|
City Council |
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 8, 2013
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:30 pm, and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
City Manager Search Consultant Interviews
Proposals for the two (2) finalist firms were included as part of the meeting agenda materials. Those present for the interviews included Acting City Manager Chris Miller, Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon; Councilmembers Etten, Laliberte, Willmus, and Mayor Roe. Councilmember McGehee arrived at approximately 5:51 pm. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
The representatives of both firms provided additional summary materials, provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereto.
a. Brimeyer Fursman, LLP
Jim Brimeyer, founder of Brimeyer Fursman, LLC, was present to provide a summary of the firm; and respond to questions of the City Council. Mr. Brimeyer noted that he now served as senior advisor for the firm, having been appointed by Governor Mark Dayton to the Metropolitan Council (District 6) in 2011.
b. Springsted, Incorporated
David Unmacht of Springsted, Inc. was present to provide a summary of their firm; and respond to questions of the City Council.
2. Approve Agenda
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced the opportunity for applicants for various Citizen Advisory Commission vacancies and the upcoming deadline for those applications.
As the City Council representative serving on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) group, Councilmember Laliberte announced upcoming public open houses and their various locations. Councilmember Laliberte advised that public input was being sought related to stops and amenities; and a general explanation of how BRT is intended to work; with special interest for Roseville residents and the proposed Snelling Avenue BRT, beginning at the Hiawatha – 46th Street Station in Minneapolis, and following along Ford Parkway to Rosedale Center.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Proclaim July 13, 2013 to be B-Dale Day
Mayor Roe read a proclamation in recognition of this Club, incorporated in Roseville in 1963.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming July 13, 2013 to be B-Dale Day in the City of Roseville, recognizing the charitable contributions made by this 50 year club to the City of Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Proclaim August 6, 2013 Night to Unite
Mayor Roe read a proclamation in recognition of the annual neighborhood Night to Unite, sponsored by the Minnesota Crime Prevention Association.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, proclaiming August 6, 2013 as “Night to Unite” in the City of Roseville; encouraging police-community partnerships to enhance safety, awareness and cooperation in the community.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe encouraged everyone in Roseville to participate in the community in this event.
c. Accept Donation from Magellan Midstream Partners LP
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, acceptance of a donation in the amount of $2,500 from Magellan midstream partners, LP of Roseville to the City’s Police Department to update its physical fitness room; and recognize their generous support of the City’s Police Department.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
On behalf of the community, City Council and staff, Mayor Roe thanked the firm for their generous donation.
6. 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 Minutes of June 17, 2013; June 22, 2013; and July 1, 2013 Meetings
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the June 17, 2013 regular meeting; the June 22, 2013 emergency meeting; and the July 1, 2013 Special meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
. At the request of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
Check Series # |
Amount |
|
ACH Payments |
$474,138.56 |
|
70291-70593 |
1,667,553.44 |
|
Total |
$2,141,692.00 |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for applicants as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 8, 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of $5,000
A revised RCA was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:
|
Department |
Vendor |
Description |
Amount |
Budget / CIP |
|
IT |
Datalink |
Router and switch replacement (State Bid Contract) |
$58,901.48 |
CIP |
|
Sewer |
Ess Brothers |
Manhole Sealing |
30,000.00 |
CIP |
|
Police |
Data911 |
Service Warranties on Squad laptops |
5,643.00 |
CIP |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as follows:
|
Department |
Item / Description |
|
Streets |
1995 Ford CF8000 Cab-Over Distributor |
|
Streets |
1996 Caterpillar Roller |
|
Streets |
1993 Etyre Chip Spreader (1/2 owned by Ramsey County – they have agreed to sell) |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Approve Special Council Meeting for Budget Discussion on July 18, 2013
At the request of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Miller clarified the start time for the Special Council meeting scheduled at 5:00 pm.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of a Special Council Meeting on July 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm for the purpose of discussion of departmental budgets.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Approve Appointment of Youth Commissioner to Human Rights Commission (HRC)
Councilmember Laliberte congratulated Ms. Lim and her excellence as a candidate for the HRC to serve as a youth representative.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of Sungmoon Lim to serve at HRC Youth Commissioner for a term from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Approve Encroachment Agreement – Retaining Wall, Long Lake Road
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the new retaining wall would be located approximately 5’ behind the curb line to provide some snow storage.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of 2288 County Road C (NuStar) Encroachment Agreement (Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Authorize Accepting MN Department of Commerce Grant Award
Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for researching and filing the application for this grant.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of a grant from the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce in the amount of $40,000 to provide funding for auto theft focused crime impact details, deploying the newly outfitted bait vehicles, also paid for through this grant funding; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the State of Minnesota Grant Contract (Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Approve Fire Relief Association Monthly Benefit Increase
Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to the Relief Association for their ongoing representation of firefighters; and for them not seeking an increase in 2011 during more difficult economic times. Mayor Roe advised that he looked forward to continued discussions with representatives of the Association on the future and management of the organization. Mayor Roe further expressed appreciation to staff for last week’s informative and beneficial presentation about the association.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the Roseville Fire Relief Association monthly benefit from $30 to $32 per month, subject to conditions as outlined in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning Two Areas in Roseville from Regional Business to the Newly-Created Regional Business-2 District (RB-2) Allowing Limited Production/Processing as a Permitted Use in the RB-2 District
A revised draft ordinance (Attachment B), providing the zoning map designation for this area was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief summary of this requested modification as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1445 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” amending definition of Limited production/Processing to be both a principal and accessory use; and amending Table 1005-1 to reflect how the uses will be permitted in the Regional Business and Regional Business-2 Districts; as revised in the bench handout.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1445 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Adopt an Ordinance that creates a Definition for Limited Warehousing and Distribution and Allows it as a Permitted and Conditional Use Within the Regional Business and Office/Business Park Districts
A revised draft ordinance (Attachment B), providing corrections to respective tables for this area was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
City Planner Paschke provided a brief summary of this requested modification as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding her preference to eliminate the last sentence of Section 5, #35, line 18 to avoid confusion, City Attorney Mark Gaughan reviewed the rationale for leaving the language intact as drafted. Mr. Gaughan advised that this provided notice that general standards would apply with a case by case review; and in no way precluded use of those general standards. While recognizing that the preferred language was ultimately up to the City Council and wouldn’t make a difference in this situation, he noted that all would be subject to interpretation; but that the intent of the sentence was to suggest that the City would use its existing flexible general standards in reviewing each case.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, to strike the final sentence (line 18): “There are no specific standards for this use
In his review of other sections of the Zoning Code, Mr. Paschke advised that this was a consistent statement and parallel language throughout in listing regular and standard criteria, and areas where there was recognition that there may be some other distinct or additional criteria, but not necessary in this application.
Further discussion ensued regarding what and how the Conditional Use was triggered based on the number of vehicles defined; and how this section of code needed to be considered in the context of the rest of the code and general criteria.
After further discussion and consideration, and with Mr. Paschke’s review of Section 1009.02, Specific Standards and Criteria (D), and those five (5) general standards; Councilmember consensus was that the sentence should remain as drafted.
Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus withdrew the motion.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Paschke for the additional research.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No.1446 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” creating the definition for Limited Warehousing and Distribution; adding Limited Warehousing and Distribution as a Permitted and Conditional Use to Table 1005-2 in the RB-2 District and Table 1006-1 in the O/BP and I Districts (8 or fewer pick-up, cargo, and/or cube variety fleet trucks permitted and greater than 9 pick-up, cargo, and/or cube variety fleet trucks conditional use); and amend Section 1009.02 by adding “35” the number of vehicles that trigger a Conditional Use; as revised in the bench handout.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1446 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Section 1002.10, Definitions; Table 1005-1 and 1006-1 of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Adopt an Ordinance Creating Standards for Accessory Buildings in the Commercial and Mixed-Use and Employment Districts
City Planner Paschke provided a brief summary of this requested modification as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included type of storage intended as equipment, but not precluding chemical storage due to other restrictions in code regarding storage of hazardous materials;
Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to this request, opining that most businesses had outside services that provided their lawn care. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had received three (3) requests for such accessory buildings to-date, all denied at the administrative level due to no current allowance in City Code for such a use. Mr. Paschke noted that any application under this proposed revision would need to meet the design standards of code; and the 500 square footage would be comparable to a 1.5 – 2 stall garage.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1447 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” amending the requirements for Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures located in Tables 1005-1 and 1006-1, and articulating the requirements for accessory buildings in Section 1011.12.E “7” and F “6” of the Property Performance Standards.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion; opining that this would provide an opportunity for those preferring to store snow removal and/or lawn care equipment on site versus hauling it from one site to another; and would also ensure it was stored inside and out of the view of the public.
Councilmember McGehee reiterated her opposition to the motion; opining that while it was fine to have things out of the public view, it still represented equipment the owner was unable to fit in their original space. Councilmember McGehee further opined that, with a number of businesses with combined spaces, it would not be a good use for limited parking spaces; and the City had no limitations on what would be stored in these buildings and whether that storage would have anything to do with the actual business itself.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion, opining that her questions had been answered related to size in the Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that it provided an opportunity to avoid code enforcement issues down the road for outdoor storage. Mayor Roe clarified that, regarding what could be stored in these accessory buildings was dictated by those things allowed under a permitted use. Mayor Roe expressed confidence that, if there were future enforcement issues, the issue would return and the ordinance modified accordingly.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
Mr. Paschke provided an ordinance summary as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1447 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Table 1005-1, Table 1006-1, and Section 1011.12.E.7 and 1011.12.F.6 of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” as provided as a bench handout.
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Adopt an Ordinance that Amends the Exterior Building Materials Regulations in Chapters 1005, 1006, 1007, and 1008 of the City Code to Clarify and Refine the Restriction of Corrugated Metal as found on Typical Pole Buildings
City Planner Paschke provided a brief summary of this requested modification as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013. Mr. Paschke advised that Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd, co-researcher and co-author of this RCA, was also available tonight.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the application of 10% as a percentage to identify keeping materials as accent versus primary content; and staff’s intent to monitor the percentages and whether or not multiple variances come forward, which may require further refinement of the ordinance language to be consistent with actual application.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1448 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” amending the text in the Materials Section in Section 1005-02F (Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts Design Standards); Section 1006.02C (Employment Districts Design Standards); Section 1007.02F (Institutional District Design Standards); and Section 1008.02C (Park and Recreation District Design Standards).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Request by the Planning Division for Consideration of Zoning Text Changes to Multiple Sections to Review How Outdoor Storage is Defined and Regulated and Where Outdoor Storage is Allowed
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of this requested modification as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
Councilmember Etten thanked staff for bringing this proposal forward, opining that it made sense to break it out. Councilmember Etten noted that he had spoken to staff earlier today with some minor corrections; with staff identifying the majority of those revisions in their displayed copy of the ordinance in place of the draft provided in the RCA.
Discussion included outdoor storage versus storage in an enclosed building and what could be precluded or if a property could be used exclusively for outdoor storage if they met other regulations and defined under definitions (fleet); punctuation and sentence structure correction to line 18 of the draft ordinance (Attachment B); types of fleet vehicles; distinction between operable vehicles versus out-of-service vehicles (e.g. snow plow trucks and other seasonable equipment) preferred in a screened area; the subjective interpretation of limited timing for out-of-service or inoperable vehicles; inclusion of building materials under equipment/goods category; need for a clear distinction between finished goods versus raw materials; need for defining “permanent” and “temporary” outdoor storage (line 26); and clarifying permitted versus unpermitted uses requiring an Interim Use Permit or Conditional Use application approval, with aesthetic impacts and/or erosion control materials addressed in the updated Zoning Code for Industrial Districts.
Additional discussion included definition of “acceptable small amount of material (page 3, line 52) and addressed in Section 5, 1009.02.D.30 with staff anticipating a level at approximately 10% as being appropriate, but needing further review and possible refinement, but specifically addressed in each Conditional Use application rather than attempting to arrive at a correct volume or percentage in this revision; and staff direction to further define “permanent storage” from an enforcement perspective, with a specific definition, since it’s mentioned in numerous sections.
Regarding concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee related to inoperable vehicles and how they are defined, Mayor Roe noted that definition is found in in the City’s Nuisance Code.
Further discussion ensued regarding storage on one site of larger snow removal equipment for staging at various locations (e.g. Rosedale, Har Mar, Target) and whether there was any exemption for that equipment that was typically heavier and more difficult to transport; related difference for those businesses as noted whether located in a Regional Business-1, Community Business, or Neighborhood District. Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that care be given to not force people to transport those heavy vehicles more frequently than necessary. Councilmember Willmus noted that Rosedale was zoned Community Business and Target was zoned Regional Business, and expressed his preference that snow removal vehicles at both locations be consistent. With Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus, along with Mayor Roe, noting the storage of snow removal equipment season long at the Har Mar Mall Cub Store, staff was encouraged to further review this section. Mayor Roe suggested addressing the issue by defining the number of pieces of equipment allowed for outdoor storage at those sites and the seasonal nature of that equipment; and whether it was stored on one site but used in multiple locations; but at a minimum to provide a consistent standard across the board.
Addressing Councilmember McGehee’s concern with differences in fence height from 8’ to 6-8’ in sections of this revised ordinance, Mr. Lloyd advised that there were some areas when a higher fence was needed to address the type of materials, topography of the property, or other issues. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to sufficiently screen those items being stored outdoors, but to not create excessive costs for the property owner.
Mayor Roe noted that a Conditional Use would address the height issue if there were elevation issues; with Mr. Lloyd concurring.
Councilmembers expressed appreciation for staff’s pictorial examples in their report of those items that did or did not meet requirements.
With additional revisions and direction provided during this discussion, staff was requested to incorporate them in the next iteration.
Mayor Roe thanked staff for bringing these text amendments forward.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:45 pm and reconvened at approximately 7:54 pm.
10. Presentations
11. Public Hearings
a. Request to Extend Working Hours for the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided a brief summary of this requested variance to extend working hours for the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013. Ms. Bloom reported that the project was nearing completion with seven (7) miles completed and only less than 1 mile left. However, Ms. Bloom noted that the remaining work was in a difficult area creating the need for a variance. Ms. Bloom reviewed the breakdown of the two (2) remaining segments, and based on the traffic congestion at these locations near Rosedale and with area restaurants, the contractor was proposing that the work be done after 10:00 pm; as well as the need for the work near Central Park to allow additional time for the liner to cure due to its significant size.
Ms. Bloom advised that mailed notice had been provided to those in the affected neighborhood, resulting in only two (2) responses to staff, and once discussions were held, there appeared to be no remaining concerns with this proposed variance. Ms. Bloom clarified that the resulting noise beyond that normal quiet time restriction would consist of running engines and pumps, but not back-up alarms. Ms. Bloom advised that standard operating procedure would be for a 48-hour notice to affected residents before work started.
Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:58 pm; with no one appearing for or against.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of a variance to extend the working hours for the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Lining project; for the contractor to complete the work between July 9 and July 18, 2013; and in case of inclement weather, the work will be completed by July 31, 2013.
Councilmember McGehee advised that similar work had been done in her neighborhood; and she had been impressed with the process and contractors.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
12. Budget Items
13. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Award Contract to City Manager Consulting Firm
Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon provided a brief summary of the search process to-date, and review by the stakeholder group, consisting of two City Councilmembers as a Subcommittee and various staff members; as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013. As noted, interviews by the full City Council of the two (2) finalists had been held earlier this evening; with those firms being Springsted, Inc., and Brimeyer/Fursman.
Mayor Roe asked that individual Councilmembers address any remaining questions first before moving on to a discussion/consensus on how best to move forward from this point.
In response to Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bacon confirmed that, during tonight’s interviews, both firms had indicated their willingness to be flexible with the various components of their RFP and the process.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Bacon outlined the areas she would be comfortable handling in-house based on her existing workload, other projects and timeline identified by the City Council for the search process. Ms. Bacon advised that she was comfortable with and respected both firms, opining that either could take control of any or all of the components. Ms. Bacon suggested the question was whether the City Council was willing to delay the process for her to accomplish various components, or if they preferred a quicker timeline with the consultant firm taking more responsible. Ms. Bacon expressed her confidence in assisting at whatever level the City Council directed, cognizant of the preferred timeline.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon reviewed her current internal project load beyond the day to day operations, including implementation of the HRIS by August 1, 2013, followed by open enrollment for employee insurance and entry of that updated data; COLA considerations; union contracts; and ongoing internal hiring processes.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bacon opined that based on her knowledge of both firms through direct contact or through her Human Resources marketplace network, there should be no negative impacts for the City from either firm if the City chose to “cherry pick” various components, nor should there be any impact on either firm’s ability to fulfill the City’s overall goal.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon reviewed her participation level during the previous 2006 City Manager Search, including the majority of the process other than development of the profile and review of the initial applications, which had been done by the search firm. Ms. Bacon noted that the City Council and Stakeholder Group had already completed the majority of that work through the survey pieces used to update the previous profile.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon confirmed that all advertising had been done in-house; and was intended again this time.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon advised that the five (5) final candidates from the 2006 search had been subject to psychological testing by a third party; with in-house and/or search firms typically using the same third party firms for those tests. Ms. Bacon recommended having those tests performed on this round as well, opining that they were very helpful in narrowing the candidate pool for the finalists to determine general characteristics and how a candidate would react in certain situations.
In response to Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon reviewed the typical timeframe for the candidates to remain unidentified, with the intent to implement the best value process in keeping candidates unknown as long as possible to ensure a fair, consistent, and unprejudiced process. Ms. Bacon advised that this was at the discretion of the City Council; but during the 2006 search, the search firm didn’t release names to her until the final ten (10) candidates were identified to allow further review and research for background vetting. Ms. Bacon noted that she could be aware of the identity of the first group of final candidates without the City Council being made aware of their identify if that was their direction; with the City Council asking during the 2006 search that they not be aware of identities until further along in the process.
Councilmember Etten noted that the City Council and Stakeholder Group had already completed the majority of the profile; and questioned if that product was complete and sufficient, or if further refinement was needed at the Subcommittee or City Council level for a final product.
As a member of the Subcommittee, Councilmember Laliberte responded that the survey had been completed with some, but not all, results compiled. Now that the final firms had been interviewed and their role more clearly defined, Councilmember Laliberte advised that the profile could be refined. Councilmember Laliberte advised that one question not asked of the finalists was whether the firm preferred to do their own version of the profile, or simply fill in the gaps of any outstanding questions they thought were necessary.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the Stakeholder Group continue to be utilized throughout the process.
Mayor Roe stated, from his perspective, that if the City Council moved forward with a search firm, they would probably seek additional input from the Stakeholder Group in developing a final profile.
Mayor Roe focused discussion on how to proceed; and whether or not to select a firm,.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she would like further review of some of the materials by an outside third party to determine if there were any gaps, including some discussion with the business community and school district for additional input. Other than that, Councilmember McGehee opined that the general profile prepared by the Stakeholder Group to-date was sufficient once it was synthesized and further refined.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that, even though the Group had completed the survey and had results, it didn’t equate to a general profile, and some pieces were still missing.
Councilmember McGehee clarified that the raw materials were available but now needed drafted by professionals.
Mayor Roe referenced earlier discussions this year when options were discussed to take the raw data and have a facilitated discussion; or to have a draft product presented by a third party, incorporating the raw data. Mayor Roe opined that this would further define the scope required of a consultant.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the timeframe also needed to be addressed; noting that neither firm seemed to express any difficulty with it, but that it would significantly impact Ms. Bacon. Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification as to the City Council’s preferred timeframe.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she would prefer to get it done right rather than done quickly; and if there were more steps or meetings needed, she was amenable to that. Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t want to rush the process and botch it, or end up with an unhappy result.
Councilmember Etten concurred with not wanting to push the process, but to do it well; and suggested that if this process seemed too aggressive, it be opened up further. Councilmember Etten noted that the Springsted firm during their presentation had shortened the process even further; but questioned if they were doing so to fit the City Council’s previous timeframe or to express confidence that they could complete the process more quickly.
Mayor Roe noted that the timeframe for either firm seemed doable; but questioned if there was a tradeoff in saving potential costs and consultant decision-making; or whether the process should be extended by doing more work in-house. Mayor Roe opined that the process should take as long as it takes.
In response to Councilmember Laliberte, Acting City Manager Chris Miller advised that, from a budget standpoint, he saw no reason to accelerate the process. Mr. Miller opined that, no matter if a new City Manager was on board in October, unless it was an internal candidate, they were going to be in no position to immediately address the City Council on 2014 budget matters.
Focusing on the survey, Mayor Roe sought clarification from the City Council on whether to put it in the hands of a consultant allowing the firm to adjust their scope and prices based on that material; or if they needed something else to complete the profile. Mayor Roe sought consensus on whether the City Council wanted to be more involved with Department Heads at this point or to choose the consultant to take what had been created to-date and bring it back to the body.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the raw survey data be provided to the firm, with a subsequent meeting of City Councilmembers and Department Heads with the firm facilitating that meeting to develop a more polished profile format. With the second option identified by Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the same results would be achieved. Councilmember McGehee opined that she preferred to be more involved and take whatever time was necessary, since this was the City Council’s City Manager and employee. Councilmember McGehee opined that, unless you had direct involvement in framing a document, there was a tendency to disconnect from the process, and less potential for any input on the final product. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that this may not be a problem for this group, since they were not very passive and had proven quite independent.
Mayor Roe noted that it was unlikely that the City Council would come out of a facilitated session with final language, but simply with a consensus for bullet points that would be subsequently worked into a draft by someone else.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the original approach outlined by Mayor Roe, with the City Council taking a more active role, if that was the direction chosen by the City Council majority. Councilmember Willmus opined that he remained committed to taking a hard look at internal candidates, but if the City Council decided to go with a search firm, he would then support that majority decision. However, Councilmember Willmus opined that the best candidate for Roseville showed up in this building for work every day; and sought other member interest in vetting some of those internal candidates before deciding on a search firm and spending more money.
Mayor Roe referenced the previous meeting held at the C-TV studios, and questioned if a consensus was reached on whether the search be open to all or if internal candidates be considered separately.
Councilmember Laliberte, reflecting on that meeting and discussions on development of the draft RFP, opined that there had been no final consensus on whether internal candidates would be fed into the larger process or considered separately.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she had the impression from that previous meeting that the majority said to have all candidates – whether external or internal – apply through the process; with the majority consensus creating this current path. Regarding internal candidates, Councilmember McGehee opined that her only concern was if an internal candidate could provide the efficiencies and eliminate duplication of services being sought by the City Council; or whether they would be inclined to continue the style created over the last 5-6 years, based on the relationships and/or territory developed among co-workers during that time. Councilmember McGehee opined that the previous style had not boded well for the City or its budget during that time; and that change was difficult in itself, but could prove more so for an internal candidate in seeking to address known issues of their colleagues. Councilmember McGehee opined that she would support opening up the process for internal candidates to apply, with the interview process then addressing some of her concerns.
Councilmember Etten opined that he preferred not to limit the process at this time; and agreed that there were excellent candidates internally. However, without a profile directing what the City Council was seeking this round, and its expectations of a new position and person, it would be difficult to avoid burying itself in the status quo. Councilmember Etten spoke in support of opening the process while still recognizing internal candidates at some point in the process. However, Councilmember Etten opined that the process needed to have follow-through to lead the City into the future.
Mayor Roe opined that having that profile would help internal and external candidates know what the City Council was seeking; and further opined that as long as the process remained fair and open, they reserved the right to change directions at any time during that process.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had performed research on both firms with other communities they’d assisted, and noted that one of those cities had actually gone with an internal candidate in the end.
Mayor Roe noted that the consensus appeared that the City Council wanted to continue looking at the broader search.
Regarding a facilitated discussion to develop basics for a profile, whether a search firm or third party, Mayor Roe suggested that such a discussion would provide other aspects to determine if the City Council wanted to use either firm or do more in-house. Mayor Roe opined that there may be some risk in one of those firms getting too busy to contract with Roseville or changing their quote significantly; and suggested that this potential risk be weighed as part of this consideration.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bacon noted that the 2006 search was national.
Given the City Council’s previous preference for a regional versus national search, Councilmember McGehee suggested that if a facilitated discussion with Councilmembers and Department Heads for development of a draft, position advertisement and advertising handled in-house, they continue to perform the initial screening of applicants rather than a third party.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that this was her question related to the continued involvement of the Stakeholder Group and if more services were sought from that Group. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she thought the City should have access to anything submitted for the City Manager Search, not just the final ten (10) candidates.
Councilmember Etten cautioned that there could be huge volumes of data that the City Council could not accurately and completely review in any reasonable time frame; whether the City Council itself or Ms. Bacon. Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council didn’t have sufficient expertise to go through those applications accurately or in a timely manner; but that Ms. Bacon, or a search firm, had that expertise. Councilmember Etten noted that the City Council may choose more than ten (10) finalists, or choose to include internal candidates; but spoke in support of the huge advantage of a firm, or allowing an additional 2-3 weeks for Ms. Bacon to perform that initial review. Councilmember Etten questioned how he could provide sufficient expertise to find a qualified City Manager from a vast pool of applicants.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, if a firm was going to be hired to provide candidates they be required to perform that function. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council and/or Stakeholder Group should serve to create the profile and then turn the process over to the search firm and let them do their work based on their expertise.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus; opining that they were the professionals, and the work shouldn’t be done in-house; and if following the current process, the initial screening should be done by the professional firm, as long as the City retained the right to review applications themselves.
Mayor Roe advised that, based on comments of Ms. Bacon, he had suggested removing the advertising component/cost from both proposals. Ms. Bacon concurred, noting that the process could be accomplished very easily; as well as recognizing the geo.gov online application process currently used.
Councilmember Etten questioned if this allowed for those applicants in the firms’ networks to be included in the search process; opining that the firms had that one-on-one personal connection outside the in-house advertising process.
Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no need for the on-boarding component of either proposal; and also questioned the validity of a psychological review.
Mayor Roe suggested having that psychological review for someone at that level of employment and interaction with staff and the community.
Regarding the on-boarding component, Councilmember Etten noted that one firm had it as a separate component, while the other firm wrapped it into background, goals, etc. making it difficult to distinguish the actual cost of on-boarding.
Regarding the employment contract process, Mayor Roe noted that one firm had lumped that in with negotiation of a compensation package and other components as well, making that actual cost hard to distinguish.
Mayor Roe focused tonight’s decision-making on whether to go with either firm with a revised scope and final price back to the City Council for approval or to continue discussion to a future meeting.
Councilmember Etten stated that he remained unsure of which piece to remove from either proposal considering the other responsibilities Ms. Bacon currently had on her plate and what else the City Council wanted to add to that load.
Mayor Roe noted one potential cost savings in developing the profile would be the lack of interest by the Roseville City Council in seeking broad community input into the position profile. Mayor Roe clarified that the City was essentially seeing the firm to develop a profile; and perform initial screening and basic background review for the first cut of candidates; with the interview process still pending,.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the firm didn’t need to be involved in the interview process; with the City Council taking time to perform them, while recognizing that a third person would provide greater transparency.
Mayor Roe suggested there may be certain aspects that the firm would be requested to perform; and asked Ms. Bacon if she was comfortable with that scenario.
Ms. Bacon responded that she was comfortable with that process; and had all the questions available from the panels and offered review of them with the full body for further refinement as indicated.
Councilmember Willmus offered his respect for Ms. Bacon’s position and expertise; however, he opined that the City Council had reached the “cherry picking” stage; and if it intended to choose a firm to get an outline laid out. Councilmember Willmus opined that he was interested in moving in a different direction than past searches; and supported allowing a firm to perform the follow-through and vet candidates, with the exception of developing the profile. In response to Mayor Roe’s request for clarification, Councilmember Willmus advised that his comments were based on the majority decision to hire a firm and not concentrate strictly on internal candidates.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred that if a search firm was hired that they be utilized for what they do best and not sacrifice part of the process. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council could retain as heavy a hand as they chose in developing the profile and its expectations of the position; since the Council had to-date made it clear that this was their preference.
Councilmember Etten opined that he liked the whole package; however, suggested that the firm’s involvement in the interview process be to refine its questions and sit in on the interviews.
Mayor Roe opined that he wasn’t interested in the on-boarding component, nor was he interested in the interview component; but would support their involvement in refining the profile to be more in line with a facilitated discussion and the end product. Mayor Roe sought consensus on selecting a consultant with further refinement and cost adjustments from the initial proposal.
Councilmember McGehee clarified Mayor Roe’s summary of the apparent consensus for the firm to refine the profile, perform initial screening, develop the scope of the RFP, and leaving open the option for their involvement in facilitation or assistance with the interview process after the City Council does the screening and follow-up.
Mayor Roe noted that this also included the firm performing background checks and developing an employment contract.
There appeared to be consensus for these components.
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, moving forward with initiating discussion and redefining the scope with the Springsted firm; returning to the City Council for further consideration and potential approval; adjusting the various components as indicated.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion; referencing her review of their RFP and higher weighting by the Stakeholder Group of the price. In favoring the Brimeyer firm, Councilmember McGehee opined that she based it on being based more exclusively in MN and because of their background and experience of their leadership/management team and past emphasis and specificity rather than boiler plate. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the firm’s tie with the Metropolitan Council as well.
In recognizing the similarity of both firms, and opining that he thought either would do a good job; Councilmember Willmus opined that, in the context of today’s interview, he leaned more toward the Brimeyer firm; and also liked their tie in with the Metropolitan Council creating a broader appeal for him in that regard.
In tonight’s interviews, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the Springsted firm was stronger and provided a broader scope versus that of the Brimeyer firm and its concentration on Mr. Brimeyer’s personal history. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the tie in with the Metropolitan Council was of little interest to her; and advised that during her calls to other communities having had recent searches with either of these firms, those using Springsted had commented that it was a good process and there was great communication throughout the process. In comments related to the Brimeyer firm, Councilmember Laliberte advised that one community’s response had been that they felt the resources of Brimeyer were being stretched.
Councilmember Etten opined that both firms were similar and he didn’t think Springsted’s connection in several other states was negative, but positive; and that having people in their network with a regional search only served to broaden the scope, but would not take away from MN. Councilmember Etten opined that, while both firms were locally based and very connected locally, and appeared to have good networks, the information provided by Springsted was much clearer for him.
Councilmember Laliberte noted the comment of Springsted that Roseville was currently their only City Manager search.
In defense of the Brimeyer firm, Councilmember Etten noted that their Senior Vice President (Ms. Klumpp) was formerly Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Laliberte therefore noted that both firms had that connection.
Mayor Roe noted that both firms were close in terms of cost and experience. However, Mayor Roe advised that he had been swayed by tonight’s interview process; and expressed his favorable impression with Springsted, while recognizing that Jim Brimeyer had been called in to pinch hit for this interview. While it was a close vote for him, Mayor Roe advised that he was leaning toward the Springsted firm.
While noting that it was valuable, Councilmember McGehee opined that the information provided by Springsted at tonight’s interview was redundant and had already been provided in written form; and represented nothing new. In recognizing that the person the City may work with at Brimeyer/Fursman would not be the representative at tonight’s interview, Councilmember McGehee expressed her perception that Mr. Unmacht may be difficult to work with as he facilitator and appeared to be more of an aggressive salesperson which was; and not what she was looking for at all in this process. Councilmember McGehee advised that she saw this as a team process, and did not get that impression from tonight’s interview for Springsted.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she didn’t share those concerns; opining that Mr. Unmacht was a good presenter even if reiterating the written materials, he had added additional comments and provided a comfort level for her. In her conversations with other communities, Councilmember Laliberte noted that Springsted was recognized for their ability to facilitate the process.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte; Etten and Roe.
Nays: Willmus and McGehee.
Motion carried.
b. Classification and Compensation Study Policy Recommendations and Implementation
Human Resources Manager Bacon summarized discussions and City Council direction to staff to-date and staff recommendations as detailed in the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Bacon confirmed that an approximately amount of $35,000 remained as previously allocated in 2013 for merit pay at this time; with the merit program never fully or consistently utilized. At the request of Councilmember Etten as to why the merit program had not been used more consistently, Ms. Bacon responded that it was a very subjective program, and when working with various personalities and budgets, Department Heads varied in how to apply the program without being judged by their employees as inconsistent. Ms. Bacon opined that, from a Human Resources perspective, she found the merit program not to provide as much accuracy as preferred, especially for employees in the public sector whose performance was continually scrutinized by the public, as well as their budget decisions. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Bacon reviewed how the organization made compensation decisions (e.g. step program) and past training for Department Heads in how to implement those programs.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon confirmed that once the fifth step in a position had been reached, the only options available for that employee to realize further pay increases was through COLA or by moving into another position.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bacon reviewed how education and/or expertise played into the step program.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bacon reviewed the City’s “banded” compensation program, defined as analyzing each position’s criteria and what it took to get the job done as compared internally with peers with that same classification. Ms. Bacon advised that there were currently twenty-one (21) levels of pay within the City’s banded system; and within that there were ranges of points with peers banded together with the same level of responsibilities, education; each a different position but with similar requirements, and then within that, the steps necessary to move from entry level to top level pay. If the City chose to be at 100% average with peer communities, Ms. Bacon explained that the top pay would be targeted across the board for the ten (10) peer cities and those job descriptions; with thirteen (13) benchmark positions identified in the latest compensation study compared to arrive at the average pay level.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that many of the City’s jobs had crossover and sharing among departments; and questioned how they could be compared to other cities without that same level of activities; with Ms. Bacon responding that this was why only thirteen (13) positions were found and used for the study benchmarks.
Councilmember McGehee noted that future studies may not involve the same ten (10) cities as this study; and since it had been ten (10) years since the last compensation study, that would always be changing as well as positions changing within the City during that time.
Ms. Bacon advised that when the next study was done, another analysis would be done to determine who was similar, how the roles were defined, and which city’s business models and organizational structure best compared to that of Roseville at that given time. Ms. Bacon noted that the benchmark positions used for this study may not be the same positions used for the next study.
Mayor Roe opined that, while staff’s recommendation was to only take action on the three (3) recommendations at once and not consider them separately to avoid impacting other areas of the City’s current pay plan, the City Council may choose to take other action or adopt a policy separate from the implementation discussion needing to occur as part of the budget process. Mayor Roe noted the need to consider total impacts of future levies and to not establish a practice of using reserves for basic operational costs.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, when this item first came before the body, his position was to discuss this issue in the context of the budget; and advised that he had not changed his perspective since them. Councilmember Willmus further noted the need to have a more in depth discussion of its expectations or a guideline; and whether it was comfortable establishing a policy at 100% of peer communities; or to look at a range.
Councilmember Etten advised that he could support a range rather than a certain percentage. In researching this with Human Resources personnel at various profit and non-profit groups, Councilmember Etten noted that they all operated within a range; and were continuously fighting within that range anyway, being unable to always hit the exact target. However, Councilmember Etten opined that a range would define the general concept or policy moving forward; and while he was unsure if a percentage was functional, he could support a goal or policy within a certain range.
At the request of Mayor Roe for setting a policy and then continuing discussion at a future date, Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council could set a policy, but he didn’t think it could be done absent a discussion of the budget. Councilmember Etten noted that the upcoming budget meetings with Department Heads should prove beneficial and inform this discussion as well. Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council needed to have a policy discussion that provided a plan for the big picture and that it needed to happen in conjunction with the overall budget discussions. At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten clarified that he was supportive of a policy as long it was for a range, but that implementation had to happen in the context of the overall budget; to address realities that could not be ignored.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with that concept, opining that she was happy with a range, within 98%-100%, but supported staff’s recommendation #2 for those so far under market average; with the implementation for remaining employees tied to the budget.
Mayor Roe noted that another consideration was that the eight (8) positions were 6% off the 100% mark; and therefore additional costs would be incurred above the $20,000 if the 4.6% increase to pay plans was not implemented at that same time.
If that action was taken, Ms. Bacon cautioned that the City Council would essentially create a completely ineffective system, since the system currently worked in conjunction with all positions. If the City Council chose to select and implement only Staff Recommendation #2, Ms. Bacon advised that those positions would be re-classed to the next grade and the entire compensation system would become skewed. Ms. Bacon respectfully noted that if the City Council chose to change the policy at tonight’s meeting for a certain range or percentage, it would in essence eliminate the merit pay program and essentially give staff a pay cut. While the intent of the City Council may be to put a policy in place moving forward, Ms. Bacon noted that the message sent to staff was that the City Council was enacting a pay cut.
Based on the previous action tonight to increase the Fire Relief Association pension program, Councilmember McGehee opined that she had no intention of taking any action that would cut staff pay.
While respecting Ms. Bacon’s perspective about a pay cut and the theory behind it, Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was already happening in those departments not utilizing the current merit system. Councilmember Laliberte suggested additional training or a process to better utilize that program; and if not, a different solution was needed. Councilmember Laliberte concurred that any future implementation or amount couldn’t happen due to restrictions coming forward in the budget process; and that the proposal needed to be part of those bigger budget conversations. Councilmember Laliberte supported having a policy with a range, while recognizing that 100% would be difficult to achieve, since once setting the bar, the City would be out of compliance; and also noted the need to address parity or union and non-union groups and the timing of those situations. Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for the aspiration to achieve equity among everyone; however, she noted the need to be realistic in having a policy with goals that could be delivered.
Mayor Roe noted if a range was set that equaled the current situation, it resulted in a cut, but if it was set and funded, it helped with the issue. Mayor Roe advised that he could understand the point of view to fund the recommendations now through use of reserves and later backfilling it with levy increases. However, Mayor Roe noted that future decisions on levy increases were subjective; and implementation could not be immediately achieved, automatically setting the City up for failure. Mayor Roe opined that, if the City wanted to set a policy, it needed to figure out a way to fund it immediately and how to work that into future budgets and levies.
Mayor Roe opined that he was not comfortable doing that tonight; and from his perspective the broader picture was needed over the next 2-3 years, addressing other impacts on the levy (e.g. decertification of TIF Districts; 2015 contractual costs; CIP implications already set up, etc.) and to take all those things into account. Mayor Roe noted how this was accomplished when putting together funding for immediate and long-term CIP needs with operational costs reduced as part of the funding. Mayor Roe opined that all of these considerations entered into the picture.
Mayor Roe opined that he was fine with setting a policy to provide a range; however, he opined that a pitfall of having a range is that actual achievement may be for the bottom rung and not achieving being 100% in line with the ten (10) peer cities. Mayor Roe advised that he could support a range of 98% - 102%.
Councilmember Willmus opined that the option to utilize reserves to offset this burden was interesting, since he had been under the impression that in the past, those reserves were untouchable or required a thorough review of the City’s reserve ratio. While not sure that was a direction he would chose to go, Councilmember Willmus opined that if the City set a target to attain, he would question if using reserves should attain it. While remaining open to further discussion going forward, Councilmember Willmus expressed his strong opinion that it was vital that these decisions needed to be weighed within the overall budget picture. Councilmember Willmus opined that it would be difficult for the City to set a policy at a certain percent and then realize a year later that it couldn’t attain that goal.
Mayor Roe opined that a policy could be phased in when implemented; however, he didn’t think the policy itself was tied to the budget or current funding.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was looking forward to the upcoming Department Head budget discussions to hear their specific perspectives on how much money they had, other challenges before them, and where this issue fell within that context, recognizing that many of the positions did not fall equally across the organization.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether that affected where the policy was set, Councilmember Laliberte responded in the negative, noting that it would depend on each annual budget.
Councilmember Etten suggested that his goal was mid-range based on his discussions with other communities; and while that may appear vague or not provide a sufficient comfort level for the organization, he found many organizations were using that model. In removing the merit piece, Councilmember Etten opined that he didn’t see that as a cut, since he would bury that right back into staff pay as part of the foundation for the main compensation process. Councilmember Etten further opined that the range would need to be part of training for the City Council, and based on past steps for prioritizing, when a policy was set, the City Council looked at steps to put that into place. Councilmember Etten opined that he didn’t think using reserves was the answer, and stated that he was more focused on how to fund it in 2014 rather than solving the 2013 problem.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she bought into the compounding problem; and opined that she didn’t like vague ideas for employment structures in municipal government; opining that there had to be a realistic range for people to see and measure and how it was arrived at, and adjusted every 5-10 years. Councilmember McGehee stated that she differed with Councilmember Willmus in his perception that reserves were untouchable, since in the past, those reserves had been adjusted and touched, sometimes at the suggestion of Councilmember Willmus himself. While not supporting a recurring use of reserves for this type of problem, Councilmember McGehee opined that she could support it as a one-time option when the City found itself in a year with levy limits. Councilmember McGehee questioned how the City could continue to abuse its employees by continuing to have this discussion and yet not do anything about it moving forward while at the same time expecting staff to continue their dedication to the City. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of establishing a policy, opining that from her understanding, all Department Heads had concurred with this proposal and that should provide sufficient direction for the City Council and eliminate the need for any further discussion of this particular policy issue.
Acting City Manager Chris Miller asked to add his comments and observations based on his reflection and participation in these discussions with this and previous City Councils over his eleven (11) year tenure with the City. Mr. Miller advised that staff looked at this as an organizational priority, not just a 2014 priority or situation, but a long-term priority. While staff could appreciate levy limits and other restrictions in 2014 and perhaps even longer, Mr. Miller noted that he had observed that when this City Council became aware of an organizational or service priority, it took charge; whether that was building a new fire station, infrastructure replacement, CIP needs. Mr. Miller noted that the City Council made a commitment to those top priorities; and suggested that this issue may be just as significant to the organization as those other priorities in providing services and programs the community expected to see. Mr. Miller asked that the City Council look at this long-term for the health of the organization; noting that this particular issue had been an issue for years and continued to be pushed aside for other priorities. However, Mr. Miller noted that these internal inequities at 4.6% had been in place for a considerable amount of time, and opined that it would resonate well for the community and staff if the City strove to be average and not fall below while continuing to expect staff to deliver results. Mr. Miller opined that staff had already been delivering those results with the expectation that someday this would be addressed as a City priority. While recognizing that the City Council wanted to have a budget discussion, Mr. Miller noted that the focus of that discussion was on 2014, not 2015, 2016 or beyond; and questioned if it would provide the context being sought or the rationale for not supporting the proposal currently before the City Council.
McGehee moved, Roe seconded, approval of a policy and implement as recommended by staff in lines 62-77 of the RCA dated July 8, 2013.
Roe moved, McGehee seconded, an amendment to the policy to begin implementation effective January 1, 2014; and use the balance allotted for merit pay along with drawing down reserves to fund the policy and implementation to the extent it cannot be funded through other budget decisions made over the next few months and if no other solutions are found during those discussions.
While supporting the effective date of January 1, 2014, Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to the remainder of the amendment based on past discussions; opining that he could not support use of reserves.
Councilmember Willmus sought clarification if the intent was for a policy at 100%; with Mayor Roe responding affirmatively unless further amendments were brought forth.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned the 100% policy without having more answers subsequent to tonight.
Mayor Roe noted the provision for other solutions sought in the budget process.
Referencing Mr. Miller’s comments, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had the ability to do what it wanted to do when it wanted to do it; and expressed her confidence that the recommendations could still be accomplished without use of reserves. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was ridiculous to not be able to fund $350,000 to take care of City staff; when there were many other options available to save money for residents, such as going out on contract services.
Mayor Roe pointed opined that he was not aware of anyone at the City Council bench that was more consistently against use of reserves for operational costs than he was. However, Mayor Roe advised that he was supporting their use confident that a payback plan could be found. Mayor Roe noted that, using his date of January 1, 2014, the existing merit pay plan would remain in place for 2013. Mayor Roe advised that he had been supportive of using a range until he realized that the existing range would be all shifting up anyway; and spoke in support of his motion to amend the start date allowing time to come up with other funding sources during the budget process.
Roll Call (Amendment)
Ayes: McGehee and Roe.
Nays: Willmus; Laliberte; and Etten
Motion failed.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded an amendment to implement staff recommendations effective January 1, 2014 for non-union and non-exempt employees; funding it through utilizing existing merit pay fund balances and future levy increases.
After further discussion regarding the effective date and nothing in place for future funding, even with costs incurred effective January 1, 2014; Councilmember Etten withdrew his motion.
Roll Call (Original Motion)
Ayes: McGehee and Roe.
Nays: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten.
Motion failed.
14. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a. Discuss and Seek Council Direction Regarding Possible Changes to Boat and Trailer Parking Regulations in Chapter 407 (Nuisances) of the City Code
At 9:58 pm, Etten moved, Willmus seconded, extending the City Council curfew for an additional ten (10) minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Codes Coordinator Don Munson provided a brief overview of issues as outlined in the RCA dated July 8, 2013; and sought City Council direction to staff for any further research and/or recommendation.
Public Comment
Dan Kelsey, 735 Pine Oak Drive
Mr. Kelsey advised that his concern was with the limitations of his lot and with 5’ setbacks and topography of the lot, his inability to get his trailer into his side yard. Mr. Kelsey offered his willingness to park it on the side if there was a safe way to do so. Mr. Kelsey asked that the City Council consider the hardships faced by many lots in Roseville, and areas it is not always practical or possible to get trailers into side lots; in addition to the cost of off-site parking elsewhere for trailers, that would also create a hardship. Mr. Kelsey advised that his family had a boat and utility trailer at this time.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern if residents were prohibited from parking certain trailers on their driveways while allowed to park them on the street. Councilmember Willmus opined that it seemed to be more beneficial to a neighborhood to allow parking in the driveway as long as there was no encroachment on any rights-of-way.
Mr. Munson advised that staff fielded more complaints about trailers parked in driveways because of the perception that it detracted from the neighborhood; with neighbors preferring the rear or side years, whether temporarily or indefinitely. Mr. Munson offered to provide the statistics on the number of complaints fielded by staff on an annual basis.
Mayor Roe opined that such information would be helpful going forward; and verified with Mr. Munson that there were no restrictions with parking trailers on streets as long as they were properly licensed and not a safety hazard, even though some residents had safety concerns. Mayor Roe noted that some cars parked long-term on the street also created a perception of safety issues in some cases.
Councilmember Willmus noted that a number of City and State residents had boats, and questioned to what extent a neighbor could influence or control what a neighbor did with their boat, as long as it was licensed and in good repair.
Mr. Munson clarified that boats and trailers are currently treated differently; and clarified that a boat of 20’ or less could be parked in a front yard, but not trailers of any size.
Councilmember Etten questioned if differentiating between a boat and a utility trailer served any purpose for the community.
With Mr. Munson noting that often it was a public perception; and Mayor Roe responding that it may also depend on the boat; with Mr. Munson concurring that trailers seemed to negatively impact perceptions versus boats.
Mayor Roe recognized that aesthetics were one of the most difficult issues for city code enforcement; since no one had the same taste.
Mr. Munson noted that concerns were based on people’s perception of a particular neighborhood as well as maintaining their property values.
Councilmember McGehee asked that staff provide comparison information with other communities; and that staff also provide the number and type of complaints based on repeat complaints and/or location of those complaints.
Mayor Roe noted that street parking was a much broader discussion that had occurred several years ago at the City Council level; and recognized the various tensions with small lots and driveways; overnight parking bans; and overnight guests. If this issue is pursued, Mayor Roe asked that the City Council be cognizant that many more issues will be revisited; and recognized the challenge in enforcing the various issues and the need to prove violations or non-compliance.
Councilmember Willmus noted the need to address recreational vehicles and boats as well.
Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council may wish to have guidance from other communities as well as balancing community values and individual needs. Since this would impact the City’s larger nuisance code, and require significant input and community meetings, Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council may wish to defer research to a citizen advisory group to provide recommendation to the body at a future time.
At 10:12 pm, Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, extending the City Council curfew for an additional five (5) minutes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus requested that the compensation study return in the near future for further consideration of a policy and a theory behind a policy; with the City Council committed to finding a resolution and schedule for implementation. If the implementation date was January 1, 2014, Councilmember Willmus opined that this would allow some time to discuss options.
Mr. Miller advised that staff could review upcoming agendas and a proposed date for further discussion at their upcoming Department Head meeting.
16. Initiated Items for Future Meetings
17. Adjourn
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:15 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.