meetings and if
approved, she most likely wouldn't be in attendance. Since she felt the full
City Council should be present and take action on setting the levy and budget,
Councilmember McGehee suggested that remain on December 4, 2017. Councilmember
McGehee noted historically the schedule had not been expanded in December, nor
did she think it should be done in 2017; and expressed her personal frustration
that the City Council appeared to be trying to accommodate Councilmember
Etten's vacation schedule in August while impacting the only time she had to
travel in December.
With
agreement by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of
the motion as stated, with the understanding that the 2018 final levy and
budget adoption be done on December 4, 2017.
Mayor
Roe noted this resulted in the city's budget hearing falling on the same day
and conflicting with the Ramsey County budget hearing; and while cognizant of
Councilmember McGehee's travel plans in December, stated he had no strong
opinion on the proposed changes.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus,
Laliberte and Etten.
Nays: McGehee
and Roe.
Motion carried.
k.
Enter into a Contract with WSB
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA dated November 28, 2016 and related attachments.
Councilmember
Etten sought clarification from staff on Attachment A - Exhibit A for task
detail, on who would act as the "steering committee," and whether that would
include staff and the Planning Commission, with the Commission having a
consistent role in the process.
Senior Planner
Bryan Lloyd responded that the intent was that the main steering of the process
and day-to-day work with the consultant would be handled by staff. As the
process proceeded into engagement activities, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff and
the consultant would be involved in synthesizing content for the Planning
Commission's review to confirm public feedback and adjust goals and policies of
the comprehensive plan accordingly, representing the first non-staff
opportunity where that content and public input is brought into the public
sphere.
Councilmember
Etten noted he wasn't sure if the Planning Commission's monthly meetings would
become onerous with their other land use cases.
Mr.
Lloyd stated he anticipated scheduling additional Planning Commission meetings
beyond their current monthly schedule, consistent with the last comprehensive
plan and zoning code updates and work associated with them. Mr. Lloyd advised
that staff anticipated plenty of work for the Commission beyond land use
applications.
Councilmember
Etten noted that one of the reasons he had liked the WSB proposal was their
connection with and locations to seek out stakeholder groups. However,
Councilmember Etten stated he wanted to ensure that minority groups, English as
a second language residents, and apartment tenants were also included as
stakeholders.
Specific
to page 4 of Exhibit A, Councilmember Etten stated he didn't understand or
necessarily agree with the 2nd paragraph under Task 3 "Task Detail"
for land use mix and locations adjusted at each point in the process "and
constructed by developers" rather than the community.
Mr.
Lloyd advised that he understood that statement differently, as he viewed adjustments
being a public process, but making sure plans were realistic and development of
the community could occur in light of the comprehensive plan, but not
developers driving what the comprehensive plan actually stated.
Mayor
Roe recognized Mr. Lloyd's interpretation, noting the intent was that land use
mixes and locations could be accomplished by developers rather than developers
dictating the plan itself.
Councilmember
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Etten, and suggested the intent and
language should reflect that input from developers was welcome versus having
them dictate where use mixes and locations should be or if they are not achievable
at all.
Councilmember
Etten noted the previous paragraph stated that intent.
Councilmember
Willmus noted his preference for the steering committee to consist of the
Planning Commission given its current makeup of individuals with strong technical
expertise with land use and zoning. Councilmember Willmus clarified his
expectation that the Commission would be very involved on the frontend and
throughout the process and consulted on issues before they went too far
down the road in one direction or the other.
Regarding
stakeholder groups preliminarily identified, Councilmember Willmus suggested
each and all of the city's advisory commissions be consulted as well without
requiring a significant amount of time on their part, but providing their various
perspectives for the process. Councilmember Willmus also noted that, while
desiring the involvement of the School Districts serving Roseville, it be
recognized that they also had a duty and obligation to serve communities beyond
Roseville, and stated his interest in making sure this comprehensive plan
process and update remained most reflective of Roseville and its citizens
versus significantly focusing on the broader or regional approach.
On
the last page of Exhibit B (Contingency - Future Items), Councilmember Etten
asked if those items would be enacted or require City Council vote on each or
any.
Mr.
Lloyd advised that the bulk would require City Council vote with the contingency
based on other expenditures and approximately $15,000 to $20,000 set aside for
possible additional public engagement activities as a first step after the
contract and agreement, but refining the scope and action for the community engagement
portion of the plan update. If that refining adds additional activities and
costs, Mr. Lloyd noted the contingency funds could cover them. However, beyond
that, Mr. Lloyd advised that the remainder of the funding would be available if
needed for future consideration and discussions; but not necessary to identify
specifically this evening.
Mayor
Roe asked the body their feeling on the contingency items, whether approved by
staff or by the City Council. Mayor Roe noted that, as currently written,
staff would have approval rights, with the idea that the City Council approves
the overall amount.
The
city council decided City Council approval should be required and directed
staff to revise the document accordingly for the last line of Exhibit B to
read:
"Any
use of the contingency budget will be scoped in more detail when additional services
are requested and will require pre-approval of [city staff] [the
City Council]"
While
not having a conversation to define the steering committee beyond staff,
Councilmember Laliberte stated her expectation that this would be taking place
in the near future. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted the document made
reference that the "steering committee" would be working in collaboration with
the Planning Commission. Councilmember Laliberte suggested there be thought
given to other groups being part of that committee and requiring additional conversation.
Mayor
Roe clarified that the conversation did occur during the Request for Proposals
(RFP) stage, indicating that the Planning Commission would play a key role in
the process. However, Mayor Roe stated he didn't know that precluded others
from being involved, depending on the City Council's expectations of the
steering committee.
Building
on Councilmember Willmus' comments, Mayor Roe stated that he saw the Planning
Commission involved early on in key decision-making versus simply having staff
and/or the consultant run things by them after a preliminary decision had
already been made. As the official planning entity for the City, Mayor Roe
stated his expectations were that the Planning Commission be involved early in
decision-making and not having things only run by them after the fact; but to
receive their input and expertise versus a reactionary approach.
Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe's expectations.
Councilmember
McGehee stated that she was happy with the Planning Commission and staff doing
the bulk of the update when asking for only a technical upgrade to the current
comprehensive plan. Since the WSB proposal and outline seems more than
sufficient in seeking community engagement with residents and various groups
and commissions, Councilmember McGehee opined she didn't see any reason to make
the process any more cumbersome.
Councilmember
Laliberte stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the scope of the
update and talked about the technical updates, as had the City Council. Then
when proposals were received, Councilmember Laliberte noted they involved more
than just the technical update. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that
it was important to keep the Planning Commission at the front end of the
decision-making given their weigh in on that already. Councilmember Laliberte
also agreed that all advisory commissions should be involved as part of
stakeholder group.
Community
Development Director Kari Collins interjected that despite the language and
scope staff had been intentional in veering away from "steering committee"
language as that appeared consistently as not the way to go. Therefore, Mr.
Collins reported that staff had been leaning toward language indicating a
"review body" that would include the Planning Commission and staff working together
as that review body, with touches along the way for public input. Ms. Collins
noted the stakeholder groups had been well-identified and everyone was in
agreement that clarity was desired, and more focused on "review" versus "steering."
Without
objection, Mayor Roe summarized comments and feedback to staff from the City
Council emphasizing they wanted the Planning Commission to be involved in
discussions and decision-making upfront and providing their direction as to which
direction to go, and not simply reviewing things after those decisions had
passed through staff and the consultants, but at the front end.
With
additional review, the council directed to change Exhibit A, Task 3 (Land Use
and Resilience), Task Detail, paragraph 2 for the last sentence to read as
follows:
"The
land use mix and land use locations can be adjusted at each point in the
process to ensure that the plan [can, and will be constructed by developers,
the cost of development is efficient and cost-effective, and that it]
achieves the goals of the community."
In
Attachment A (Standard agreement for Professional Services), City Attorney
Hartman referenced Section 18.D (Professional Liability Insurance - Lines
240-241), noting the blank aggregate limit, advising that the standard amount
needed to cover the contract amount and conditional amounts at a minimum (e.g.
$165,600) and suggested using a standard $500,000 aggregate limit. Also, under
the next sentence, Mr. Hartman noted the sentence should instead read: "Said policy
SHALL [not] name the City as an additional
insured."
Mayor
Roe concurred, noting that was consistent with past contracts.
Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, approving of a Standard Agreement for Professional
Services between the City of Roseville and WSB & Associates (Attachments A
and B), and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement; amended
as follows:
·
Attachment A (Standard Agreement for
Professional Services), Section 18.D (Professional Liability Insurance - Lines
240-241), the standard amount needs to cover the contract amount and
conditional amounts at a minimum (e.g. $165,600) and should be revised to read:
"Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $500,000 (standard aggregate
limit)." Also, under the next sentence, Mr. Hartman noted the sentence should
instead read: "Said policy SHALL [not] name the City as an
additional insured."
·
Exhibit A, Task 3 (Land Use and Resilience), Task
Detail, paragraph 2 for the last sentence revised to read as follows:
"The
land use mix and land use locations can be adjusted at each point in the
process to ensure that the plan [can, and will be constructed by developers,
the cost of development is efficient and cost-effective, and that it]
achieves the goals of the community."
·
Exhibit B is revised to read:
"Any
use of the contingency budget will be scoped in more detail when additional
services are requested and will require pre-approval of [city staff] [the
City Council]"
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
10.
General Ordinances for Adoption
11.
Presentations
a.
Community Health Awareness Team (CHAT) Presentation
Sara Barsel and
Bill Marsewski (retired attorney), Co-Founders of CHAT provided several
handouts consisting of health literacy materials, and updated the City Council
and listening audience on CHAT activities and resources.
Ms. Barsel
formally and publically acknowledged those providing invaluable support as
organizations and from city staff with this collaborative interaction. Ms.
Barsel also announced upcoming programs and panel discussions coming in the
spring of 2017.
Mr. Marsewski
addressed involvement of the Minnesota Justice Foundation consisting of law
students talking about issues they've dealt with and getting people involved
with the legal system to help them resolve legal situations in which they may
find themselves (e.g. medical legal issues) frequently done as a pro bono
public service depending on financial resources available. Mr. Marsewski also
announced a new program entitled "Wheels of Justice" that was basically a recreational
vehicle with lawyers and private areas allowing them to work people, and seemed
to be working especially well with advanced care planning efforts.
While City
Manager Trudgeon had composed a cover letter to go with flyers provide to all
senior housing complexes and churches in Roseville and promoting programs, Ms.
Barsel sought additional assistance from the City Council, as they put together
programs, in advertising those programs. Ms. Barsel noted limitations of
current media opportunities; and lack of involvement from other area
communities, with the exception of the cities of Lauderdale and Falcon Heights,
that were partnered in this effort as part of the Ramsey County Library system
and not only specific for Roseville residents. Ms. Barsel sought any
additional ways the City Council was aware of to help get the information out
to promote these expert presentations and the time and energy spent in
addressing topics and resources. Ms. Barsel noted the challenges in senior
living facilities not sharing the information with their residents; and sought
ideas to improve this situation. Ms. Barsel also noted the difficulty in C-TV
consistently filming these programs or seminars for future playback by
residents unable to attend personally but interested and in need of the
information. Ms. Barsel advised that the Library was also interested in
getting this filming accomplished, beyond the Library systems' website and the
city website, with cable television the next viable option, only if and when
the sessions were initially recorded.
Ms. Barsel
noted other things happening or being expanded and topics to be covered; as
well as those programming efforts overlapping with the Roseville Alzheimer's/Dementia
(RV A/D) group.
Councilmembers
thanked CHAT for their great work to-date.
Councilmember
Laliberte thanked everyone for their work, and announced current attempts to
seek grant funds from the next legislative session through Honoring Choices MN,
a partner of CHAT, with those funds intended for use by local entities for
training, facilitation and support. Councilmember Laliberte noted that, since
CHAT couldn't apply as a 501.C.3, they may seek interest from the city in
applying if and when those funds become available; and asked that her
colleagues give thought to how that could be facilitated.
City Manager
Trudgeon duly noted that request.
Discussion
ensued regarding making this vital information available for circulation by the
Library at their branch locations, as well as publicizing the events.
Mr. Marsewski
highlighted a new program through the Library where they have a community
resource advocate available (e.g. social worker) come out to one of their
branches for several hours each week for people to use as a resource, in a
private room for consultation.
Ms. Barsel
noted that community surveys continue to emphasize the social isolation issue,
not necessarily senior-specific, and the need to address it through qualified
working groups.
Mayor Roe
reminded CHAT representatives of senior isolation and mental health issues
being a new area of focus by the Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS) as
they move forward with their strategic planning; and suggested them as a
potential partner for CHAT.
12.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
a.
Consider Modifying the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for
Redevelopment TIF District #12 to Aid in the Revitalization of Rice Street and
Larpenteur Avenue
Community
Development Director Collins briefly reviewed this request to modify the TIF
Plan for Redevelopment TIF District #12 for revitalization of the Rice Street
and Larpenteur Avenue area, as detailed in the RCA, and related attachments.
Ms. Collins advised that a representative of the city's Financial Consultant,
Springsted, Ms. Mikaela Huot was available for questions.
Mayor
Roe asked if this action created any difficulties in the allotment in the 2017
budget as outlined in the City Manager's Recommended Budget if the TIF District
funds were not sent back to taxing authorities when decertified.
City
Manager Trudgeon clarified that it would not as tonight's discussion was about
TIF District #12, while the CIP funding involved decertification of TIF
District #13, with $500,000 allotted toward the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and the remainder allotted to street infrastructure improvements.
Since
initiatives for this area involve the Cities of Maplewood and St. Paul constituting
the surrounding area and intersection, Mayor Roe clarified that these TIF funds
would be Roseville-specific with the Development District only involving
Roseville, and could not legally be spent outside city boundaries.
Ms.
Collins concurred, advising that the city was currently working with those
other jurisdictions on a joint powers agreement (JPA) to define a financial
arrangement; and while this may represent all or a portion of Roseville's
cost-share, it would only involve Roseville-proper redevelopment.
At
the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins confirmed that not all of the funds identified
in TIF District #12 needed to be spend in this area, with the remaining funds
available for other uses or returned to taxing authorities if not all used.
Ms. Collins noted further amendments could be addressed at a later date, but
the intent tonight was to dedicate funds for this area of Roseville and
redevelopment efforts there to capture funds before expiration of the TIF
District at year-end 2016.
At
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Collins reviewed some potential uses
for funds in the area, including but not limited to streetscaping, lighting,
pathways and more aesthetics along the corridor up to Roseville boundaries and
anticipating the adjacent municipalities would have similar interests and
cost-participation funding available. Councilmember McGehee expressed some concern
with the list of prohibitions for use of the funds.
Mikaela
Huot, Springsted
Ms.
Huot reviewed the purpose of this modification to provide the city with authority
and flexibility to use the funds on eligible expenditures within the district.
When the District was created, Ms. Huot noted it required 90% of revenues be
spent on redevelopment-type expenditures but within that 90% there could be
further discussions on specific costs that may include acquisition, public improvements,
streets, sidewalks, utilities or other things that would enhance redevelopment
within Roseville boundaries within Project District #1.
Mayor
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:05 p.m.; with no
one appearing for or against.
Etten moved,
Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11379 (Attachment B) entitled,
"Resolution Approving Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 12."
Councilmember
Etten expressed appreciation to staff for seeking out ways to approach this
area in order to make significant improvements; noting it served as one piece
of the puzzle.
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed, and suggested if prohibitions proved too limiting, the
District could be dissolved at that time.
Councilmember
Willmus stated his support for this request as an option on the table; but as
the city proceeded, he noted the need to have a serious and more detailed
discussion on how to utilize the dollars. Councilmember Willmus stated that he
was very leery in not seeing a significant degree of initiative from partnering
jurisdictions (e.g. City of Maplewood); and expressed his interest in seeing
them more involved. If that involvement is not forthcoming, Councilmember
Willmus noted the need to press forward and focus on the needs for the City of
Roseville, with or without a collaborative effort.
Councilmember
McGehee stated she was very supportive of work in this area, but noted her
concern in finding a specific use for these TIF funds at this point. Also,
since these funds were owed to residents and the county and school district,
Councilmember McGehee noted her concern that the city not sit on the funds indefinitely
and get them back to those taxing authorities if it was determined there was
not viable use for them in SE Roseville's redevelopment.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Huot advised that as of December 31, 2016 the city could no
longer collect the increment. However, Ms. Huot further advised that the city
had the ability to spend funds in future years, even once it was officially
decertified but depending on how long it remained open as a District. Ms. Huot
advised that, per statutory requirements, the city files annual TIF reports
even after it stops collecting increments and decertifies the District, but
that didn't mean there was a time limit on city expenditures. If a significant
balance remained in the TIF fund for a lengthy time period, Ms. Huot noted the
State Auditor might question the city's intent at that point and require a more
detailed report.
Councilmember
Willmus suggested that the city move forward on planning efforts as the
Roseville City Council and apply a self-imposed timeframe for accomplishing
those efforts.
Mayor Roe noted
that didn't necessarily need to be part of the TIF Plan itself.
Councilmember
Willmus concurred, but suggested as a policy the city shouldn't carry the funds
on the books forever, whether or not a plan was worked out with its partners,
and not allowing it to stretch out indefinitely.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller clarified that the city had one
more Redevelopment District that may allow for pooling funds accordingly, but
the remainder were now pretty much obsolete given the twenty-six year
collection period.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
13.
Budget Items
a.
Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the 2017 Budget & Tax
Levy
Finance
Director Chris Miller presented information for the benefit of the public for
the City of Roseville proposed 2017 Budget, Tax Levy and Utility Rates as
detailed in the RCA and attachments.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller reported that the Cost of
Living Adjustment (COLA) and Employee Wage Step Increase breakdown for
non-union employees from 2016 to 2017 was proposed at 2.75% in an effort to
provide internal equity among union and non-union staff.
Councilmember
Willmus requested a better picture of carryover funds from 2016 into 2017; with
Finance Director Miller advising a more comprehensive and accurate picture will
be included in the December 5, 2016 meeting materials. While the recent third
quarter financial report stopped short of providing an estimate for year-end
carryover funds, Mr. Miller advised that he would provide the City Council with
the latest assumptions to inform that discussion.
Councilmember
McGehee stated her interested in understanding comparisons in Topic 4 of 5 in
the slide presentation for comparable cities with populations greater than
10,000 in the graph versus those cities used for utility rate comparisons.
Councilmember McGehee sought a similar comparison for tax rates used for Topics
4 and 5.
Finance Director
Miller advised that he didn't have that information with him tonight, but could
provide it.
Councilmember
McGehee opined that these are not really particularly valid comparisons, since
the City of Roseville had higher fees for utilities, but when adding in the tax
component, it made a similar shift and caused some confusion making it appear
that the city was low in one area and high in another. Councilmember McGehee
admitted that while the city may not use assessments for capital improvements
for its utilities and capture those in fees, it still essentially had a monthly
or quarterly assessment instead but only in a different format for residential
properties.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, on Topic 4 of 5 for tax levy comparisons, Finance
Director Miller clarified that they were based on sixty-two cities, all
metropolitan cities with a greater than 10,000 population.
Mayor
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:35 p.m.; with no
one appearing for or against.
Mayor
Roe alerted the public that this updated information would be available on the
city's website, with action anticipated on December 5, 2016.
Discussion
ensued regarding the next meeting of the City's Finance Commission that would
occur after the December 5, 2016 City Council meeting; with a request made for
their input if and as available or recommendations to the City Council to
inform how they felt the city was doing relative to its fund balances and
reserves going into 2017, or any other recommendations beyond the City
Manager's recommended budget for future years.
14.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Review and Discuss Draft City of Roseville and Economic
Development Authority (EDA) Acquisition Framework
Jason Aarsvold
of Ehlers Inc. was available with the latest draft framework and to seek
additional feedback or suggestions since the last iteration on November 7,
2016; with those revisions highlighted accordingly (Attachment A). An "Acquisition
Review" form was provided as a bench handout, and added to the packet
materials, providing a format for an example project presented as part
of this discussion, and using four key questions on which the policy was based
(page 1, lines 26 - 30).
Framework
Councilmember
Laliberte referenced the grant language in blue (page 3, line 29) and the
city's identification that it didn't want grants to drive pursuits, even though
it was still listed as something likely to be included.
Mr. Aarsvold
responded that revised language attempted to clarify that the goal was that a
particular project was not intended to be shaped by the likelihood of grant
funding, but if there was a realistic opportunity and gap financing needed,
grant funding may be one of the tools or potential sources. However, Mr.
Aarsvold noted this would intend that a site was identified for a potential
project and that in itself would then define if or when grant resources may
come into play.
While she
understood that, Councilmember Laliberte suggested, with a section in the
acquisition form available to fill out, it was important for future City Council's
to have an understanding of this discussion and intent, opining that she didn't
see that clearly articulated beyond current presentations and discussion.
Mayor Roe
referenced Section 4, Identification of Potential Benefits and Cost Recovery
(page 3, lines 20-30), and Item 3 addressing "outside grant funding" suggesting
that be at the bottom of the list and Item 4 estimating a change in market
value and tax collections receive a higher priority in that section.
Councilmember
Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe.
Mayor Roe
further clarified that his recollection of the intent was that any change in
market value and tax collections not only be specific to the parcel(s) being
considered for acquisition, but also surrounding properties and the community
as a whole. Mayor Roe asked that this be added to language as well.
Councilmember
Laliberte suggested adding a "but" statement regarding outside grant funding
when feasible, "but."
Councilmember
McGehee suggested language such as "Outside grant funding [for potential gap
funding only] indicating that grant funding was not considered a driver."
Mayor Roe
stated he wasn't sure he wanted to limit grant funds to gap financing only,
since they may be gap plus other funding.
Councilmember
McGehee pointed out that Items 6 and 8 on page 5 were duplicated; duly noted by
Mr. Aarsvold.
Specific to #3
and outside grant funding, Councilmember Etten noted it didn't say there was
any determinant factor in any way; but a series of ways to find money available
and a list of costs and benefits. Councilmember Etten agreed to moving
estimated changes in market value to the subject property and surrounding properties
further up in the list. Councilmember Etten stated he wasn't sure changes in
grant funding became cumbersome if they were available, but suggested no
weightier language than that.
Ms. Collins and
council members discussed other language options in various sections related to
grant funds, but in conclusion and without objection, decided to leave "outside
grant funding" in place in Section 4, and simply move Item 3 below Item 4 in
that section.
Under Section
8, General Property Information, (Page 5, lines 7 - 25), Councilmember Etten
referenced previous discussions and the importance placed on the proximity to
transit and other amenities (Item #8, Lin 24), but now it had dropped down to
the end of the list. Councilmember Etten questioned what that said as far as
the goal discussions in the past.
Mayor Roe noted
that while it was listed last in the framework, as with typical administrative
information appearing first on any form, it met the intended goals.
Councilmember
McGehee, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, opined that in general the draft truly
reflected what the city had talked about.
Case Study
and -Acquisition Review- Document (Bench Handout)
At this point,
Mr. Aarsvold led the City Council through a case study based on real
information from a real project in another community, and using the draft
framework document to proceed. While opining that this framework was a good
start, Mr. Aarsvold pointed out some areas needing improvement and sought
feedback going forward; and advising the form would naturally evolve with staff
revisions once tested, with this example simply providing an idea of what to expect
for a project.
Mayor Roe
suggested changing the form to "assessed value change" rather than "property
tax change" as it appeared misleading unless the city asked for a larger levy,
and assuming the same tax rate it didn't necessarily equate to more overall
city taxes collected.
Mr. Aarsvold
suggested a caveat at the bottom of the form to inform the process without
completely removing that language if found too misleading.
Specific to the
parcel itself, from his perspective Mayor Roe suggested valuation changes for
surrounding properties and knowing the associated change around the property
would serve similarly to the Chapter 429 process and impact/benefit assumptions
and be more helpful than tax numbers. While those tax numbers may inform
future TIF calculations, Mayor Roe questioned their inclusion in this decision-making.
Councilmember
McGehee addressed her overall TIF concerns and her personal interpretation of
using that type of tool, time period for increments, and negatives in
withholding those funds from taxing jurisdictions for a period of up to 26
years; and impacts created across the city with increased service costs to
taxpayers without sufficient taxes generated from new developments or projects
by "locking up" that money.
Mayor Roe
suggested "locking up" those funds for the purpose of filling a financing gap
or other development costs was the purpose of TIF districts in general, and
dependent on their decertification and how that timing works based on remaining
funds if any and from a philosophical consideration.
Mr. Aarsvold
advised that additional edits would be incorporated based on tonight's
discussion and thanked the city for the feedback. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed next
steps as follows:
·
Finalize framework with feedback and direction from staff and cc
·
Revise and improve implementation form
·
Provide final version of both documents for consideration and use
for future acquisition
Councilmember
Willmus thanked Mr. Aarsvold for tonight's update; and referenced Attachment A,
Section 3, asking if there was a threshold in terms of raw value that might be
applied to a parcel. Councilmember Willmus stated his strong advocacy for
appraisals and expressed his interest in continuing that to keep the city in a
solid position and protective of its interests. Based on the November 7th
discussion, Councilmember Willmus asked if Mr. Aarsvold had any thoughts related
to county assessed values, broker opinions, comparable sales or other valuation
tools.
While having
heard the council's strong preference for appraisals, Mr. Aarsvold advised that
the only reason he didn't include it as a hard and fast requirement was
recognizing that all projects will be different. Based on those previous discussions,
if the cost of an appraisal exceeds the cost of or represents a huge percentage
of the entire development, Mr. Aarsvold questioned if there was a sure or hard
threshold for an appraisal. Instead, Mr. Aarsvold suggested instead that it
may be driven more by circumstances and/or negotiations; or that the price may
just be the price due to the owner's offer of sale, also questioning if an
appraisal to confirm that hard selling price is necessary. Mr. Aarsvold
suggested a circumstantial test for staff to use, since they knew well the
council's preference for appraisals.
Ms. Collins
agreed, noting it was traditional and past practice to pursue an appraisal, and
she saw no change in that practice.
Councilmember
Willmus noted someday a different council would be seated; with Ms. Collins
agreeing if the council wanted to require an appraisal for any potential
acquisition; or identify to what degree that cost variable becomes an issue.
Mayor Roe
suggested language on Item 2 could include, "other things may be used, subject
to City Council approval," based on what the City Council wants. Then, Mayor
Roe noted that any future City Council could state their preference, whether
appraisal or not, but other things would be subject to their approval.
Councilmember
McGehee agreed with that; but stated she didn't want to call that out, noting
the city had spent considerable money on appraisals in the past on acquisitions
that didn't move forward. Councilmember McGehee suggested the city not be so
tied into an appraisal early in the process until deciding how serious it was.
Councilmember
Etten stated he was comfortable with the current language, noting it was
inherent for this city council to approve the whole process, therefore making
no further changes in language necessary.
Mayor Roe
agreed, opining any future city council was able to changeor eliminate the
policy.
Mayor Roe
summarized the changes made tonight, including:
·
Section 3, Items 3 and 4 moving in order of importance
·
Regarding "estimated market value and tax collections" to
express that intent somewhat better remove "and tax collections" entirely.
Mayor Roe
noted that when increasing the tax base as the result of redevelopment it would
be helpful to look at the project with and without the increment figured in to
see the net cost to the city if using TIF financing.
In the benefits
section, Mayor Roe, with input from Councilmember McGehee, suggested
consideration of a net change to the city tax base with or without the
increment and impact on the average taxpayer. Mayor Roe opined this was food
for thought for staff and the consultant, clarifying that the intent to promote
an idea for this or future councils that the city received more dollars by
allowing redevelopment.
On the
acquisition form, Councilmember Laliberte suggested for the "estimated
timeline" instead adding "date available for market."
On the form,
Mayor Roe also noted that under "property information," not all properties had
an asking price and suggested adding a component, "is the property on or not on
the market."
When talking
about tax capacity, Mr. Aarsvold noted one measure of growth was the tax base,
which could be calculated. However, Mr. Aarsvold noted it may prove neutral
with respect to whether it creates a tax break or not; and wouldn't be as clear
to the general public. To be accurate, Mr. Aarsvold noted the reason for
looking at tax capacity.
.
With the next
revised draft from Mr. Aarsvold, Ms. Collins advised that both the City Council
and REDA would need to approve the framework; and anticipated the January
organizational meetings may be a good time to do so.
Mayor Roe
thanked Mr. Aarsvold and city staff for their ongoing work on this policy.
15.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
a.
Park Capital Funding Policy Discussion
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke led a discussion on
a park capital funding policy as detailed in the RCA and related attachments as
follows:
·
Attachment A - Mayor Roe suggested park CIP Draft Policy
·
Attachment B - Park & Recreation Commission's recommended
Park CIP draft policy
·
Attachment C - Total strikeout of Mayor Roe's draft policy
·
Attachment D - Finance Commission recommended Park CIP draft
policy
·
Attachment E - Advisory Team Final Report Executive Summary provided
as a bench handout, and made part of the packet materials.
Councilmember
Positions
Councilmember
Etten stated he didn't support this policy change as it was premature to
make changes to the park dedication fund in lieu of several major expenditures
(e.g. golf course clubhouse and SE Roseville redevelopment and park amenities
and the funds earmarked for a park in SW Roseville). Councilmember Etten
emphasized the necessity of first honoring those commitments made as part of
the Parks Renewal Program. With other park improvements planned for Cleveland
Avenue, Marion Street, Autumn Grove Park and other major plans as part of
recent land acquisitions, Councilmember Etten noted the need for dollars to
pursue those park initiatives; reiterating that it was therefore premature to
move any funds out of the Park Dedication Fund at this time.
Furthermore,
Councilmember Etten noted that this had proven to be an uneven funding source
over the last decade; and therefore, making it part of the annual CIP budget
process didn't seem responsible from his perspective. Councilmember Etten
noted there were few properties left in Roseville and future thought was needed
on how to provide an ongoing park dedication source.
If language of
a proposed policy provided the city to reduce the tax levy, Councilmember Etten
opined that the city would find itself in the same hole it was in five years
ago before and necessitating the Park Renewal Program. Using bullet point 5 as
an example in Attachment A, Councilmember Etten opined that was an
inappropriate way to set a tax levy, causing him great concern for this or
future council's to stop needed CIP funding to make necessary investments. Councilmember
Etten stated that he could see a one-time use, but could not support it as a
reliable funding source to fund ongoing needs.
Councilmember
Willmus agreed with the majority of Councilmember Etten's comments and
concerns; however, he noted there were several sides to consider. Councilmember
Willmus agreed with a need to get a better or more accurate guide in place for
capital needs, whether through this policy or not. Councilmember Willmus noted
the thing most concerning to him was the reliance on park dedication funds as a
steady stream when it has historically been cyclical. Councilmember Willmus
stated that another concern, as pointed out by Councilmember Etten, was
knowledge of some major development and/or redevelopment projects the city was
aware of coming forward in the near future, and if a policy was in place, what
would those park dedication funds look like if the P & R or Finance
Commission's draft policies were in place. Councilmember Willmus suggested
some forecasting might help inform that consideration particularly with those
sites or commitments as listed by Councilmember Etten. While curious to
consider those ramifications, Councilmember Willmus stated he was not ready to
determine a direction yet without considerably more information and how things
would look with practical application.
Councilmember
McGehee stated that she had a different view, and while being a strong
advocate for capital funds, opined that it was important that it be part of the
annual budget and responsibility of the city council. As the city council now
sits, after having come off a large expenditure campaign with new buildings and
playground equipment, Councilmember McGehee noted community surveys showing
residents' continued support for and use of those amenities, there was the
reality of staffing those new buildings and facilities. While funded by
citizen levy dollars, Councilmember McGehee noted that ongoing and future
funding was somewhat shaky.
Therefore,
Councilmember McGehee noted that she was unaware of anyone from the community
having come forward asking for a new clubhouse, yet this was another major
expenditure now being considered. Councilmember McGehee stated she was
uncomfortable having residents serving on a committee and directing taxpayer
expenditures. While having high regards for Mayor Roe and the Finance
Commission's expertise in calculating figures, Councilmember McGehee stated her
understanding was that the CIP was not properly funded in the past, including
improper funding of the Park Improvement Program (PIP).
Councilmember
McGehee opined that this was one way to get some control of capital needs and
get things back into the capital budget, and stated that she didn't consider
$400,000 to be sufficient. After having acquired a great deal and even with no
development commitments foreseen, one of the nice things about park land and
those sites mentioned, if not developed Councilmember McGehee stated that the
city still retained the land for future development. Councilmember McGehee
opined that the City of Roseville was built on a pay-as-you-go concept, and
while having diverged from that, to build up a capital fund as proposed makes
more sense from a proper economic balance standpoint.
Councilmember
Laliberte thanked Mayor Roe and the two advisory commissions for spending a
good amount of time on this policy, opining it was good for the city council to
look at each of the ideas. As stated by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember
Laliberte stated she wasn't ready for a decision on one or the other version
tonight; and also wondered how they'd play out with plans already proposed but
not yet instituted. Counter to Councilmember Etten's concerns, Councilmember
Laliberte asked at what point the city needed to have a discussion with pending
things, which would always be in play, and how to balance that. However, at
some point, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address a policy and this
fund even without having all of those answers tonight.
In response to
several comments said by his colleagues, Mayor Roe addressed several
issues:
·
Timing: Mayor Roe noted that this discussion came back to
the city council sooner than he had initially anticipated, noting he thought
the city would be farther along in consideration of the clubhouse. Therefore,
Mayor Roe stated that he was willing to wait to make any policy decisions
pending that additional information.
·
Current or Pending Commitments: As noted by Councilmember
Etten, Mayor Roe noted that some of those smaller things could still be funded
out of the Park Dedication Fund balance since new site improvements are an
acceptable use of the Fund beyond acquisition. Mayor Roe noted the big
question at this time was clubhouse funding even though there were a number of
potential sources, and how much of and whether or not to use each source.
While there are no answers at this time, Mayor Roe noted if swapping funds
initially set aside for SW Roseville parks, as an example, how would renewal
funds be addressed and resolved. As noted by Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor
Roe recognized that there will always be pending needs and projects to
complete, and with funding probably coming out of the acquisition fund.
·
Funding Source for CIP Needs: Mayor Roe agreed that there
was a need to identify a dedicated funding source for CIP park needs; and he
also agreed that this should not be considered as that steady source.
Therefore, in his proposal, Mayor Roe noted he had proportions allocated to two
different sub-funds, proposing not to spend down the improvement side first and
then use tax levy supported funds for additional capital spending resulting in
the fund being spent down every year. Instead, Mayor Roe suggested that to him
it made more sense to be cognizant of that reality and his proposal versus the
Finance Commission's approach to spend down the dedication fund first, one of
his points of disagreement with their proposal.
·
Development/Redevelopment Projects Anticipated: Noting it
to be a variable source, but anticipating some fairly major projects that are
known (e.g. Rosedale Center redevelopment), Mayor Roe suggested the ability to
"bank" some of those funds and spend them down proportionally, but never
zeroing out that fund in the lean years and keeping a balance for use in future
years. Like other CIP timing, Mayor Roe opined that would work well as long as
the dedication portion was looked at first and recognizing that it wasn't an opportunity
to under-levy but acknowledging this as another source and make sure to set the
levy accordingly. Mayor Roe reiterated that it was never intended as a means to
under-levy the CIP fund; and emphasized that the City Council would always have
the capability to under-levy the CIP with or without this policy.
Since his
initial draft of the policy, Mayor Roe advised that he was flexible on the
$400,000 initial deposit, and he was opposed to stipulating a $1 million
balance be retained at all time for park property acquisition. However, Mayor
Roe agreed that he wasn't ready to make a decision tonight either; deferring to
other pending and major decisions currently before the city.
Acknowledging
the concerns raised and recognizing Councilmember McGehee's comments, Mayor Roe
emphasized that the city had a serious and immediate issue with its park CIP,
one of the things driving his attempt to get this resolved as soon as possible.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Parks & Recreation Director Brokke advised that
the anticipated status to receive a proposal for an outside consultant for
clubhouse concept design work was scheduled for January 9, 2017.
Mayor Roe
thanked the advisory commissions and staff for their work on this policy.
16.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember
Laliberte asked for an update on the Garden Street Station, duly noted by City
Manager Trudgeon.
17.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember
Willmus asked for a future agenda discussion, preferably coinciding with the
annual organizational meeting in January of 2017, and staff suggestions that
would direct future City Council meetings to be more efficient with their use
of meeting time. In looking at the length of recent meetings in comparison to
the number of agenda items, Councilmember Willmus noted the meetings often came
up against the 10:00 hour or even beyond. Councilmember Willmus questioned the
viability of discussing items at that late hour, not only with the public's
ability to track City Council discussions that late; but also whether or not
the body was at their best at that late hour in dealing with some of those
complex and important issues. Councilmember Willmus asked for staff
suggestions or ideas hopefully for discussion at the January 9, 2017 meeting.
Councilmember
McGehee agreed that there were some things that came before the City Council
that didn't need to.
18.
Adjourn Meeting
Etten moved,
Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:53 p.m.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.