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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

January 9, 2017


Public Reception


City Council Oaths of Office


Economic Development Authority (Minutes published separately.)


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:49 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.  City Attorney Erich Hartmann was also present.


2.      Pledge of Allegiance

Mayor Roe acknowledged the Pledge had been recited as part of the Council Oaths of Office ceremony prior to the start of the meeting.


3.      Approve Agenda

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.      Public Comment

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


a.    Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road and Sherry Sanders, McCarrons Boulevard

On behalf of "Do Good Roseville," Ms. Ramundt and Ms. Sanders presented several upcoming opportunities to serve to help make Roseville as inclusive as possible.  Flyers, were provided for those events occurring at the Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch in January and February, and recognizing the respective sponsors for those events.


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

For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe provided several announcements of upcoming community events and volunteer opportunities, and identified where to find additional information for each.


Mayor Roe announced a winter clothing drive at City Hall during normal business hours; with collected items going to the Fairview Community Center's coat closet for families in need in the Roseville School District.


Referencing one of the announcements by Mayor Roe on dementia and coping for families and caregivers, Councilmember Laliberte provided additional information on the focus of upcoming seminars.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation proclaiming January 16, 2017 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to honor Dr. King by committing to volunteering in the community.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming January 16, 2017 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Roseville.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


7.            Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve December 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the December 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



§  Page 36, Line 31 (Roe)

Delete "had relationships"


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated January 9, 2017.


a.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items," January 1, 2017.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the sale or trade of surplus items as noted in the RCA dated today's date.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


b.            Approve Resolution Designating Official Bank Depositories for 2017

As an opponent of the North Dakota pipeline of which U. S. Bank is a supporter, and for full transparency, Councilmember McGehee brought to the attention of the public that U.S. Bank is listed as one of the city's depositories for 2017.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11386 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution on Designation of Depositories;" designating U. S. Bank and BMO Harris Bank.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve Resolution Designating Official Bank Signatories for 2017

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11387 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution of Designation of Bank Signatories;" designating Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon and Finance Director Miller as signatories.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


d.            Designate 2017 Legal Newspaper

City Manager Trudgeon advised that the city was in the second of a three-year contract with the Roseville Review and would be going out for proposals after 2017.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, designating the Roseville Review as the legal newspaper for the city for 2017.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Approve Annual 2017 City Sign Permits

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of 2017 sign permits for city uses and promotions as detailed in the sign summary dated January 9, 2017.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.     Approve the Community Development Department Request for Approval of a Multi-year Electrical Inspection Professional Services Agreement

Councilmember McGehee noted her personal experience in using the services of this electrical inspector and her satisfaction with their professionalism.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of a three year (2017 - 2019) professional services agreement (Attachment A) with Tokle Inspections, Inc.; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to executive the document pending City Attorney review.

                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.   Approve Appointment of Codes Coordinator as Assistant Weed Inspector for 2017

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11388 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector;" appointing the City's Codes Coordinator as the duly-designated Assistant Weed Inspector for calendar year 2017, pursuant to Minnesota Statues 18.80.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.    Appoint Mayor and City Manager to Roseville Firefighter Relief Association

For future reference, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in serving on the Fire Relief Association.


Mayor Roe advised that, while not required by state statutes, current Fire Relief Association By-laws stipulate the Mayor and City Manager serving as municipal representatives and would need to be changed accordingly.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11389 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Designating the Mayor and City Manager as Municipal Representatives to the Firefighter Relief Association."


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


i.           Authorization to Seek Donations for Various City Functions and Events

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorization for the City Manager or his designee to solicit support via formal written request to community groups and businesses for various city functions and special events as detailed in the RCA of today's date.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


j.     Authorize Design Services for the Replacement of Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse

Councilmember McGehee noted conversations and consideration of various major expenditures during a given year, often for good opportunities, but stressed the need for broader community and facility planning for overall expenditures versus doing so in a piecemeal fashion (e.g. License Center) and in relationship to this particular request for replacement of the clubhouse.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with (Attachment B) with Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain Architects for design services as referenced in Attachments A and C for replacement of the Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse; at a cost for those services not to exceed $33,490 to be funded from the Golf Course Fund; and contingent upon City Attorney review and approval.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


k.         Approve a Conditional Use Pursuant to Table 1006-1 and Chapter 1009 of the City Code to Allow a Motor Freight Terminal at 2500 County Road C (PF16-027

City Manager Trudgeon noted a revised resolution presented as a bench handout and made part of the RCA, specifically revising line 138 as recommended by the Planning Commission, inserting the language "undergoing maintenance."


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11390 (Attachment C as revised) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Motor Freight Terminal as a Conditional Use as 2500 County Road C."


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


l.             Approve Adopting a City of Roseville and Economic Development Authority *(EDA) Acquisition Framework

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of the City of Roseville and Roseville Economic Development Authority Acquisition Framework dated January 2017 (Attachment B) with Item 4.A.3 amended as follows:

"Consideration of effect to market value and tax capacity of surrounding      properties and overall city tax base.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.    Consider Items Removed from Consent


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


11.        Presentations


a.            Subdivision Code Revision Introduction

Mayor Roe recognized Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd to introduce Mike Lamb with Kimley-Horn, the consultant selected to lead and provide guidance for the update of the city's subdivision code.


Mr. Lamb's presentation, incorporated into the staff report, briefly reviewed anticipated tasks, a proposed schedule, known issues and topics to bring forward as part of the update and  revisions as applicable.


City Council Discussion/Deliberation

With Roseville's long history of involving the greater Parks & Recreation Commission in the subdivision process, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for maintaining their involvement at the front end.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in at a minimum one advance public comment opportunity before the formal Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level, similar to that used by the Lake McCarron's neighborhood.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important for residents to see proposed revisions to the subdivision code and provide their input and ideas before a formal public hearing.  Even though she followed such things closely, Councilmember McGehee noted her surprise with some things included in the code (e.g. parcel shapes); and reiterated that one formal public hearing at the Planning Commission is not sufficient and more input was needed.


Mayor Roe suggested an annotated version, referencing the schedule as outlined in the presentation and as various iterations come before the City Council, there would be the usual opportunity for public comment.  Therefore, from the point of view to solicit comments, Mayor Roe suggested noticing residents that have brought forward a subdivision request in the immediate past, and seeking their input from that perspective.  Since the process used by the Lake McCarron's neighborhood has the involvement of the surrounding  neighborhood, Mayor Roe opined that an open house format made more sense as done in the past by the city and prior to the formal public hearing at the Planning Commission or subsequent to the next City Council discussion scheduled for February 13, 2017.  Mayor Roe asked staff and Mr. Lamb to consider that in developing the schedule.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's suggestion; and yielded to staff, opining they'd done a good job in the past of noticing interested parties.  However, with not seeing that option in the proposed schedule, Councilmember McGehee wanted to ensure public comment was made available when and where appropriate, and allowing sufficient time for the City Council to get advance feedback before it formally goes to the Planning Commission.


Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Willmus on the need to continue involving the leadership of the Parks & Recreation Commission early on to help the City Council in their decision-making for land or cash respective to park dedication; or at least to inform policy discussions.  Mayor Roe sought future input from Mr. Lamb based on his perspective during those upcoming policy and city code discussions.


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


13.        Budget Items


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Appoint Acting Mayor for 2017

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, moved designation of Councilmember Etten as Acting Mayor for 2017.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she based this on Councilmember Etten having received the highest number of votes in the recent municipal election.


Councilmember Etten accepted the nomination.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointments

Mayor Roe noted referenced the various reappointments as listed in the RCA of today's date.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no issues with the proposed reappointments.  However, Councilmember Willmus suggested taking a special look at the Community Engagement Commission (CEC) and where the City Council felt this advisory commission was going, especially losing a number of commissioners and therefore much of their institutional knowledge.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he had general concerns at the City Council level in how the CEC was being employed and utilized and suggested not filling those vacancies at this point, spending the remainder of the spring (through the end of March) focusing remaining members of the CEC on background work regarding their accomplishments to-date and best practices going forward with the information they had gained.  During that time, Councilmember Willmus suggested the City Council could also take a closer look at what it wanted to do moving forward allowing time for them to determine the future charge of the CEC if it is to continue.


Councilmember McGehee agreed to some extent and on some issues with Councilmember Willmus.  Councilmember McGehee stated she had no desire to re-interview those having served the community well.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated that she did have issues with the CEC in particular; and agreed that as the City Council studies the current CEC, perhaps the remaining members could be combined in some way with another advisory group to allow them to be productive and take some of their tasks with them to that combined focus group.  On another note, Councilmember McGehee noted the majority of advisory commissions had seven members, and questioned why the Parks & Recreation Commission had nine members.  While not knowing the historical background, but with two commissioners leaving, Councilmember McGehee noted with two vacancies, it provided an opportunity for a standard of seven members on each advisory commission, opining that seemed sufficient to her.


While also not knowing the history of nine versus seven members serving on commissions, Councilmember Laliberte stated her comfort in reappointing those interested in serving, opining they'd done a good job for the community.  If there was frustration on the CEC from their perspective as well as a lack of clarity from the City Council's perspective of what was desired of that commission or if there were questions on how to proceed to provide sufficient direction, Councilmember Laliberte offered her willingness to reinvent the commission subcommittee and gather input from those currently serving and/or those having served (e.g. exit interviews), as well as sitting City Council members.  Councilmember Laliberte advised she'd be willing to pursue a broad review of all advisory commissions again, including the CEC and potential creation of a public safety commission, however directed by the full City Council.


Councilmember Etten agreed that the City Council had not given the best direction to the CEC; and opined all struggled with how to use the great volunteers serving on the CEC, but not always sure of their charge.  Councilmember Etten advised that was his goal last year when he requested a focus on advisory commissions; and agreed with not making reappointments to the CEC at this time, but instead reviewing it over the next few months.  Since this was new information to him tonight, Councilmember Etten stated he wasn't sure if he was interested in reviewing all commissions again until he had more time to consider that and any ramifications.  However, Councilmember Etten stated that he was open to look at how to frame and better use CEC commissioners and honor their work.  Specific to the additional commissioners serving on the Parks & Recreation Commission, Councilmember Etten suggested there may have been more members included due to that component of the city garnering greater community interest and that was a way to involve more people.  Since this component also represented the greatest volunteer effort for the city, Councilmember Etten noted there was no financial burden for carrying more commissioners.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he wouldn't want to change the membership on the Parks & Recreation Commission without further discussion with the commission itself.  Given the considerable size of that City activity, Councilmember Willmus opined it was nice to have a number of voices represented at the table; and therefore he wasn't averse to having nine versus seven commissioners, assuring a broad community representation in addition to being philosophically good to engage more people. Specific to bringing back the commission subcommittee, Councilmember Willmus opined that may be a good idea allowing more direct talk with people and the ability to formulate a plan going forward.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus suggested not advertising for positions for the CEC at this point but see what the subcommittee yielded before then.


Mayor Roe reviewed options for the City Council to take at this point.  Mayor Roe stated his personal preference for looking at commissions through a commission subcommittee, including creation of a public safety commission as part of that review.


Discussion ensued regarding reappointments to the CEC, given that as of March 31st, the commission would be significantly reduced in number.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, reappointment of all those seeking reappointment and authorizing staff to advertise for vacancies for all commissions, with the exception of the CEC for which no action will be taken at this time.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Given the upcoming CEC meeting later this week, City Manager Trudgeon sought clarification on direction to staff.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that his intent would be to pass along this action and any subsequent direction from the City Council to the CEC at that time.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the CEC was currently working on its 2017 work plan; and if the City Council is interested, he could arrange a joint meeting between existing CEC members and the City Council to work things out.  Mr. Trudgeon also offered his assistance if the subcommittee needed any assistance, noting that March would come quick and therefore, subsequent discussions were needed as soon as possible.


Mayor Roe advised that he had reviewed the next CEC agenda, and from his perspective, with the CEC in existence at least through March of 2017, suggested they provide the City Council with a report on how they could wrap up as much as possible from their work plan and their recommendations to approach remaining items.

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that direction.


Noting her previous service on that commission subcommittee, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in serving on it again; clarifying her intent would be only for a narrow discussion specific to the CEC.


Mayor Roe advised that discussion would be coming up shortly on tonight's agenda as part of the City Council liaison item.


c.            Discussion of Council Liaisons

Mayor Roe referenced the current 2016 Council Liaisons as detailed in Attachment A of the RCA.


Councilmember Etten noted that discussion was not only needed to identify who to serve on a commission task force, but to define its direction, purpose and scope and a timeline for accomplishing that work.


Regarding the CEC and what could be accomplished, with a nexus to the Human Rights Commission (HRC), Councilmember Willmus advised that he wasn't personally as concerned with the number serving on a commission, which he considered a non-issue.  If there was a desire to look at new commissions or to realign current commissions, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in hearing those ideas, along with seeking input from current commissions on what they'd like to see.  Councilmember Willmus stated that would weigh in on his thoughts as to who would be best to serve on a commission subcommittee.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in a subcommittee or task force; but with March coming soon, she suggested it first and exclusively deal with the CEC.  Then going forward, Councilmember McGehee suggested if the City Council wanted a public safety commission of some sort that would be a completely different discussion.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had no issue about the number of commission members serving, and had simply asked the question as to why the discrepancy in one advisory commission compared to the others.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the Council had created two commissions, one with a specific goal and able to accomplish a lot without much direction and the other with vague direction. Because of the lack of vision and direction by the Council, the CEC had struggled since its inception. Based on this experience Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council would need to do a better analysis of what they wanted and whether a commission was the correct vehicle.


Considering the timeframe, Councilmember Etten agreed that the subcommittee should initially focus on the CEC, and whether it should become an offshoot of the HRC if there was such a nexus or not.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was open to discussion; but opined creation of a public safety commission should be a separate discussion, with the commission task force only focusing on the CEC at this time.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was fine using the focused approach and giving the CEC priority, opining it didn't require a broader discussion beyond that.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for the City Council to be cognizant of available staff support and where these great volunteers could be placed if something different was done with the CEC.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte noted that involved looking at other commissions and "doing" versus "advising" commissions as well.  Councilmember Laliberte opined she saw members of the CEC interested in "doing," while the city already had one commission (HRC) serving in that capacity.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, creation or reconvening the commission subcommittee specifically to address the CEC at this time; and appointment of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte to serve.


Elaborating on his rationale in making his motion as stated, and appointment of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember Willmus opined that this required a broader approach than just a look at whether or no to continue the CEC.  Councilmember Willmus opined that there may be people in play who were suited to other commissions as well, along with considering staff time and how those other advisory commissions came into play as well.  In consideration of the limited time available between now and March to make this decision, Not to say other Councilmembers may not also serve well in this capacity, Councilmember Willmus stated his confidence that Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte will remain cognizant of that short period of time to bring forward their recommendations to the full City Council. 


In this instance, Councilmember McGehee stated that she also had adequate time and background to serve in this capacity, as well as the background in having worked with Councilmember Laliberte before on the commission subcommittee.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that she had no intention of just putting the CEC under a microscope; but opined part of the discussion applied to what proposals come back to the City Council and those should include options for using those CEC commissioners currently serving and the completion of their work plan currently in process and recognizing their commitment to that work plan.  Not being able to imagine that the CEC's current work plan was of no value, Councilmember McGehee pondered where that work plan and these volunteers belonged going forward.


Councilmember Etten recognized the value of the subcommittee's goals, but also stated his understanding of Councilmember McGehee's point.


Mayor Roe offered his willingness to serve in this role as per the motion.


Specific to the motion, Councilmember Laliberte noted that when the original CEC was proposed, even though she and Councilmember McGehee serving on the commission subcommittee at that time had worked on it together, Councilmember McGehee had made it clear that she was not supportive of the CEC.  In looking back on that situation, Councilmember Laliberte opined that Councilmember McGehee's previous viewpoint may slant her recommendation to the full City Council at this point.


In her defense, Councilmember McGehee clarified that her lack of support for the CEC at that time was based on not having it well-defined and with no specific job outlined, a clear failure by the City Council in her opinion.  Councilmember McGehee further clarified that her lack of support at that time had not reflected on her support of those serving on the CEC and the work they'd brought forward.  Councilmember McGehee stated that her recommendation at that time was that the work being sought by the City Council could be better accomplished by a task force versus a standing commission.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated that, while not supporting the idea of creating the CEC at the beginning, their ideas and volunteering were most valuable.


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, reappointing Mayor Roe to continue serving on the Northeast Youth & Family Services Board and on the North Suburban Communications Commission/North Suburban Access Corporation Board for 2017; with Councilmember McGehee stated her withdrawal as alternate on both groups; and no subsequent alternates appointed to serve on either.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, reappointment of Councilmember Laliberte to serve as the City of Roseville representative to the Ramsey County League of Local Governments for 2017; with no alternate appointed to this group.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


With the withdrawal of Councilmember Willmus and volunteering of Councilmember McGehee to serve with Councilmember Laliberte expressing her ongoing interest in serving in this capacity, Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee to serve on the City Manager Performance Review City Council Subcommittee for 2017.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe noted the remaining liaison roles were provided for information purposes only; and asked staff to remove the "Regional Council of Mayors" and Minnesota Mayors Association from future iterations of the list; as well as adding the "Metro Cities Board of Directors" on which Councilmember Laliberte serves on their Board of Directors.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Council Meeting Efficiency

City Manager Trudgeon noted the information contained in the RCA and suggested review by the City Council of each category in detail as listed to provide direction to staff and inform the City Council's Rules  of  Procedures update.



Councilmember McGehee stated her strong support for staff's suggestion in the RCA, noting the time delays in receipt and review of the minutes, especially when meetings are back to back during a month.  Councilmember McGehee suggested this would provide a more reasonable deadline to meet, with approval then possible on the Consent Agenda within the two-week period.


Councilmember Etten agreed to some delay, given the nuance of a meeting held back-to-back.  However, Councilmember Etten noted some meetings held at the end of the month may have a significant delay for staff or other situations needing more immediate review and approval.  Councilmember Etten suggested a two-week review for the City Council depending on how that interacted with the City Council schedule.  Councilmember Etten stated that he tried to avoid making too many changes since the meeting minutes served as a general record; but could agree with the two-week time frame.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that while there may be some issues created with the 60-day land use case review timeframe per state statute, the most important action was the adoption of related resolutions rather than the actual meeting minutes.


City Attorney Hartmann concurred with City Manager Trudgeon that resolutions were separate from the meeting minutes and therefore a delay in minute approval but not resolutions should be problematic.


Councilmember Willmus opined that staff would need to be cognizant of those land use situations if the City Council approves departing from the current practice of approval at the next meeting.  While not having a history of why draft minutes are not included in the agenda packet, and unsure if he wanted to get into that, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for minimizing the delay, even though he would support a two-week turnaround, his personal preference would be to have it quicker than that.


Since he tended to perform the overall review of draft meeting minutes, Mayor Roe recognized that it required a quick turnaround, and opined there would be benefits with more time for review, including for the Recording Secretary to submit the initial draft, and then for staff to provide an administrative review (e.g. grammar corrections and name, address, and/or date verifications) before being provided to the City Council.  Mayor Roe opined that the City Council then wouldn't have to focus on that as much, but could instead allow departments to review their portions of minutes before they were submitted for review to individual council members.  Mayor Roe clarified that he meant this staff review to be going on at the same time and not a step-by-step process from the City Manager, then to one department, then another; but to have each department review their particular areas for accuracy, with more eyes for factual corrections. Mayor Roe noted this would still provide individual council members to correct their statements accordingly, while staff would have provided its initial grammatical review administratively, with departments reviewing actual facts and figures.


Councilmember McGehee acknowledged the heavy lifting provided by Mayor Roe in reviewing meeting minutes at this time; and advised that she typically reviewed her portion of minutes to ensure that they accurately and clearly reflected her statements.  However, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was clear from Mayor Roe's review that he read the entire document.  Councilmember McGehee agreed that it would prove helpful for the Recording Secretary and city staff to have more time for processing meeting minutes upfront, thus allowing individual council members more time to review their portions.


Given that, Councilmember Willmus agreed with this approach, stating that he was cautiously optimistic that the City Council would still have the meeting minutes back in time to avoid rehashing them at meeting if and when they were delayed.


Mayor Roe asked his colleagues if the meeting minutes were delivered to the City Council by the Friday before packet preparation for the next meeting, if that would allow them time to respond to staff with any changes by the next Wednesday.


Without objecton, council members agreed that was a reasonable timeframe: two week meeting minute approval with submission to the City Council after initial staff review by Friday and return by individual council members by the following Wednesday to be included in the agenda packet materials for that upcoming meeting.


Without objection, council members also agreed that this discussion would inform any tweaks before formally adopting into the Rules of Procedures.


Consent Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon suggested the City Council consider asking questions on routine items placed on the consent agenda by contacting staff before the meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested the only exception should be to remove an item if an individual council member wanted to vote against a particular item.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that his suggestions as detailed in the RCA were a result of consulting with his peers on their consent agenda practices, as well as in consideration of his summarizing each item, which could also be eliminated at the City Council's direction.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested some change in the current format and practices as outlined in the RCA.


In consideration of openness to the public, Councilmember Etten opined that a brief, one-sentence description, but not detailed review of each consent agenda item by the City Manager was an important aspect of letting people know what its elected officials were doing that what they were voting for.  Councilmember Etten spoke in support of not removing items from the consent agenda unless for a separate vote or to make a significant point; and agreed that asking questions ahead of time was a good idea. 


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten that for transparency purposes, a one-sentence synopsis of those items on the consent agenda was necessary.  However, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that questions could be asked ahead of time and, if necessary, acknowledgement of those questions and responses could be addressed during discussion or items removed for a separate vote.


Discussion ensued, prompted by Councilmember Willmus, to clarify the intent of Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte between current practice and how to portray sufficient descriptions of actions for consent agenda items for the public's edification.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the city made very poor use of the screens and overhead display opportunities it had available for the public.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the consent agenda items appear on the screen as a one-line description while it was being discussed or before taking a vote, rather than those viewing at home seeing a blank screen and only able to listen but not visualize a topic or issue.  Councilmember McGehee opined this would help for those re-watching or viewing a taped meeting.  Councilmember McGehee urged the city to improve its transparency and public understanding by making better us of materials versus simply council member face time, and experiment accordingly.


Mayor Roe agreed that Councilmember McGehee's comments made sense; noting other city meetings he'd viewed had explicit descriptions and spoke in support of showing consent items on screen.


Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion to shorten descriptions for consent items by using a header or two, but to keep it short but descriptive for the public, allowing them to track what its city leaders were doing.


Given how rare it was for a member of the public to make a comment on a consent item, Mayor Roe suggested those could be dealt with on a case by case basis.


Work Sessions

City Manager Trudgeon reviewed staff suggestions and challenges in scheduling work sessions, noting seven were scheduled for 2017, but also noting given the limited time available, none were included for January or February or other months where only two meetings were available due to scheduling conflicts or holidays.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that left only adjusting start times, or additional meetings, or using the practice of some cities to hold a work session before every regular business meeting.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that would require pushing meeting start times earlier if feasible.


Councilmember McGehee reviewed her historical perspective and institutional history on past work sessions.  Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in using them as listening sessions, allow residents to bring topics to the City Council's attention to think about, and providing open dialogue versus the current public comment portion of the meeting.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the public should be able to ask a question or seek rationale for a vote and receive a response at that time rather than having to wait; thus providing a learning opportunity for all parties.  Councilmember McGehee expressed hope that if meetings became more efficient, there may be time for that to occur and  provide for that open dialogue.  Councilmember McGehee also noted the number of topics brought to the city's attention via email, phone call or other means allowing their elected officials to hear what their constituents thought.  Councilmember McGehee opined that to her dialogue was the most important missing piece in actions from the dais; and sought a way to create opportunities for that to happen.


Councilmember Willmus stated that his perspective on work sessions was different and more closely mirrored the suggestions made by City Manager Trudgeon, in that the allowed an opportunity for the City Council to have more in-depth presentations and discussions with staff on various issues coming before them.  If the desire is for listening sessions with the community, Councilmember Willmus agreed with that idea, but his idea of a work session format was for that more in-depth, to-the-point and less formal discussion and interaction with staff, or presentations affording more information on upcoming decisions.  Regarding City Councilmember-initiated discussions, Councilmember Willmus questioned if all of them rose to the level of needing to be put off for a month or more, opining that some things that pop up may require immediate action by the City Council; and suggesting maintaining some flexibility to do so, providing a recent example occurring over the last weekend.


Councilmember Etten stated his appreciation in holding work sessions, and agreed to place more or similar things on them when possible. Specific to Councilmember Willmus' point on City Councilmember-initiated items, Councilmember Etten noted the City Council itself could define whether or not an item was pressing.  As an example, Councilmember Etten noted things now placed on the back of future agenda reports that continue to be listed; and considering when best to look at those items if and when time-sensitive and on a case-by-case basis.  As for moving meeting times up any earlier, Councilmember Etten advised that it would be difficult for him professionally and for his family for meetings to start consistently earlier; and questioned how that would accomplish any efficiency goals.


Mayor Roe agreed with not starting meetings earlier, noting most area City Council meetings didn't start until 7:00 p.m., allowing Roseville to get a one-hour head start.  However, Mayor Roe suggested focus seemed the key to him; and suggested at least one of four meetings in January and February was a work session or even a portion of one meeting when fewer meeting dates were available.  Mayor Roe encouraged the Council to discipline itself to always have a work session-focused meeting at least monthly; opining they were getting closer than they had been in the past.  While any regular meeting could be more focused on discussion, Mayor Roe opined it would help to have the discipline to identify meetings as work sessions to avoid action items on those nights that could prolong meetings further.  Specific to institutional history, Mayor Roe opined that it was important not to get into past habits developed before his tenure on the City Council, where work sessions provided some an opportunity to fill that time with topics not relevant to the priorities of the Council and City and some of those topics not necessarily well-vetted beforehand.  However, Mayor Roe opined that this city council was more focused and held substantive discussions; and further opined that picking designated work session meetings was an improvement.  Mayor Roe stated that he could not support adding more frequent or shorter meetings for work sessions.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she and some residents found it confusing when action was taken at a work session when it was understood prior to that that the purpose was only for discussion of that item and that no action would be taken.  Councilmember McGehee noted this had been her intent in her earlier suggestion to pick a specific topic or topics ahead of time to provide public notice and allow an open dialogue between residents and their elected representatives, most effectively at a work session, and allowing those interested in a particular topic or presentation to attend and share their thoughts or opinions, allowing them to engage in a meaningful way with their government.


Mayor Roe noted one model for that dialogue would have been the recent pet shop licensing discussion, with two different occasions for feedback and dialogue.  However, Mayor Roe opined that it remained challenging for the City Council on how best to conduct that dialogue and not allowing some members of the public continuous participation rather than the decision-makers taking action.  Mayor Roe questioned if every work session needed that dialogue component, when the public had an opportunity for input on most issues at some point.


Councilmember Etten stated his understanding Councilmember McGehee's interest in and past discussions about the City Council leaving the Council Chambers to be more approachable, whether annually or semi-annually.  However, for tonight's focus, Councilmember Etten opined that if the discussion was in making meetings more efficient, that continual dialogue didn't work with that goal.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was open to ways for that dialogue to occur outside meeting time whether by individual council members, but not resulting in the goal of further lengthening potential meeting times or extending them as part of the regular format and function.


While being open to moving off-site, Councilmember McGehee noted the challenges with cameras and transparency.


Mayor Roe suggested further thought and follow-up on it as a separate issue from tonight's focus.


Councilmember Laliberte stated work sessions were important, but agreed lines were often blurred with action items removing their status as true work sessions; and suggested the City Council be better in defining that.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus that some action items didn't need to wait until another meeting; but also reiterated that making work sessions true work sessions only would be a big improvement.


Mayor Roe agreed that more discipline was needed in not taking action on those items.


Referencing Mayor Roe's comments about the work session format for initial pet shop discussions, Councilmember Willmus stated his frustration with that meeting, especially entertaining thoughts from outside of Roseville business owners and taking away time from an owner and any time for a more in-depth discussion by the City Council at that time.  When he considers work sessions, Councilmember Willmus stated he looked for a more focused interaction with staff and his council colleagues in order to formulate decisions coming forward and allowing staff to have more access to the City Council as a body in a more informal setting.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he saw Councilmember McGehee's requested format as an entirely different idea, such as a listening session allowing for more dialogue.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that may be appropriate for those bigger issues that may be percolating, but he considered it entirely different than what he was looking for from a work session.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus' comments on the first pet store presentation.  However, Councilmember McGehee also noted this provided her with an opportunity to ask a business owner from another city questions about their experience in switching business models.


Mayor Roe noted his responsibility as chair of the meetings to be more disciplined in moving things along.  While the speakers at that meeting were also visitors to the city, as pointed out by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that while their information proved helpful, it went well over the line in providing them camera time at the expense of Council discussion and deliberation.


Items on Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon sought additional directive on items detailed in this portion of the RCA. 


Based on tonight's discussion and from her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee suggested several changes:

§  Use of the screen before a meeting to cycle announcements versus having them read at the meeting

§  Showing future agenda review items on the screen and Channel 16 at the close of the meeting;

§  More use of the screen during staff presentations (e.g. budget line items) for the benefit of the viewing audience; and

§  Shortened meeting minute review at the meeting.

Councilmember McGehee opined that since each council member had pledged their allegiance to the City, State and Constitution as a part of their oaths of office, she found no reason to have the Pledge of Allegiance at each meeting; further opining that it would further shorten meetings.  


Councilmember Willmus stated he didn't want to step away from City Council approval of licenses and similar items, noting they frequently had considerable questions on some of those; and therefore wasn't interested in any significant changes at this point.  Councilmember Willmus agreed that scrolling announcements at 5:30 p.m. before a meeting versus using meeting time was a valid point unless something came up at the last minute, but instead to use available resources and technology.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no problem saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of meetings, opining it was a nice thing to do, and therefore wasn't supportive of that change.  However, Councilmember Willmus agreed that the other points as noted by Councilmember McGehee were valid to use time and resources more efficiently.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that using the screen and Channel 16 for announcements was a great idea; but stated she remained uncomfortable with some of the items listed by City Manager Trudgeon in the RCA for this point, opining those things remained important to come before the body from her perspective. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in retaining the Pledge of Allegiance.  If scrolling announcements before a meeting, Councilmember Laliberte suggested doing so on Channel 16 during the week as well, with the caveat that they are kept current as applicable with a good plan to do so in place by staff for scrolling up-to-date information.


Mayor Roe agreed with that, provided the information was kept more up-to-date and fresher; and agreed with putting the future agenda report on screen; and agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that those suggestions by City Manager Trudgeon in this section of the RCA needed to remain under the City Council's purview.


Agenda Order

City Manager Trudgeon cautioned that this was his most radical suggested change, to mix up the agenda order, while remaining flexible, to get the business needing to be done accomplished sooner (Attachment A).  However, Mr. Trudgeon recognized that earlier discussion tonight could assist as well. 


Councilmember Etten stated his understanding of the order of Item 7 (Business Items) to be determined by staff given their importance, urgency and public interest in a particular item; but sought clarification as to how that determination would be made.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that it would be fluid and based on a combination of things.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that he moved approval of meeting minutes and the consent agenda to the end of the agenda.  However, if something was removed from the consent agenda, Mr. Trudgeon noted his intent was to deal with it at the beginning of section 7 out of respect for staff and their time.  For the rest, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it depended on what topics were most important to deal with that night.


Councilmember Etten agreed with shifting some items, opining that often some important things were left until late at night; but questioned the proposed location of items removed from consent as there may be questions of staff requiring their continued presence.


Discussion ensued on the consent agenda regarding asking questions of staff before the meeting; retaining the discipline of the consent agenda; and the key to getting that information before a motion.


While understanding the concerns expressed by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in giving the proposed order a try to see how it worked.  Councilmember Willmus noted his interest in reordering the agenda to focus on putting public hearings and action consideration at the front end before a series of presentations and typically those items for which the public may be in attendance, seeking respect for their time as well.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus' suggestion to give the proposed order a try.  However, specific to questions on consent items, Councilmember McGehee noted that while she may have already talked to staff on a particular item, she occasionally removed it from the consent agenda to make a point.  Councilmember McGhee agreed with scrolling items 5 and 10 on the screen versus taking up meeting time.


Mayor Roe noted another option for item 5 may be the practice of some other city councils to make live announcements at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning.  Mayor Roe suggested putting announcements on the screen, but if just received that day, they could be added to the end; while keeping recognitions at the front.


Mayor Roe opined that he liked the idea of the future agenda review scrolled, but opined he'd like it kept on the agenda as well.


Councilmember Etten noted that if simply handed out by City Manager Trudgeon, there should be no need to read things off unless there were specific questions at that time.


Mayor Roe suggested if a routine was established and feedback provided subsequent to receiving the future agenda items listed, both items 10 and 11 could be covered as one.


Without Objection, council members agreed to combine items 10 and 11 (Attachment A).


Further discussion ensued regarding item 7 and the order; with Mayor Roe noting the preference is for the public versus staff to leave early.  However, Mayor Roe noted with some flexibility, items could be identified for adjustment on the agenda early at each meeting for adjustment to that particular agenda as indicated.



Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee stated they were not interested in the pre-packets. 


While not necessarily wanting to continue the pre-packets, Mayor Roe clarified that it was nice to have some of that information ahead of time to provide staff with some feedback, even though most of items provided in pre-packets to-date were not always the pressing topics of the time.  Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested, for those big issues, staff provide information as it becomes available for council member review.


Councilmember Etten agreed that if staff knew of a bigger issue and has information available that could get the city council more focused on the issues they provide that information to allow more time to look thins over.


Without Objection, council members agreed.


City Council Member Responsibilities

City Manager Trudgeon noted his comments in this section were simply provided as food for thought.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that there were times when she asked a question to include it as part of the conversation, whether for her benefit or because it has been brought to her by a member of the public.


Mayor Roe clarified that there would always be an opportunity for questions on each topic, but noted that some of the more inconsequential questions could be asked off line.


Councilmember Etten opined that Mayor Roe, as manager of the meetings, served in an unusual role; and noted in order to keep the meeting moving forward, individual council members needed to be open to his attempts to keep things moving.  Councilmember Etten opined that repetition was not necessary, and only served to spend a lot of time with no new discussion or new information presented.  In those circumstances, Councilmember Etten opined that the mayor needed to step in and say "enough" and be respected by his colleagues when doing so.


Stricter adherence to times listed on the agenda

Discussion ensued regarding the allotted times shown on the agenda for each topic, while recognizing the need for the city council to be self-disciplined or provide a check-in as to whether to continue discussion, table the item or move forward with a motion if applicable.


Further discussion ensued regarding time periods (e.g. 15 minutes, 50 minutes, etc.) versus an actual time; and challenges with and frustrations of people not showing up for the meeting time of 6:00 p.m. and instead using the projected times on the agenda as their guide, and often frustrated with earlier or delayed consideration of their item of interest.


After further consideration, without objection, with the public portion of the agenda moved to the front of the meeting (Attachment A), staff was directed to keep the times on the agenda, but also have a check-in for progress for items as applicable.


Flexible Public Comment Time

Councilmember McGehee opined that she liked the way public comment is currently done; allowing people a reasonable expectation that they can make their point one or more times if they felt they weren't properly heard the first time.  Councilmember McGehee noted the recent changes made for land use cases if and when needed.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated she had no problem limiting those making repetitive points or suggesting one spokesperson for their group; and perhaps limiting those types of discussions to three versus five minutes in length.


Councilmember Willmus stated he'd be willing to look at employing some options on a trial basis.  Councilmember Willmus stated his frustration in some speakers appearing 2-3 times for the same issue, or public testimony reaching a point of counterpoint for both sides.  With public comment also provided for non-agenda items at the front of the agenda, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in maintaining a nexus between the function of city business and not using public comment as a tool to further individual or group initiatives that may or may not be directly related to the city as a whole.


Mayor Roe cautioned the city council that a lot of groups were doing things in and for the city that may not be directly affiliated with the city.  Mayor Roe stated that his philosophy was to err on the side of the rights of people to speak and address their government, and therefore, sought not to restrict them.  Mayor Roe opined that he found public comment becoming more disciplined; with Councilmember McGehee agreeing she didn't see it being abused as much as in the past.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was uncomfortable not allowing public comment just because it was intended for a public hearing for a land use issue at the Planning Commission meeting.  However, as she had learned over the years, Councilmember Laliberte noted that often someone may not have been watching a Planning Commission meeting or aware of an issue, and this may be their first opportunity to speak.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that an exception would be if a topic was discussed 3-4 times and in several different manners; and the same testimony was being given repeatedly by the same person, especially when that testimony was already included in written form or as part of the official record in the meeting minutes in packet materials.


Councilmember Etten agreed not to limit public comment on land use issues to only the Planning Commission but as the City Council as well.  However, when something is openly discussed at several City Council meetings, Councilmember Etten suggested repeat comments have a time limit applied, or only accept new points or information.  Councilmember Etten suggested this could be accomplished through instructions from the Mayor versus a firm rule, and depending on the issue.  When a certain issue gets repeated comment from the same people, Councilmember Etten noted it becomes a long, tedious, and repetitive situation; and therefore, he suggested adjusting expectations from repeat comments via instructions from the bench.


For those items coming before the Planning Commission, while not precluding additional comment at the City Council level, Mayor Roe suggested it made sense to reduce the allotted time to three minutes when a formal public hearing had already been provided.


Councilmember McGehee suggested, when a speaker had already been heard or a list of points had been made by one or a group of speakers, perhaps by the mayor restating those points at the beginning of public comment, a statement could be made that if new information is available then come forward.


Mayor Roe expressed concern with that concept, noting that unless multiple copies of minutes or materials provided at the Planning Commission from that public testimony were made available for the public, it wouldn't be fair for the public to not have that information available to them.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that from her perspective, if the only testimony opportunity was at another meeting, they should not be precluded from speaking here, but if there are minutes available from previous city council meetings and part of that discussion, a statement could be made by the mayor that if you've spoken before, your comments are in the packet as a mater of public record, and therefore that speaker should yield to someone else.


Mayor Roe suggested, as part of his instructions, besides noting the availability of Planning Commission meeting minutes and/or previous City Council public comment, alerting the public that those materials are available for the public as well, and the relevant portion of meeting minutes, especially anticipating those land use items, along with the staff report and attachments if for a particular area of interest.


Without objection, Mayor Roe stated his intent to allot three minutes for second comments on an issue versus five minutes if they come back before the body and if and when a previous opportunity for public comment has been provided.


Rosenberg's Rules of Order

As previously addressed tonight, City Manager Trudgeon noted the frequent repetitive discussion before and after a motion; but by using Rosenberg's Rules, a motion should be put on the table before discussion.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this would require forethought coming into the meeting, but suggested more discipline in following that procedure on a more regular basis.


Mayor Roe suggested that as a starting point the staff-recommended motion could be put on the table, even if the makers of the motion are not 100% in agreement with the proposed motion or language.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that it would make for a better meeting to get the motions on the table before discussion, with one discussion following and statements of support or opposition.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she found advanced discussion often provided for a better motion, especially for more complicated items that she wasn't sure of her colleagues' thoughts prior to that discussion, and allowing her to get an idea of what the motion should be.


Councilmember Etten recognized Councilmember McGehee's point, but suggested trying this out and seeing how the flow went.  While it may become a tracking issue if there were multiple amendments to a motion, Councilmember Etten noted the result may instead be that it gets to a decision quicker, whether or not a motion was refined from staff's recommended motion or made independently by an individual council members.


To Councilmember McGehee's point, Mayor Roe noted that discussion was necessary before calling a motion, providing an opportunity for amendment or change accordingly; whether based on individual comments or staff's perspective.  Mayor Roe suggested trying that practice, and offered to track amendments better.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the practice didn't need to be perfect, and opined that the City Council knew which items were not ready for a motion without prior discussion.


Staff Presentations

Councilmember Etten stated he was on middle ground on this, using code violations as an example, opining that could be covered with one slide.  However, using another example of a MnDOT presentation, Councilmember Etten stated he didn't want to shorten that presentation to the point where the public couldn't understand a project.  Therefore, Councilmember Etten opined this fell to staff to find a way to get information to the public as well as the City Council; defining those items of importance and how best to portray that information and understanding of background material.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred to some extent, but suggested not limiting slides, but instead reviewing what information was needed to best understand a topic, issue or project.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she didn't need the staff report read to her, but instead preferred an executive summary of the information displayed on the screen; with any additional information outside the slides provided in staff's presentation.


Mayor Roe suggested more bullet points and visuals/graphics on slides for the City Council and the public to help frame up the issue, identify the decision to be made, and then turn the topic over for questions.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, noting the information contained in the power points didn't need each and every slide read, but boiled down into an executive summary; and if available ahead of time, provided to the City Council and public so all can come prepared for discussion and questions.


Mayor Roe opined that if the information was provided in the presentation but not in the report, something was wrong; and therefore, he'd argue against more power points, but more succinct information for those viewing from home.


Again, Councilmember McGehee suggested that when staff makes their presentation, they slide a map over of the area being talked about, or other pertinent information to inform the discussion and presentation.


Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember McGehee, including policies and other documents for display during discussion.


City Manager Trudgeon asked permission of the City Council to start instituting some of the things discussed and agreed upon tonight before the next meeting. 


Without objection, Mayor Roe so directed staff to proceed accordingly.


b.            Discussion of City Council Rules of Procedures

City Manager Trudgeon suggested allowing staff to amend the Rules of Procedures and bring them forward at the next meeting of the City Council.


At the request of Mayor Roe, there were no additional rules or revisions of current rules brought forward for consideration other than those addressed above.


16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.        Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:22 p.m.


          Roll Call

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

Nays: None.