View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
December 5, 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.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
City Manager Trudgeon advised that
Item 14.a had been revised since dissemination of agenda packet materials, with
a revised Request for Council Action (RCA) provided as a bench handout, attached
to the meeting packet, adding one additional liquor license renewal
entity: India Palace.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended, with the revised Item 14.a.
Ayes: Willmus, Etten,
McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items, with no one appearing to
5. Council and City Manager Communications,
Reports, and Announcements
For the benefit of the public,
Mayor Roe announced upcoming activities and events, including a Red Cross Blood
Drive co-sponsored by the City and Affinity Plus Credit Union; a seminar at the
Ramsey County Library Roseville Branch entitled, "Handling the Holidays for
Caregivers" and volunteer opportunity at Applewood Park to assist with natural
resource management efforts at city parks by helping drag and stack Buckthorn
Councilmember McGehee announced
MNSure Navigator assistance through the end of January 2017 at the Roseville
Mayor Roe provided an annual report
on CTV's municipal assistance programming, with a total of 654 hours provided
to its nine-member cites, 106 exclusively used for City of Roseville community
programming and videos airing on municipal channels.
City Manager Trudgeon reported that
last week, he, Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte had attended a
half-day session hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities
organizations providing statewide updates on a variety of interest to cities.
Mr. Trudgeon noted this also provided a great opportunity to network with
elected officials and staff peers; as well as hearing a presentation by the
Minnesota Secretary of State about the 2016 election process and turnout. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that many communities, including Roseville, shared their
concerns with the early absentee voting process this year and suggested
possible changes to the cumbersome and overwhelming process experienced this
year. Mr. Trudgeon advised that those attending were promised that the
Secretary of State's office would review the process; but he opined that
whether or not that resulted in any meaningful changes before the next election
remained to be seen. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the hope was that the early
voting process would be taken up at upcoming legislative sessions to make it
easier and provide a better approach for dealing with a large influx of voters.
Mayor Roe reported on the second of
three Imagine Roseville Community Conversations related to community, policing,
and race issues. Mayor Roe noted approximately 80 people attended; with the
intent of the meeting primarily associated with providing ideas growing from
earlier conversations. Mayor Roe noted that the third community meeting would
be scheduled early in 2017 summarizing those ideas with which the city could
take follow-up actions as indicated.
6. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
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
Approve November 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the November 28,
2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 3, Lines 37, 42 and Page 4, Line 12 (Roe)
Correct formatting numbers and
Page 4, Lines 22 - 25 (Roe)
Mayor Roe called staff's
attention for the need to change the November 14, 2016 meeting minutes in
accordance with the directed statement related to references to bench handouts
Page 19, Line7 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "improvements
for its utilities and [chooses to] capture those [monies
through] fees, it still essentially had a"
Lines 8 - 10 Last Sentence
Correct to read: "Councilmember
McGehee suggested the city not be so tied into an appraisal early in the
process until deciding how [serious it was] [seriously the city
was in acquisition].
Line 21 (Roe)
Correct to read: "switching"
rather than "moving"
Line 33 (McGehee)
Strike "and use of"
Lines 35-36 (McGehee)
Page 26, Lines 2 - 10 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "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] [insufficient]. [After
having acquired a great deal and even with no development commitments foreseen,]
[. Councilmember McGehee noted that] one of the nice things about park
land and those sites mentioned, if not developed, [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] and to build up a capital fund as
proposed makes more sense form a proper economic balance standpoint."
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Approve November 28, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the November 28,
2016 REDA Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 3, Line (Roe)
Include quotation marks for
"incurring" and "authorizing."
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 December 5, 2016 and related attachments.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following
claims and payments as presented and detailed.
83870 - 83939
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of various licenses
as detailed, dependent on completion of successful background checks for
Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
Councilmember McGehee reminded staff that past City Council
directive was that diversity be used when replanting diseased trees (e.g.
Emerald Ash Borer).
Councilmember McGehee reported that she had provided information
to City Manager Trudgeon to forward on to the Parks & Recreation Commission
regarding Burdock and hazards to migratory birds.
Etten moved, Willmus 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.
Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2017
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, a motion to NOT waive the
Statutory Liability Limits for 2017.
Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/ Appointment
McGehee asked that staff seek feedback from those commissioners not choosing to
continue serving; duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
Willmus seconded, confirmation of the Citizen Advisory Commission
Reappointment/Appointment Process as detailed in the RCA.
Authorize Contract for Consultant Services to Rewrite Subdivision
Willmus seconded, approval of entering into a Standard Agreement for
Professional Services with Kimley-Horn (Attachment A) to lead an update of the
Subdivision Code based on the detailed scope of services; and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.
Consider the Issuance of Premises Permit for Amvets Post 1 to
Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue (Lucky's 13 restaurant)
While not opposed
to approving this Premises Permit for Amvets, Councilmember Laliberte stated
her preference that the City of Roseville and its own non profits benefit from
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11380 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Approving a Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to Amvets Post 1;"
located at 2480 Fairview Avenue subject to completion of successful background
9. Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Request by City of Roseville to Amend City Code Chapter 1004
(Residential Districts) to Review Regulations Pertaining to the Quantity of
Built Improvements Allowed on Properties in the LDR-2 Zoning District
Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized
recommendations reconsidered by the Planning Commission at the request of the
City Council; revising the improvement area limit to 60%, a figure between the
50% in Low Density Residential (LDR) and 65% in Medium Density Residential
Discussion ensued regarding making the improvement area
permeable versus impervious, with staff clarifying the 35% limit for impervious
coverage on a lot remained the same, with the remaining percentage requiring
mitigation to address any additional stormwater runoff; size of lots for LDR-1
and LDR-2 designations; and staff providing examples of pervious improvements
that didn't count toward the 35% impervious, but counted as improvements (e.g.
planting areas with superstructures; geo-grid materials that weren't necessarily
paving but considered hard drivable surfaces; or outdoor pools).
Councilmember Willmus asked that, in the future, staff
include past City Council meeting minutes, in addition to those of the Planning
Commission, providing background information when applicable; duly noted by
City Manager Trudgeon.
When looking at LDR-2 designated properties, Councilmember
Willmus advised that he was looking to provide a mechanism or means of
construction for a greater level of affordability. However, as the lot
coverage ratio creeps us, Councilmember Willmus opined that it resulted in
higher-end homes; therefore, causing him to struggle with the Planning
Commission's recommended 60%.
Mayor Roe referenced the visual examples provided from
Planning Commissioner Daire with their information, and asked Mr. Lloyd to
display the sketch, particularly the LDR-2 example and their specific
calculations related to setback scenarios with rear and front yard setbacks at
30'. Using those examples, Mayor Roe opined that the results appeared to come
out well under 60% from his understanding.
Mr. Lloyd noted that he had intentionally omitted too much
discussion on the sketch submitted by Commissioner Daire as, while it helped
some Planning Commissioners visualize lot proportions, it included only the
principle structures for setback examples, but didn't take into consideration
driveways or other detached structures on a site (e.g. storage sheds and/or
play structures) that could result in being much closer up to the 5' setbacks
for property lines. Mr. Lloyd noted that the lot area available for many
improvements aside from the principle structure were not well-represented in
those sketches, making it impossible to meaningfully represent that envelope
accurately or completely.
If the developable area could reach 60% if meeting setbacks
and providing mitigation for additional stormwater, Councilmember Etten asked
if the primary structure could in effect cover up to 60% of the lot area.
Mr. Lloyd responded that it could not, as there would then
be no room for a driveway under city code provisions; with restrictions
addressed for height, setbacks, and allowance on the site for the driveway,
sidewalks and other necessary site improvements, even though the lion's share
of the area could be the house.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that, if you used permeable
pavers for a driveway, you could then have a larger house.
While that might be conceptually true, Mr. Lloyd noted that
one qualification worth making in that regard was in assuming permeable paving
was used to go beyond the 35% impervious coverage restriction on a property.
Also, Mr. Lloyd noted that any paving system would have to be evaluated by the
city's engineering staff to rate their effectiveness and what portion of the
installation would actually be considered pervious; as well as short- and
long-term maintenance and ramifications should that maintenance fail at any
time in the future. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that it wasn't just as
simple as someone getting more development based on installation of permeable
Mayor Roe noted that, even is using permeable pavers, a
property owner still couldn't exceed the total improvement area, or get more
house if exceeding setback requirements.
While still unable to support the proposed 60',
Councilmember Willmus advised that he would consider 55%, opining that would
still accomplish the intended.
Since the initial improvement area had been 50%, Mr. Lloyd
agreed that 55% would achieve some improvement.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No.
1515 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Improvement Area
Regulations of Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts of Title 10 (Zoning Code) of
Roseville City Code;" amended to a 55% improvement area for LDR-2
In a related note, Councilmember McGehee expressed her
ongoing interest in moving away from stormwater ponds and raingardens to avoid
difficulties for staff to monitor them and ensure their viability, thus her
suggestion that some of the improvement area make an attempt to utilize permeable
Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in entertaining
that discussion at a later date, but not specifically tied to this issue.
Mayor Roe agreed, suggesting it be considered in a broader
application for other districts as well. Mayor Roe further noted his concern
in including such a provision in this requested action, without due public
process and feedback from the Planning Commission.
Trudgeon duly noted the additional discussion as part of a future agenda.
Consider Changes to City Code Chapter 314.05: 2017 Fee Schedule
Trudgeon referenced previous City Council input advising that it had been
incorporated into this iteration of the fee schedule.
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe noted they could obtain additional information on the
fees on the city's website from the November 15, 2016 meeting.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No.
1516 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee
Schedule: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule" as presented.
Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation to staff for
changing language in several areas (e.g. hardscape permits addressing
landscaping of a more intense degree than charging inspection or permit fees
for residents simply planting shrubs).
Councilmember Laliberte concurred. However, Councilmember
Laliberte pointed out that due to the November 14th meeting running
late, only those high points had reviewed (e.g. new fees), without noting some
that had significant increases from last year. Councilmember Laliberte asked
that sufficient time be allowed next year to be more conscious about spending
time addressing those more noticeable changes.
Roe moved, McGehee seconded, separating out consideration of
park dedication fees and changes from the remainder of the Fee Schedule.
Laliberte and Roe.
Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C (page 3) addressing park
dedication fees for residential and non-residential parcels as recommended by
the Parks & Recreation Commission. However, Mayor Roe opined that
personally he considered those changes higher than he's be comfortable
approving at this time; and therefore, suggested that they remain the same as
2016 fees at this time.
Roe moved, Willmus seconded, retaining 2016 fees for park
dedication the same: residential per unit ($3,500) and non-residential (fair
market value at 7%).
Mayor Roe opined that developers looked at this fee as part
of the cost for developing in Roseville. Since additional discussion was
pending regarding how those funds would be used going forward, Mayor Roe
suggested the level of those dedication fees be part of that broader
discussion, and subsequent changes made in fees if/as indicated at that time.
Councilmember Willmus stated one reason he was supportive of
the increase was he didn't consider an additional $500 on the residential per
unit fee to be a significant deterrent. Also, Councilmember Willmus opined
that, given the considerable investment being made in the city's park system,
an additional 3% for commercial parcels was justified and substantiated the
Councilmember Etten stated his agreement with Councilmember
Willmus' comments; but if push came to shove, he'd agree to a midpoint figure.
However, Councilmember Etten stated he could not support retaining 2016 fee
levels for this area, given research done by staff resulting in finding other
neighboring communities also increasing their park dedication fees; with the
proposed Roseville fees in line with those rates. Councilmember Etten opined
that the slight increase should not dissuade someone from developing in
Roseville, and further opined that he found the proposed fees to be reasonable,
but reiterated that he could support an increase in-between 2016 and proposed 2017
rates, but not specifically the current motion by Mayor Roe.
Councilmember McGehee stated her issue was related more to
the use of park dedication fees, and stated that she would support these
proposed 2017 fees if she was ensured they would go to the CIP Fund and for
improvement of existing lands and buildings. However, Councilmember McGehee
opined that this didn't seem to be a consideration at this time; and questioned
why this only came up on an annual basis, suggesting that next year's
discussion related to park dedication fees be tied to the Park Dedication Fund
and how they were allocated.
Councilmember Laliberte stated she was supportive of an
increase in the park dedication fees, whether as proposed by staff or an
in-between amount as suggested by Councilmember Etten. Councilmember Laliberte
opined that the point had been more than proven that the city was now in a
situation with additional assets that needed to be taken into consideration as
to their maintenance; and further opined that the proposed fees were still
within the realm of reasonable. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that there are
obligations in how those funds are spent, that should be part of future
discussions going into 2017.
Mayor Roe stated that the point of his motion was to allow
for this discussion as part of a broader policy discussion; and while he
remained concerned about the proposed fees, his main intent was to facilitate
Etten, McGehee and Laliberte.
Mayor Roe called the original motion as stated (with no
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance
Summary No. 1516 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter
314.05, Fee Schedule: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule."
Roll Call (Super
Request to Amend City Code Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling
Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the RCA
detail, seeking a confirmation for preferences from the City Council.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no
one appearing to speak for or against.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, denial of the requested
change to City Code, Chapter 304 (Lawful Gambling) allowing for three
Councilmember McGehee opined that by leaving the ordinance
at two locations for one local, non-profit organization it provided more
opportunities for other community groups to participate. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her disappointment in the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association
(RAYHA) moving to Joe Sensor's Restaurant without adequately alerting or having
conversations with Minnesota Brass before then. Also, Councilmember McGehee
referenced the new Lucky's 13 coming in with their own service organization
right away, and not a local one; opining this was another example of the need
to keep a variety available.
Councilmember Willmus asked staff when the last
comprehensive and holistic review of this ordinance has been done.
Finance Director Miller advised that the last time was
approximately five years ago when RAYHA requested the change from one to two
locations; with only minor revisions made prior to that.
Councilmember Willmus stated that he might agree with
Councilmember McGehee; but his main intent in seconding the motion was to
consider a more thorough review of the ordinance to provide additional updates,
revisions or areas currently omitted; in other words making it time to review
the entire document.
Mayor Roe noted that earlier this year, the city had also
made a significant change to Section 304.04 of the Lawful Gambling Ordinance
related to changing the name of the organization to which the 10% funds are
applied, along with other minor revisions. Mayor Roe further noted that the
current ordinance language limited the number of premise permit holders to
eight; with that number having been as high as ten in the past.
Councilmember Willmus reiterated that his interest was
different than that of Councilmember McGehee in seeking staff, the City
Attorney, and the City Council to take a broader look at the entire ordinance.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he wasn't sure this was the time to approve
or deny the proposed ordinance; and instead suggested tabling action or leaving
the locations at two for now.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney
Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any portion of city code that would
prevent the RAYHA from applying again after the first of the year if the City
Council denied this request, and allowing a thorough review of the ordinance
and other potential amendments.
Mayor Roe opined that if the City Council denied this
ordinance change now and then reconsidered it at a later date, it would be in
violation of its own Rules and Procedures.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would need to review
that document further before advising the City Council specific to that.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City Council couldn't
reconsider the request after denial, but would need to start over.
Councilmember Willmus stated his inclination to table action
for a full review and then having the request brought back for reconsideration.
Councilmember Laliberte asked for language stating a
preference or deference to ensure monies stayed within Roseville; with City
Attorney Gaughan advising that was not a legal possibility.
Mayor Roe noted this addressed confusing language in City Code
(Chapter 301.01) related to an organization maintaining an address within the
city. Mayor Roe opined that if the purpose wasn't to require that an entity be
a Roseville charity, why include that requirement; since a premise permit in
Roseville would be for a premise in Roseville. Therefore, if an organization
was not limited by law to a charitable organization within the community in
which the premise permit was issued, Mayor Roe questioned why current language
required them to have a Roseville address.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus'
interest in a complete review and how charitable monies are spent by an
Mayor Roe clarified the purpose of the Roseville Community
Foundation's oversight of the 10% in charitable gambling proceeds under the
city's control under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Foundation.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING action on this
request to amend Title Three, Chapter 304 (Lawful Gambling) for a broader
ordinance review based on tonight's discussion.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing to Consider Approving 2017 Liquor License Renewals
Miller referenced the revised RCA, attached to the meeting packet,
now seeking approval for renewal of twenty-seven different liquor licenses for
2017. Mr. Miller advised that staff recommended approval, subject to
completion of any outstanding background checks still in process.
Mayor Roe opened
and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:04 p.m., with no one appearing
for or against.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the requested
liquor license renewals for 2017 as detailed in the RCA of today's date (Attachment
A as revised).
Adopt a Final 2017 Tax Levy and Budget
Trudgeon advised that beyond the detail provided in the RCA and attachments, he
and Finance Director Miller were both available to respond to questions as
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to display several
charts outlining recommended budget and levy numbers based on the City
Manager's Recommended Budget and revisions made based on City Council direction
and additional refinements made to assumptions as the 2016 year progressed
(pages 1 and 2 of the RCA). At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director
Miller confirmed that $405,000 in additional reserves was proposed for use in
2017 to lower levy and budget impacts for Roseville taxpayers. Mayor Roe clarified
how those reserves served to mitigate levies, while retaining the projected
range for reserves in accordance with current city policy.
Willmus pointed out an error between the narrative for the net levy increase on
the levy side on line 11 of the RCA and the chart, with the chart accurately
At the request of
Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller reviewed capital increases for
2017 in the amount of $160,000, but noted an additional $65,000 had been
allocated for additional pathway and parking lot maintenance for a total of
McGehee referenced use of reserves in 2017 in the amount of $375,000 for
tax-supported programs continued in the General Fund (page 2, lines 39 - 40).
Councilmember McGehee noted this had been the City Council's practice over the
last three years, and even though stating they were not going to repeat that
practice without paying those reserves back, an additional amount continued to
be spent from reserves annually. Councilmember McGehee suggested this process,
if to continue indefinitely, be made more straightforward and transparent for
Willmus referenced information provided to the City Council by Finance
Commission Chair Robin Schroeder that the current balance of reserve accounts
remained above the city's own mid-point goal (General, Parks, Community
Development, License Center, and Communications Funds) for a midpoint goal of
$3.6 million and over the maximum goal of $2.3 million. Also, during the
budget process and when looking at material costs, Councilmember Willmus noted
that while inflationary multipliers were built into the budget that may vary,
on a generalized basis, opined that the City Council typically budgeted and
levied beyond that inflationary point. In doing so, Councilmember Willmus
noted that healthy reserve balances continued; and therefore, this provided his
rationale in supporting spending down those reserves to bring them more in line
with targets and goals. Councilmember Willmus clarified that he had supporting
using those reserve dollars for levy relief and to funnel in part into the CIP;
and therefore, stated he would likely continue to do so given the same set of
Willmus asked for clarification, provided by Finance Director Miller, for use
of carryover funds from the 2016 to 2017 budget cycle of total estimated amount
($1,724,000) with $1.1 million from TIF, of which $800,000 had been allocated
for building replacement and roadway improvements (e.g. Snelling Avenue, Lydia
Avenue, and Lincoln Drive areas).
For the benefit
of the public, and as noted in his memorandum dated December 5, 2016 as part of
the RCA (Attachment D), page 2, Finance Director Miller referenced his 2016
results projected for the General Fund, prompting Councilmember Willmus'
comments about the projected $1,724,000 carry forward; of which $1.1 was tax
increment financing monies realized from decertifying a TIF district, from
which all cash had been distributed by Ramsey County to all taxing jurisdictions,
with the City of Roseville receiving their share accordingly.
Willmus noted this provided an additional $300,000 not previously allocated in
addition to original projected operating surpluses.
suggested that a potential tentative action by the City Council tonight was to
allocate the additional $300,000 not yet allocated but now available (Attachment
D), page 3. Mayor Roe noted the Park Fund had a similar situation for 2016,
coming in approximately $325,000 ahead of revenues collected versus expenditures.
To Councilmember Willmus' point specific to the memorandum provided by Finance
Commission Chair Schroeder, Mayor Roe with both the General Fund and Park &
Recreation Funds in terms of how much is available above and beyond that projected
mid-term, resulted in approximately $500,000 in additional monies between those
Specific to the
2017 levy, Councilmember Willmus noted that the proposed levy increase was
proposed at $1,460,240 (RCA, page 1) or a 5.52% levy increase between 2016 and
2017. Councilmember Willmus proposed a target increase of 3% for a dollar levy
of $568,342, utilizing a reduction in cost of living adjustment (COLA) for
non-union employees from the City Manager Recommended 2.75% to 2% resulting in
a dollar reduction from $263,000 to $191,000 (RCA chart, page 1).
Laliberte seconded, utilizing an additional $406,110 in 2016 carry forward
monies to the 2017 budget and levy to reduce the total net levy increase to
$568,340 and to reduce the 2017 COLA for non-union employees to 2% rather than
the staff-recommended 2.75%.
Laliberte agreed that repurposing the annual carryover funds made sense. Also,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council had yet to follow its
policy for COLA; and agreed with Councilmember Willmus that a 2% increase more
closely follows the policy than the proposed 2.75%; therefore, she stated she
supported Councilmember Willmus' motion.
McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for what she stated was a variety of
reasons. Councilmember McGehee noted that, in the course of 2016, she had made
two proposals which together could have saved every residential property owner
of a median priced home approximately $400 annually. However, Councilmember
McGehee noted that the City Council had chosen not to support her proposals or
act on either one; but instead had chosen to present a 2017 budget and levy for
which those same residents would pay more. Councilmember McGehee opined that
neither of her proposals reduced any amenities in any way or diminish what
residents continued to desire in their community; and would have in fact helped
many residents with a less than median valued single-family home.
McGehee stated that she strongly supported staff and would continue to do so,
opining that they were the community's primary asset.
McGehee stated another example was the License Center that provided benefits to
the community, and was highlighted by customers by noting their satisfaction
with customer service and service by city staff.
McGehee stated that she had sat with this City Council when it authorized and
received a comparative study for staffing related to compensation with other
communities, indicating the need for improved parity. However, even after
receiving those results, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council
continued to annually languish in taking action to retain non-union staff at
98% of the average of peer cities; and year after year continuing to heap
insult on injury with this type of proposal, essentially saying the city's
non-union staff is not worthy to be at 100% parity with employees in peer
cities performing similar jobs and establishing a policy of 98% of the average.
In addition moving forward from that point three years ago the Council has annually
chosen to give non-union staff less COLA than other peer cities. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this pattern of COLA reduction has continued to depress
staff salaries in terms of their parity with peer cities, and with the
projected levy increases of those peers (Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park for
example) and with comparable retail businesses proposing a 7% levy increase for
2017. Having suggested several options to reduce the levy and burden on
taxpayers, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not happy to do so on the
back of the city's non-union staff; stating that she hadn't approved of the
original convoluted way the City Council had initiated its policy.
Councilmember McGehee noted that those previously identified cities were
offering their employees 3% and 2.7% COLA respectively; and for the City of
Roseville to propose a 2% COLA, when looking at 2.75% for the Police and
maintenance workers was not appropriate. Councilmember McGehee offered her
interest in looking at other ways to reduce the levy and budget, but reiterated
that this wasn't going to be one of them.
Willmus opined that when reviewing the policy and what had been done with COLA
over the last few years, staff was significantly ahead of that policy.
Councilmember Willmus further opined that it was a disservice to attempt to
paint a picture that wasn't supported by facts.
McGehee opined that this was what Councilmember Willmus was attempting to do
between the policy and actuality over those same years; when larger COLA
adjustments had been made for only a few employees of the City when the
compensation study found them to be even less comparable than the majority of
city employees. That COLA was provided to few select employees to bring them up
closer to 98% from the 90% of average where they were at the time of the study.
At the request of
Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller reported on the various union
contracts for 2017 as follows: firefighters at 2% COLA, and all others (Police
Sergeants, Police Officers, and 49'ers Maintenance) at 2.75%.
Etten stated he did not support the City Manager-Recommended Budget in the COLA
area; but stated he also did not support Councilmember Willmus' motion.
Etten noted that he had lost the previous battle in not personally supporting
the use of $400,000 in reserves; and therefore didn't support the proposed use
of another $406,000 in additional reserves. While not having a problem
allocating $406,000 for CIP uses, Councilmember Etten opined that using over
$800,000 from reserves was not a responsible way to fund ongoing costs, when
those expenses would need to be levied for at some point going forward. If looking
to the community to pay with one-time monies, Councilmember Etten opined that
it didn't make sense for budgeted operating costs, but did make more sense
applying them toward CIP costs already known and not projected. However,
Councilmember Etten noted that while it may be reducing levy percentages for
the short-term, eventually those costs would need to be paid. By paying for
them now and leaving them at an amount proposed by the City Manager, Councilmember
Etten opined that the City Council was paying for ongoing budgets with ongoing
dollars, which he found to be a responsible practice.
deficits, Councilmember Etten reviewed surpluses and deficits for each year
from 2013 going forward; and opined that staff had been presenting a balanced
budget taking those variables into account over those years. Over the last few
years, Councilmember Etten opined that staff had been responsible in their use
of public monies and had not gone outside what they had been directed to do by
the City Council. Councilmember Etten reiterated that using one-time monies to
address ongoing expenses was not a responsible budget process unless something
else was removed from the budget to do so.
Etten stated that he was not supportive of cutting staff pay.
McGehee seconded what Councilmember Etten stated regarding allocation; and
while having no problem allocating reserve funds to the CIP, opined that it had
to be levied for and to ensure taking care of ongoing expenses. Councilmember
McGehee noted that the City Council needed to levy for those additional and
ongoing expenses since they weren't going to go away; and the city needed to be
cognizant that unexpected windfalls weren't guaranteed annually. As noted by
Councilmember Etten, the actual budget and revenue was pretty close every year,
but the CIP continued to be a challenge.
proposals for the levy, Councilmember Willmus encouraged a substantial
allocation to CIP needs with some of the remaining carry forward available; and
as a potential discussion item as part of the next step in the budget process
Specific to the
CIP point made, Councilmember Etten noted that 20% of the levy increase after
the first $400,000 of one-time money should be considered by the City Council
as a separate issue and not part of the rampant increase in inflation and daily
operations of the city. Councilmember Etten noted that this was addressing key
things not previously taken care of in past decades and included the $225,000;
and represented even less of a levy for extra expenses versus taking care of
massive CIP needs. By using this much from reserves, Councilmember Etten noted
that the city didn't have another $400,000 or an $800,000 windfall projected
at the end of 2017 to make up for or justify cutting the levy percentage, and
therefore should be put back in the mix for 2018's budget process. If not,
Councilmember Etten noted that the city would be starting from a 2.55% hole if
it approved that part of the Councilmember Willmus motion; severely limiting
what the city could do in 2018 without any other inflationary considerations or
other unknown or scheduled needs. Councilmember Etten opined that this did
nothing more than defer these problems long-term further down the road versus
taking care of CIP needs in the short term.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that of the $405,000 reserve use
proposed in the City Manager-recommended budget, $30,000 was set aside for the
transportation plan as part of the comprehensive plan update (a one-time use)
with the remaining $375,000 or reserves allotted to plug the deficit. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that the reserve funds were not set aside for CIP use.
With $225,000 in
additional dollars for CIP, Councilmember Etten noted some level was involved
in making up that difference - an additional $800,000 versus $400,000 - and
suggested all be allocated toward CIP needs to address a significant deficit in
several of those funds or as much as possible. Councilmember Etten opined that
this would serve to take care of future levies and general budget needs.
Laliberte opined that these reserves are taxpayer dollars that have already
been levied, not a windfall, but already paid to the city. However, Councilmember
Laliberte agreed that it was a great idea to put those reserves toward CIP
needs; but clarified that from her perspective the city had over-levied and
that was why the reserves were available now; with this action serving to address
City's COLA policy, Councilmember Laliberte clarified that this City Council
had created that policy and could revisit it at any time. Since it has been
approved, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there had been no recommendations
to follow it from staff or the City Council. If inflation is tracking at 1.5%,
Councilmember Laliberte asked if the City Council was supporting a 2% COLA, how
could it be said that the city didn't value its staff; while if planning a COLA
at 3% that double the rate of inflation, it wasn't necessary.
Specific to the
business of the reserves being taxpayer monies resulting from the city
over-levying, Councilmember McGehee disagreed with that perspective, especially
given the reality of three CIP funds currently running off the cliff, indicating
that the city hasn't been taking care of ongoing business needs year after
year, and now attempting to address it versus pushing it off further and not
resolving the problem. Councilmember McGehee opined that she had been the only
council member providing significant ideas to address expenditures. Councilmember
McGehee opined that the city had not over-levied or wasted taxpayer monies, but
had long-neglected infrastructure issues and were trying to protect services in
the community. Councilmember McGehee noted it was repeatedly supported by
taxpayers that they wanted their parks system, and therefore they needed to be
maintained since they hadn't been in many past years.
Etten referenced an email he received earlier from Finance Director Miller
noting the $1.1 reserves from 2012 to 2016, it represented a total net increase
of $27,650 to the General Fund, opining that confirmed staff wasn't far off in
their annual budgeting; and dropped reserve levels accordingly. Councilmember
Etten opined that the perception that the city was overtaxing its residents
served to create a misunderstanding with this one-time money, which was not a
windfall but unanticipated TIF monies with a specific program and situation targeted.
Councilmember Etten further noted that of that reserve amount $356,000 belonged
in the 2015 budget levy due to delayed tax proceeds because of pending tax
appeals, and shouldn't really count as an overtax for the 2016 budget year. Councilmember
Etten opined that the responsible action would be to put the monies toward CIP
dollars to reduce future levies; since the goal and real purpose should be for
thoughtful budgeting. Councilmember Etten reiterated that he didn't support
using money for ongoing budget allocations to reduce the levy with a one-time
Willmus clarified that with his next proposal, the city still had the ability
to allocate as much as $518,000 toward CIP needs.
Etten opined that it still didn't address nor was it relevant to the philosophical
question of how much was proposed for use for ongoing expenses. Even if
$900,000 was allocated to CIP from these reserves, Councilmember Etten noted
that there was still a need of $20 million in the CIP over the next twenty
years, and one way or the other, they were still taxpayer dollars. While Councilmember
Willmus' proposal may avoid a budget shift by reducing the levy percentage now,
Councilmember Etten opined that the city would simply have to pay for it at one
point, and it will come due.
Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus to clarify the $518,000 proposed by him
as part of the next discussion.
Willmus clarified that his proposal would be to use $406,000 from the carry
forward funds to offset the levy, with a remaining $300,000 still remaining
unallocated from TIF.
Manager Trudgeon's recommended 2.75% COLA for 2017 was not chosen randomly,
Mayor Roe asked City Manager Trudgeon to address the rationale behind his
Trudgeon noted references by individual council members already related to the
previous compensation study findings with a number of employees significantly
below peer comparisons; and the City Council's policy established in 2013 for
Roseville city employees set at 98% of the average. With that policy in mind,
Mr. Trudgeon reported that current comparisons to peer communities indicated
that Roseville had still fallen behind the average at 1.45%, or approximately
96% of the policy guidelines. For 2017, Mr. Trudgeon reported that average
COLA for peer communities was 2.56%; and in consideration of current policy
guidelines using CPI and ECI indexes, compensation studies, peer city and employee
market comparisons, recommended that the City Council reconsider and avoid
further slippage with a 2% COLA, even if not fully supporting his recommendation
City Manager Trudgeon noted this was also a fairness or equity issue with real
numbers for union and non-union employees; with non-union employees continuing
behind union employees; with a 2% COLA only further increasing that disparity.
Mr. Trudgeon also cautioned that the city was required to abide by state law
regarding pay equity requirements for the male/female pay equity, with significant
penalties applied if found out of compliance, possibly up to $10,000 per day.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the unions were predominantly male, and non-union employees
predominantly female, further exacerbating the equity issue, and noted the
challenges in addressing those equity issues. While understanding the City Council's
need to moderate the budget, Mr. Trudgeon asked that they consider at a minimum
a 2.5% COLA for 2017 if unable to support his recommended 2.75% in order to
stay in part with other peer cities.
From a process
point of view with the motion currently on the table, Mayor Roe reviewed
options for City Council consideration: propose motions to amend this motion
and see how they're voted, or to vote on this motion as is and then follow-up
with subsequent motions accordingly.
Manager Trudgeon's comments, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was obviously
demonstrable that the adopted policy was not being supported or followed by the
Mayor Roe noted
that he had historically not supported using reserves to cover operating costs,
but had agreed that using reserves for some one-time costs made sense.
However, Mayor Roe admitted that his thinking had also evolved during those
years, and two things were pushing that: one the carry forward from 2015 and
2016 dollars representing levied dollars collected, and therefore leading him
to feel they were appropriate to use in situations where a projected annual
levy increase in a particular year was more notable than desired.
Mayor Roe noted
that the city at one time had a Taxpayer Relief Fund established for that very
purpose to bank those unanticipated windfalls, earn interest on them at a time
when there was noticeable interest to be earned, and then use that interest to
pay down future levy increases. However, Mayor Roe noted that, in 2007 of
2008, the City Council at that time had decided to roll that fund into the General
Fund and eliminate using it that way based on interest earnings being so negligible.
Therefore, Mayor Roe noted that the General Fund had benefited since then, and
money collected in it had been levied, making him believe it was appropriate to
provide some relief to taxpayers going into 2017. Mayor Roe stated that his
primary reasoning was in recognizing fee increases in the utility side, and his
attempt to look at ways to avoid, reduce or control those fees.
Mayor Roe thanked
Finance Director Miller for providing the additional back-up information and
staff's basis for the recommended changes; but stated that he also wanted to
provide the rationale for his personal thinking and his interest in providing
some levy reduction for 2017 since the dollars were available to do so. Mayor
Roe stated there was an obvious need to annually review past income and its
sources and be realistic about the impact, and then act accordingly in upcoming
years. By winding down some of the increases proposed as part of the CIP funding
process that were put in place through levy increases in 2011 and 2012, Mayor
Roe opined that by using some of those reserves for the CIP Fund and addressing
Park CIP needs as well, it could provide some levy relief to several of those
funds still in somewhat precarious situations.
Specific to the
COLA situation, Mayor Roe recognized the policy in place, with the CPI index at
1.5%, and Councilmember Willmus' recommended 2% a little ahead of that, but the
City Manager's recommended 2.75 too far ahead from his perspective. Mayor Roe
stated that he would be amenable to something in between, but would still
suggest any COLA increase be funded from carry forward monies.
Mayor Roe stated his support for using carry forward funding, and allocating
any additional carry forward not yet allotted for the CIP. Mayor Roe clarified
that all decisions were not necessary tonight, but could be accomplished
through subsequent Council actions in 2017 with those additional reserves remaining
in the General Fund until such action is taken. Mayor Roe stated that he could
support Councilmember Willmus' motion; with the caveat that the City Council
pay close attention in the next several years with the levy and funding city
activities, since he didn't support the proposal lightly without that annual
check in place.
Etten clarified that the actual carry forward from 208 to 2012 was in reality
only $28,000, not the $800,000 presented by his colleague.
to the Motion (Etten)
McGehee seconded, using only an additional $200,000 from reserves, or one-time
money beyond staff's proposal; and allowing a 2.25% COLA increase for non-union
employees in 2017; adjusting the levy increase accordingly.
Miller estimated that by reducing the COLA to 2.25% for non-union employees, it
would represent a change of $50,000; and if using another $200,000 from
reserves, it would total $600,000; and result in a 4.2% levy increase versus
the 3% proposed by Councilmember Willmus through his motion; and provide just
under $800,000 for the 2017 levy increase.
McGehee opined it was a compromise, and she didn't like it.
Willmus opined that his proposal for a 3% levy increase was still running three
times the rate of inflation over the last twelve months, and spoke in support
of his original proposal; while stating he might be inclined to adjust the COLA
to 2.25% as long as the 3% levy increase was covered overall through carry
Laliberte stated her support for a 2.25% COLA, as she wasn't comfortable with
Councilmember Willmus' 2%, nor was she comfortable with City Manager Trudgeon's
2.75% increase; and stated her agreement in taking the monies from carry
forward funds and keeping the 2017 levy increase at 3%.
clarified that that was not what was proposed in the current motion on the
Since only a
portion was coming from inflationary increases, Councilmember Etten noted that
the city would still continue dealing with a CIP deficit over the next twenty
years. Councilmember Etten stated that other considerations beyond inflation
needed to be factored into how the City Council thought about the annual budget
and future city needs, recognizing that those increases were not just inflationary
McGehee seconded Councilmember Etten's comments. Furthermore, Councilmember
McGehee stated that she found the discussion of staff compensation particularly
egregious, opining that anyone supporting the original motion should not
support any additional city assets until the city was in a position that it
didn't need to use reserves for ongoing expenses. Councilmember McGehee opined
that the city had over-reached and through past bonding, had created ongoing
expenses year after year that were unattainable in its annual levy without
dipping into reserves or setting a taxpayer levy accordingly to pay for its
assets. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this represented a complete
lie and misuse of taxpayer funds to purchase assets it couldn't afford and then
compounding it by use of reserves to fulfill that ongoing budget. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this provided a clear indication that the City Council was
not making progress in addressing these needs.
Mayor Roe spoke
in opposition to this motion for the reasons he had outlined in his previous
Call (Etten Amendment)
Laliberte and Roe.
the Motion (Willmus)
Laliberte seconded, amendment to his original motion to reduce COLA from the
recommended 2.75% to 2.25% and making up that difference with carry forward
funds to retain a 3% overall levy increase for 2017, through using $56,000 in reserves.
Call (Willmus Amendment)
Etten and Roe.
Call (Original Motion)
Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.
McGehee and Etten.
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11382 (Attachment B) entitled,
"Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for
2017 Bonded Debt" at a total of $3,330,000.00.
Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution
No. 11383 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution Adopting the Final 2017 Annual
Budget for the City of Roseville;" amended to reduce the budget by $72,000
to establish the 2017 budget in the amount of $51,963,685, of which $29,272,090
is designated for property tax-supported programs.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: McGehee and Etten.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution
No. 11381 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Final Property
Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for Fiscal year 2017;" amended
from the draft to further reduce "Programs and Services" by an additional
$72,000 representing a 2017 COLA at 2% for a revised amount of $16,183,000;
achieving a 2017 total levy increase of 3% and setting the 2017 tax levy total
Recognizing the reality of previous motion amendments,
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion.
Etten, Laliberte and Roe.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:06 p.m.,
and reconvened at approximately 8:12 p.m.
Business Items (Action Items)
Adopt the 2017 Final Roseville Economic Development Authority
(REDA) Tax Levy
City Manager Trudgeon and Finance Director Miller referenced
the RCA, noting the information was the same as presented and preliminarily
adopted at the September 2016 meeting. Mr. Trudgeon advised that REDA staff
and the EDA attorney were in the audience to respond to any questions of the
For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe further noted that
the City Council, in their role as REDA, had met earlier this year to discuss
the proposed 2017 REDA levy and budget, with this action in line with the
decisions made at that time.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager
Trudgeon confirmed that the proposed action for the REDA would in actuality
reallocate funds for an REDA reserve in the amount of $124,000.
Community Development Director Collins concurred, advising
that in effect, this 35% reserve amount of $124,804 was not in reserve in 2016,
but the goal for 2017 was to transfer that amount into an REDA reserve from the
current Revolving Loan Program.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11384 (Attachment) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Special Property Tax
Levy for the Benefit of the Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA), on
Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for Fiscal year 2017;" in the amount
Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments
Finance Director Miller briefly summarized this RCA request.
Mayor Roe referenced the chart at the top of page 2 (RCA
detailing utility rate impacts for a typical single-family home per quarter as
a result of these adjustments.
Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment on this
item, with no one appearing to speak.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11385 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Establishing the 2017 Utility Rates" as presented.
While this is the only way to achieve the desired results,
Councilmember McGehee noted that a fee was essentially the same as a tax.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that obviously there were
contributing factors that put the city in this position as had been discussed
frequently in the past and pooled with other budget and levy discussion and
Mayor Roe thanked city staff for providing a background for
the new rates (Attachment B) related to both base and operating rates to
further inform the decision-making process.
Approve New Positions
Trudgeon reviewed each position as previously discussed with the City Council
by him and various Department Heads, and as detailed in the RCA of today's
Mayor Roe noted
that monies for these positions had been authorized by the City Council through
their previous budget actions.
Laliberte asked for further elaboration, at a later date, from the Police
Department on needs and capacity for crime analysis in general being done today
and whether or not that is adequate; as well as who was performing those tasks
and if that negatively impacted their ability to perform their other work.
Laliberte asked Fire Chief O'Neill to address the considerable turnover of
on-call firefighters and retirements within the Fire Department and whether or
not that had been anticipated or how it impacted the ongoing discussion and
planned transitions from a part-time to full-time firefighter department.
O'Neill advised that the majority of the reduction in part-time positions and
attrition continued to be, as anticipated, through retirements, along with some
taking positions with other communities, or deciding to no longer serve in
order to spend more time with their families. Chief O'Neill reported that four
years ago, the department was staffed with 62 part-time firefighters, and with
tonight's action, were now at approximately 32 part-time firefighters. Chief
O'Neill advised that this was in line with projections that the department
would experience about ten part-time firefighters per year over the next few
years and then slow down as current employees moved closer to their employment
milestones or reached retirement age.
With the number
of part-time firefighters at 32 going into 2017, Councilmember Laliberte asked if
the department had achieved that number faster than anticipated.
responded that it was what had been anticipated, with at least a ten-person
turnover annually; adding that he had already been made aware of four pending
retirements coming during the first part of 2017.
Mayor Roe asked
Chief O'Neill for a preview of the department's 2018 plan as part of the
provided a brief summary of this Phase 4 of five phases for full transition of
the department from part- to full-time with five positions; advising a more
detailed, thirty-five to forty-minute presentation and update was planned in
February or March of 2017 at a City Council Worksession. Chief O'Neill advised
that this would include background of where the department had been, how it got
to its current operational model, and the next or final step needed in 2018.
Chief O'Neill noted that the steps thus far had been cost-neutral, but reported
that the 2018 final step would probably not be cost-neutral, and therefore
would need a more detailed look and decision-making by the City Council. Chief
O'Neill advised that staff intended the presentation to the City Council before
they delved too deep into the 2018 budget discussions; and would provide a
preview of 2018 and steps beyond to ensure everyone was on the same page, and
still in line with the original plan to achieve that fifth phase for 24
full-time firefighters within that timeline and whether or not the City Council
is still comfortable with that and with the department's continued rationale
for that staffing level.
As part of that
presentation, Councilmember McGehee asked that they would also include options
for differences in increasing to full-time staff and use of on-call
firefighters as required, and how that can come together.
duly noted that request, advising that he would provide cost information associated
Specific to the
new positions requested in the Administration Department, Councilmember McGehee
further requested that City Manager Trudgeon provide a revised organizational
chart, opining that the department appeared to her "chief heavy" as proposed.
Trudgeon responded that the chart had not yet been created, but advised that it
would be shortly if tonight's request is approved.
clarified that the idea in the requested reorganization was that direct reports
within the Administration Department would report to the Assistant City Manager
with essentially only Department Heads reporting directly to the City Manager.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the newly-created
positions as detailed in the RCA of today's date; and authorizing staff to
begin the process of recruiting and filling the newly-created positions, as
approved with adoption of 2017 budget.
Authorize Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States
Department of Agriculture for the Purpose of Deer Reduction
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly
summarized this request as detailed in the RCA of today's date, reporting that
the agreement had been reviewed by the City Attorney, and proposed four
different sites within Roseville.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller
confirmed that funds for this would be taken from General Fund reserves.
Mayor Roe provided an opportunity for public comment on this
item, with no one appearing to speak. City Manager Trudgeon noted the receipt
of written comment on this issue from Carol Kough, provided as a bench handout attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Cooperative
Service Agreement between the City of Roseville and the United States
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Wildlife Services (WS) No. 17 7227 8089 RV; WBS: AP.RA.RX27.72.0117 (Attachment
A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document,
contingent upon final City Attorney approval.
Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to this plan
until the feeding ban approved by the City Council had a chance to work and
animals given the opportunity to relocate. Councilmember McGehee also
expressed her concern with the timing for the shoot between January and March
of 2017, at which time pregnant does would be shot.
Mr. Brokke also assured Councilmember McGehee that shooters
were able to differentiate and not shoot pregnant deer.
Councilmember Laliberte referenced the financial plan (Attachment
B) and denoting 125 White Tail Deer, and why that particular number had been
chosen. Councilmember Laliberte also asked why the length of term in referred
from December to September when the work was confined to the months between
January and March in the contract itself.
Mr. Brokke clarified that it was simply a reference to do
with the number of deer repeatedly observed on average, and not a number in the
contract. Specific to the term addressed, Mr. Brokke advised that this was the
standard agreement for the Department of Agriculture in their Cooperative
Service Agreements and not necessarily the target time period for eradication.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke
advised that donation of the processed deer would be determined by the DNR and
Department of Agriculture through a list of needy families in the area, with
Roseville families given the first opportunity before moving down the list of
needy families previously identified by those agencies. Mr. Brokke confirmed that
the processing costs of the deer meet wound not be an additional cost to the
City of Roseville but part of the other agency's cost of doing business.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that the proposed costs were
for reducing the herd to twenty.
Mr. Brokke advised that while projections focused on twenty,
as recommendations by the DNR, Department of Agriculture, and Ramsey County,
they were based on different times and the number of visits made to the site.
Mr. Brokke advised that the agencies anticipated reducing the deer population
by up to five per night per visit, thus their number of twenty. In general,
Mr. Brokke reported that the number was based on bringing the deer population
back to a reasonable habitat number of between 15 - 19 deer versus current
estimates of a population of fifty-two deer in the Roseville area.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that she always felt the
lower population of 15 - 19 deer was what the community was able to tolerate in
Mayor Roe opined that even reducing the herd to 32 would
still make them above the target of 15-19 deer. Mayor Roe further opined that
even with historical deer population counts prior to a few years ago in the
30-40 range, the city hadn't fielded near the complaints or dealt with the
issues it had of late. Even if the habitat was not able to support that many,
Mayor Roe opined that at least this initial reduction in the population would
bring things more in line with past years and fewer conflicts with residents.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated that she was comfortable
getting the deer population levels to the previously more tolerable levels.
Mayor Roe noted the grey area in needing to balance the
humaneness and theoretical habitat that could be supported with those who
enjoyed having the deer within the community, each having their own valid
points of view.
Mayor Roe thanked the Parks & Recreation Commission and
Mr. Brokke for their work on this issue; and thanked the public for their
feedback and public discussion throughout the process.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Pet Store Licensing
As detailed in the RCA and related attachments, City Manager
Trudgeon provided an updated draft ordinance regarding the sale of dogs and
cats by pet stored (Attachment B), as modeled by the Humane Society of America,
Animal Folks Minnesota and the Animal Humane Society. Since this
citizen-requested ordinance was a result of media coverage about conditions of
animals being sold at the Har Mar Mall Pet Store in Roseville, Mr. Trudgeon
advised that the owner was in attendance tonight, as he had been at the September
19, 2106 City Council meeting (Meeting minutes attached as Attachment A), to
present his viewpoint. Mr. Trudgeon sought direction to staff; noting that
City Attorney Gaughan had reviewed the draft ordinance and may also have
Mayor Roe recognized City Attorney Gaughan at this time, who
advised that his review at this point had not been in-depth depending on the
direction of the City Council. However, Mr. Gaughan encouraged the City
Council to think about what it was trying to accomplish before getting into too
deep of a discussion about a potential ordinance, given that this is ordinance
would serve as a criminal ordinance, with past discussions having taken place
as to the limitations of such a law used as a regulatory enforcement
mechanism. Once the City Council defines its preferred intent and direction to
staff, Mr. Gaughan advised that he could then highlight some of those
limitations and points within this proposed ordinance.
As part of his review of public comment protocol and
process, Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council was not being asked to adopt
an ordinance tonight, but simply to provide feedback and direction to staff in
the context of this proposed ordinance model. Mayor Roe stated that he was
interested to hear additional public comment tonight from the audience, at
which time things could change further.
Councilmember McGehee stated that the most helpful thing to
her at this point would be to hear in particular from people with experience in
ways to handle this situation or suggestions to help the City Council in their
subsequent discussion rather than elaborating on the background of puppy mills,
but to provide useful information from which to frame future discussions or
Mayor Roe agreed that was a very well-stated objective put
forth by Councilmember McGehee.
Written email comment specific to this issue had been
received and provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, as follows:
Dated December 4, 2016 Diane Hilden; Roseville resident,
in support of a humane pet store model; dated December 1, 2016 from Bonnie,
Roseville resident, in support of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of dogs and
cats acquired from breeding facilities; dated December 1, 2016 from Ward &
Cindy Schwie, Roseville residents, in support of a humane ordinance in
Roseville; and dated December 5, 2016 from Sara Barsel and Randy Neprash,
Roseville residents, in support of a human pet store ordinance model.
Christine Coughlin, MN State Director, The Humane Society
of the United States, 2615 34th Avenue S, Mpls., MN (HSA)
Ms. Coughlin referenced her previous attendance at the
September 2016 City Council meeting and discussion at that time around this
humane model ordinance regulating Roseville pet stores. Ms. Coughlin advised
that this model was a collaborative effort of the HSA, addressing the origin of
pets arriving for sale and responsible breeders not selling to pet stores. Ms.
Coughlin reviewed challenges with the well-established pipeline offering pets
from mass breeding facilities to pet stores, and their lack of compliance with
federal standards; noting their organization received a constant stream of
complaints about those facilities. Ms. Coughlin stated her confidence that
their model ordinance worked, and provided for a viable business-friendly
option through collaboration with shelters and rescues to offer pets to the
public. Ms. Coughlin assured the City Council and Roseville community that the
ordinance had been drafted thoughtfully, and proven to work as it had been
upheld in district and state courts on its constitutional grounds. Ms.
Coughlin noted other speakers from tonight's audience to offer their real world
experience with this issue; and advised that since the September discussion,
twenty-five more American cities had passed an ordinance similar to this model,
now making that total 205.
Angel Duart, Angel's Pet World, with locations in two
Ms. Duart reviewed her experience with their stores, with the
first opened in 2003/2004 and their subsequent decision in 2010 to go the
humane route to acquire puppies.
Ms. Duart stated that, in the six to seven years they sold
puppies, they were initially unaware about mills and rescues, but in the end
realized they were frequently and repeatedly dealing with multiple health
issues from puppies purchased from mass breeders. Ms. Duart noted those health
problems often required 24/7 care by staff from a variety problems and diseases
related to neglect, and many from genetic conditions whether or not that could
be proven. Ms. Duart advised that this became very expensive for them as well
as new pet owners with veterinary care; and therefore they had decided to get
away from that practice. Ms. Duart reported that the State of Wisconsin didn't
have similar regulatory laws at that time, but followed those already
established in Minnesota. Ms. Duart noted that she frequently covered
veterinary bills for new pet owners; and typically was unable to prove genetic
conditions even with a veterinarian's concurrence to seek recourse from the
larger breeders, and if then typically only up to a $400 purchase price. Ms.
Duart noted that it wasn't unusual for their company to have from $45,000 to
$80,000 in veterinary bills annually, not counting those covered by pet owners
Ms. Duart admitted it was scary when first going the humane
route; but also noted that if a pet was returned to the mass breeder it was
typically put down anyway; so in taking a big leap of faith, they did so. To
this day, Ms. Duart reported that they had developed great relationships and
partnerships as a result of their decision to go the cat and dog rescue and
adoption route; developed creative ideas for marketing and selling; and
continued to grow their customer base and sales.
Ms. Duart clarified that a certification from mass breeders
didn't mean much at all; and had proven to not be right for animals or for
Ann Frenchick, 449 Woodhill Drive
Ms. Frenchick provided her summary of dialogue and comments
from Roseville residents that she had extracted from NextDoor.com, presented as
a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Ms. Frenchick advised
that, since she didn't have permission from those submitting statements to the
online site, she hadn't identified the authors, but assured the City Council
that they were direct quotes since the September 2016 discussion by the city.
Ms. Frenchick asked the City Council to support an ordinance
to stop pet sales in Roseville from commercial breeding facilities. Ms.
Frenchick spoke to her personal experience from observing the Har Mar Pet Shop,
especially the stench that initially got her involved. Ms. Frenchick opined
this HSA model ordinance was a good model to follow and would allow the current
practice in Roseville by offering adoption events in a humane manner that every
pet store should follow. Ms. Frenchick stated that she wanted Roseville to be
a leader in humane pet sales.
Anne Sumner, 228 W County Road B
Ms. Sumner expressed her agreement with the previous
speakers, stating that she felt strongly about this too.
Ann Olson, Executive Director, Animal Folks Minnesota - Legislative Action, 892 Osceola Avenue, St. Paul, MN
Ms. Olson referenced her personal research on puppy mills
and stated her full support for the model ordinance to avoid harm to animals
and consumers. Ms. Olson reported on kennels and their length, stating that
Minnesota had some of the largest, with approximately 1,000 breeders in several
Minnesota communities, along with other USDA licensed breeders and others
throughout the United States and supplying pet stores. Ms. Olson opined that
this ordinance provided a huge opportunity for the city to promote a humane
business model and prevent consumers from purchasing sick pets.
When assisting to construct and support this HSA model
ordinance, Ms. Olson noted their research about canine and feline health to
keep animals well, which this model supported, under advisement of their
Ms. Olson encouraged the City Council to keep the ordinance
brief and pattern legal language similarly to that of the model, but primarily
focusing on three areas: prohibiting purchase from commercial facilities;
allowing for an adoption phase; and requiring a certificate of source (e.g.
cage card). Ms. Olson offered her organization's assistance to the city with
additional research at their request.
Mary LaHay, 1321 - 41st Street, Des Moines, IA
Ms. LaHay noted that pet stores originated in USDA-licensed
facilities in her state of Iowa; and advised that having the misfortune of
being home to the second largest number o breeders in the nation, actions taken
by Minnesota also directly affected the kennel situation in Iowa.
Ms. LaHay reported that she had been monitoring kennels for
eight years; and opined that the reality was even worse than those issues being
reported or than most people were aware of. Having visited several kennels
that had recently passed USDA inspections, Ms. LaHay reported on some of the things
she had witnessed, opining the conditions and findings would not be acceptable
to any reasonably compassionate person. Ms. LaHay admitted that compliance at
those facilities was woefully inadequate with conditions seriously affecting
dogs; and asked that the City of Roseville adopt an ordinance, reiterating that
it would impact conditions in Minnesota and in Iowa.
Damaris Welles, 224 Cottonwood N, St. Paul, MN, Metro
Chair of Red Lake Rosie's Rescue
Ms. Welles reported that for the last nine years, she had
worked to bring unwanted and stray animals from the Red Lake Indian Reservation
to the Twin Cities for fostering and adoption, averaging about 830 animals
annually. Ms. Welles advised that their organization relied on adoption
opportunities with Petco and Chuck & Don's, garnering valuable interaction
and partnerships. Ms. Welles noted that many of the animals had special needs,
having experienced trauma and abuse, and while all their rescue animals are
highlighted online, many people overlook them in that venue versus meeting them
along with other animals and discovering their wonderful personalities perfect
for companionship. Ms. Welles noted that these stores promote events, which
also brings in additional customers for them. However, without those adoption
events (e.g. Cages for Cats), it would be much harder to find good homes for
animals. Ms. Welles opined that this model ordinance was easy to implement and
would provide a win-win for the community and consumers.
Katy Mock, Chief Government Affairs and Community
Engagement Officer, Animal Humane Society, 402 Ford Road, St. Louis Park, MN
Ms. Mock reported that their organization has a 95%
placement rate in other metropolitan communities using this type of ordinance
model; and stated she and many involved in the organization were present in
tonight's audience to lend their support to encourage the City Council to pass
this ordinance to require that all pet stores in Roseville transition into this
humane pet store model. Ms. Mock reported that the HSA has two full-time investigators
working to stop the sale of puppy mill dogs in Minnesota; and opined that this
was a great opportunity for the City of Roseville to take a leadership role in
Daniel Bade, 1106 62nd Avenue N, Brooklyn
Center, MN, Happy Tails Rescue in Fridley
Mr. Bade reported on the work of his organization in
providing a solution to rescue animals. Mr. Bade noted that just last week,
the organization had received a call from Texas where a significant number of
dogs were scheduled to be euthanized, but instead had been transported to
Minnesota. Mr. Bade advised that each animal receives a health certificate
before their transport, and upon arrival, they are vetted by over 200
volunteers. Mr. Bade assured the City Council that by approving this ordinance
they wouldn't be taking away the supply of dogs, but opined that the humane
model worked, and provide fully vetted and healthy dogs; and would more keep
the supply going and a pet store thriving.
Lindsay Madvig, 245 17th Avenue NW, New
Based on her personal experience in purchasing pet store
dogs, Ms. Madvig reported on expensive health issues she'd undertaken. Ms.
Madvig reported that she now served to foster pets through a rescue, and noting
how heartbreaking some of the situations were, asked that the City Council take
under serious consideration making this decision.
Carol Kough, Roseville
Having been involved in animal rescue for over thirty years
and investigating for the USDA for five years, Ms. Kough addressed some of her
experiences with these USDA inspected mass breeders given a limited number of
inspectors in the U.S., and dogs she'd encountered that had been sold for
research. Ms. Kough noted that she had worked with the U of MN and the Mayo
Clinic; and asked the City Council to do something about this mass breeding
situation. Ms. Kough opined that Minnesota was the worst puppy mill place in
entire nation with the most puppy mills and USDA inspections being meaningless.
When purchasing an animal, Ms. Kough encouraged consumers to insist on
inspecting the kennels to determine the reality of housing the animals.
Gary Papineau, Owner of Har Mar Pet Shop
Mr. Papineau noted the information tonight about rescues,
and further noted that three of the four pet shops in Roseville already
provided an opportunity for consumers to get a rescue dog. However, Mr.
Papineau advised that to receive a pure-bred puppy, consumers came to his
shop. Mr. Papineau reported that he personally inspected the breeders he uses,
and would stand behind the dogs he sold; with customers confirming the dogs
purchased from him were the best dogs they'd ever had. Mr. Papineau stated
that he had asked those customers to provide their testimonials to the City
Council since this issue came up in September and their experience using his
pet shop. Mr. Papineau further reported that the kittens sold in his shop were
Mr. Papineau opined that there should be a choice and a
variety of options for pet purchase in Roseville. Mr. Papineau suggested pet
store licensing versus an ordinance, opining that he was all for licensing and
willing to pay a fee, as well as being willing to have his store inspected by a
veterinarian monthly or quarterly. Mr. Papineau advised that he was open to
any kind of licensing, but an ordinance outright banning sale of puppies from
breeders wasn't the way to go.
Direction to Staff
Councilmember Willmus thanked those speaking tonight.
Councilmember Willmus stated that he had been supportive of looking at
something the city could do to limit the sale of dogs and cats coming from
mills, something he'd long been concerned about. As a dog owner, Councilmember
Willmus reported that he considered them members of the family, and obtained
them through fosters or adoptions. When purchasing them, Councilmember Willmus
advised that he looked for people with a dog recently having puppies versus
large commercial breeding operations. Councilmember Willmus stated he was
supportive of putting an ordinance in place prohibiting the sale of dogs and
cats at pet stores; and would support the foster program. While not yet
knowing if this draft ordinance is the best for Roseville, Councilmember
Willmus stated his interest in leaving tonight's meeting with some direction to
staff to bring something back that would work for Roseville with the intent to
get to the root to prohibit sales and move toward the foster model.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that the last time this issue
was addressed she had also expressed her support for an ordinance similar to
this model that would encourage adoption models as used in other Roseville pet
stores. Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she wasn't looking to put
anyone out of business, but stated everyone needed to adapt to the changing
environment. As a lifelong dog owner, Councilmember Laliberte noted that she
had procured them in a number of different ways, usually for a particular breed
from a particular breeder. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that some of
her family members had also used the adoption route with success.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she wasn't sure if she was comfortable with
the draft model ordinance as presented, but was open to input from the City
Attorney regarding the criminal aspect of it and how this model would move the
city toward a humane model versus another approach. Councilmember Laliberte
suggested staff review pet ordinances of other cities, consult with the City
Attorney, and then bring something back to the City Council that will work for
In terms of an ordinance, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she wasn't sure if this model was the right one or not, particularly with a
criminal or non-criminal aspect if there wasn't an alternative way to accomplish
the same thing. Councilmember McGehee stated she was not in favor of puppy
mills, having housed many rescue animals at her home, and in agreement with Ms.
Kough about the sparse visitations and inspections and inadequate housing of
pets for sale. Councilmember McGehee opined that the model from the Wisconsin
speaker provided a more aggressive use of rescues and puppies and kittens
available in-store most of the time, but not housed there necessarily, but
rotating the sites with volunteers from rescue agencies. Noting Mr. Papineau's
perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in a solution for both
Councilmember Etten stated his support for finding a way to
not allow a supply of dogs and cats from puppy mills, such as using a program
like "Paws to Paws Adoption." Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in
the care of animals proposed by Mr. Papineau with licenses and veterinary
inspections; and noted the draft model ordinance did not allow for multi-day
housing for animals in consideration of their health.
Mayor Roe concluded that the two basic concerns seemed to be
sourcing of animals through puppy mills, and breeding operations not being up
to par. While that is something the city has to be concerned about, Mayor Roe
noted the need to also preserve another business model besides only that of
adoption; questioning if that needs to be preserved in Roseville. Citing the
larger cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sure with greater capability for
inspections, licensing and a regulatory environment for that type of business
model based on their larger staffs and areas of expertise, Mayor Roe noted that
if the city went to that model, it would in effect be eliminating any other
business model in Roseville across the board. Mayor Roe noted his interest in
weighing a long-term business in the community against the pros and cons of
what is best for the community as a whole. Mayor Roe stated he was also
concerned with the misdemeanor penalty under state law or if there were other
Mayor Roe noted mention of the "Cattery," and one of his
concerns since the beginning of this discussion in the welfare of pets while at
a pet store. Therefore, Mayor Roe stated his interest in eliminating the
possibilities of overnight boarding of animals at a pet store, even rescue
animals, based on concerns for their welfare, and assuming that those hosting
animals at a pet store would be doing so for a period of time. If it was
still necessary to do so, Mayor Roe suggested that the length of time be
limited and the responsibility of shelter partners to provide assurances of the
proper care of those animals being housed. If the city considers an ordinance,
Mayor Roe stated that he wanted it to address how that worked and ensure that no
long-term boarding of animals took place in pet stores, since it affected the
health and welfare of the animals themselves.
Councilmember McGehee spoke to animals staying in the store,
noting that the relationship between Petco and the Companion Rescuefor housing
the rabbits, but volunteers came in daily to exercise the rabbits and clean
Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussions also
allowed her to share her concerns in the city's ability to inspect or enforce
an ordinance. Since then, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the city had
entered into a contractual relationship with a local veterinarian to take in
stray dogs; and questioned if some type of arrangement could be added for this
purpose, while still defining what was being inspected, and as noted by Mayor
Roe, how often those inspections were performed by a veterinarian.
As with Councilmember McGehee's comments, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that Petco housed rabbits and cats; and from her understanding
they were housed in cat cubes for 2-3 days at the most and then switched out,
with store personnel feeding them each morning, and adoption volunteers
exercising them and spending time with them socially. At the most,
Councilmember Laliberte stated that two cats shared a cube, typically because
they were litter mates.
Regarding Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte comments
regarding a longer term presence of animals at a site, Mayor Roe questioned if
an ordinance needed to require a certain time period or specify that
arrangements were made for provider's accountability for that.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that wasn't a work around
situation, but should be set by the City Council.
If the intent was to require further oversight on behalf of
those organizations looking to adopt out regarding the licensing aspect,
Councilmember Willmus stated that he wasn't sure he was in favor of going that
route. Councilmember Willmus opined that the changes being considered could be
accomplished just as effectively through an ordinance versus licensing or
inspections, since the city was not in a position to address that nor did it
have the expertise to know what it was needing to inspect.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus,
suggesting setting up a contractual arrangement between stores and rescues and
putting rescues in charge of that oversight, it would provide adequate
protection for the animals.
City Attorney Gaughan noted several points that immediately
rose to his attention when considering the specificity of criminal penalties
and in language of the draft ordinance (Attachment B) prohibiting the sale of
dogs or cats. Mr. Gaughan also addressed Section 502.25 C.1 regarding a
Certificate of Source provided to purchasers that contradicted a law that
doesn't exist in the Roseville ordinance. Also, Mr. Gaughan noted that the
ordinance references pet store operations as the person subject to criminal
penalties as the person involved in the business (owner or operator), but asked
if that included their employees if the business owner or operator wasn't on
site, and questioned whether criminal charges could also be brought absent
those employees or vicariously, or how appropriate it may be on a case by case
scenario if the employee violated company policy; in other words, in that case
who was the responsible party, the owner or the employee. Mr. Gaughan
cautioned the City Council to consider these things very carefully when taking
steps to pursue criminal charges, and possibly taking away the liberties of an
individual; especially when a government body was held to the highest standard
beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Gaughan also noted, in the understaffed court
arena with an already overworked case load, this type of case would most likely
end up at the bottom of the docket and not be considered a high priority for
Mayor Roe noted that some of the city's penalties were more
on the administrative side.
City Attorney Gaughan agreed that overwhelming code
violations provided for both criminal and/or civil sanctions depending on the
type of violation, making those options available to consider whether civil
abatement or criminal prosecution was the most appropriate; with the city
typically steering away from criminal prosecution unless the behavior doesn't
cease. However, Mr. Gaughan reminded the City Council that those actions
carried all sorts of complexities; but offered his willingness to work with
staff to further flesh out the issues.
Without objection, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's
support for the City Attorney and staff to perform that due diligence and
provide recommendations for the more appropriate scheme to penalize behavior
through an ordinance such as this.
At the request of the council, City Manager Trudgeon opined
that staff could have something prepared by the January 30, 2017 City Council
meeting for discussion and issues to consider in a revised draft ordinance.
If other pertinent issues came up between now and then,
Mayor Roe allowed that staff could defer this item if so indicated.
City Attorney Gaughan counseled that the city should have
some sort of reference incorporated into the ordinance as a basis through
formatting similar to existing city ordinances (preambles versus "whereas's").
Councilmember McGehee stated her lack of interest in the
prosecutorial aspect; opining that Mr. Papineau cared for animals, and
suggested a lighter hand in assisting him in transitioning his business model.
Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council was not making any
presumption that anyone was violating the ordinance if and when it went into
City Attorney Gaughan suggested that, if and when criminal
activity is observed, the city could propose to seek criminal sanctions, if
indications are that someone is profiteering, and perhaps fine penalties may be
all that are needed.
Councilmember Willmus suggested including a trigger for
criminal sanctions, thorough documentation of repeated violations; with Mayor
Roe agreeing in a process similar to that used for code enforcement issues such
as a continual or repeated nuisance situation.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:43 p.m.,
and reconvened at approximately 9:44 p.m.
City Facility Needs Discussion
A bench handout was received via email dated December 4,
2016 related to this item from Roger Hess, Jr., a Roseville resident, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
As a result of discussions at the November 14, 2016 City
Council meeting, City Manager Trudgeon noted staff's further analysis and four
options outlined on page 2 of the RCA of today's date.
Councilmember Willmus reported that last week he had met
with Public Works Director Marc Culver and toured the maintenance facility.
After that tour, Councilmember Willmus opined that the city should take a
serious look at the potential of renovating what was already available on that
footprint; and if they hadn't yet done so, encouraged his colleagues to tour
the facility as well. Councilmember Willmus opined that there was an
opportunity to increase storage capacity on that site, and options available
that had been casually dismissed at previous meetings due to lateness of the
hour when discussion took place. Councilmember Willmus opined that those options
were worthwhile discussing and considering.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Manager Trudgeon
confirmed that the $2.5 million estimated by staff for Options A, B and D for
seasonal storage (acquisition and construction) remained to be determined (TBD)
for Option C at the maintenance facility site.
Also for Option D (Veteran's Park site), Councilmember Etten
noted that he was concerned with that option due to parking and the existing
lot's current use and the parking at a premium at the current License Center.
Councilmember Etten opined that the city didn't own enough space for adequate
parking, in addition to the lost park space. Specific to the revenue bond,
Councilmember Etten asked if the amount projected in the RCA was the maximum amount
the city could obtain based on current revenue ($1,223,200).
City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that this was the number
identified by Finance Director Miller based on estimates and assumptions for
current revenues at the License Center.
Councilmember McGehee reported that she had been in the
maintenance facility several years ago, but was willing to tour it again. In
looking over the options provided by staff in the RCA, Councilmember McGehee
opined that if the city could acquire the strip mall reasonable with additional
space for more parking and office space, combined with tying it and Veteran's
Park to the current city campus, it would keep things in the general area
without further congesting an already cramped space, especially for parking
already overtaxed during some events and activities. In the short term (e.g.
ten years) at the strip mall, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would
provide for the city to have the License Center remain at the location people
were used to, while allowing the city to generate funds through leasing extra
space beyond a reasonable space to house the Historical Society. Councilmember
McGehee stated that with that available parking and space, and its proximity to
City Hall, she saw that whole area as having the greatest potential and included
all the amenities the city had now and was seeking for future growth. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this option provides an opportunity to expand the city
campus in a meaningful way versus satellite storage of materials that belonged
Mayor Roe suggested that a tour be set up for the City
Council to view the maintenance facility with staff available, duly noted by
City Manager Trudgeon.
Mayor Roe asked if it made sense to have a professional advise
the city on space efficiencies and needs; and if so, questioned what an
approximate cost of such a service would be. Mayor Roe suggested part of the
equation should be, if looking at an existing building that was currently
receiving rental revenue for space not needed by the city short-term, costs for
the city serving as a landlord of that building should be factored into the
revenue stream, potentially as part of the transition and financial analysis
calculations. While he found that option worth consideration, Mayor Roe
stated his curiosity about future use of the existing maintenance facility to
maximize its use and how that fits into the big picture; opining that expert
advice would be helpful for that component as well. Mayor Roe noted other
portions on the city campus (e.g. old sally port area) and expressed curiosity
about re-use of those sites as well, noting that it had been brought up a
number of times in the past, with arguments made for not using it; and asked
for that discussion to be refreshed as well.
Councilmember Willmus agreed with Mayor Roe, stating his
interest in a more comprehensive review of the current city space and its
potential re-use, modification or renovation; opining that should all be part
of the discussion. Regarding additional properties adjacent to the existing
city campus, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in looking at those
options as well.
City Manager Trudgeon reported that city staff had been
utilizing the services of an individual with this expertise, but noted the need
for further discussion with someone authorized by the City Council for a more
in-depth and comprehensive review.
Mayor Roe noted the sale of the fire station on Fairview
Avenue was also a source of revenue; and suggested this be part of the
discussion as well, to have a better idea of what the city's return on that
site may be; and as appraisals are done, that site be included as well.
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in and
support of a logistic space planner as part of this process, opining it was an
important step. Councilmember Laliberte also stated her interest in a tour of
the maintenance facility; and whether or not it was possible to build up a
level and if so, what use was more prudent to consider. Councilmember
Laliberte stated her support of having these long-overdue discussions; and
thanked staff for the options presented, while opining there may be others yet
to be considered.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:57 p.m.
Mayor Roe wished all a Happy