|
City Council |
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2017
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
City Manager Trudgeon advised that Business Items 7.e and g were removed as staff and property owners had resolved code violations prior to tonight’s meeting. City Manager Trudgeon also requested removal of Item 9.e from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration and revised draft resolution language provided as a bench handout.
Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Item 9.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 7.d and 7.j from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public Comment
5. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
6. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
b. Consideration to Approve/Deny Three Massage therapist Licenses and One Massage therapy Establishment License
City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 10, 2017.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he had requested removal of this item to stand for a separate vote from the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted, pending successful background checks as applicable.
At the request of his colleagues, Councilmember Willmus chose not to elaborate other than noting previous mention of his concerns related to the process for municipal approval of these types of licenses.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: Willmus.
Motion carried.
d. Declare Planning Commission Vacancy
City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 10, 2017; noting that this was standard procedure as per the City Council’s direction to staff when vacancies were declared on commissions.
While expressing disappointment that this newly-appointed commissioner would be unable to serve, Councilmember McGehee noted the large pool of candidates recently interviewed for commission vacancies, questioning if additional applications were actually needed.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, declaring a vacancy on the Planning Commission, directing staff to advertise for an application deadline of May 10; with interviews scheduled for May 15, and City Council appointment on May 22, 2017.
Councilmember Etten expressed his disappointment that the appointee would be unable to serve, but hoped she would be able to reapply for a future vacancy.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of opening the process for any additional candidates wishing to apply for the vacancy at this time.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Approve Resolution Rejecting Bids for 2017 Utility Project
City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 10, 2017; explaining an error with the online bidding process, resulting in additional language upon the advice of City Attorney Gaughan as outlined in lines 34-35 of the revised draft resolution. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the online version of the resolution was correctly presented, but the printed version included in meeting packet materials was outdated.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11407 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Rejecting Bids – 2017 Utility Projects.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
j. Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse Community Building Professional Services Agreement for Plans and Specifications
City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 10, 2017.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she remained in favor of receiving a cost benefit analysis before proceeding in addition to her previously stated concerns in selecting this architect without benefit of bids or putting out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an architect to prepare designs and specifications, opining that the city was not yet ready to take this step.
Mayor Roe opined that any cost benefit analysis would be a City Council decision.
Specific to an RFP, City Manager Trudgeon noted that the city had chosen this firm as part of the previous Park Renewal Program process, including preliminary work done by them as part of this process; and clarified that the city was not required by state law to go out to bid. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the bid from Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain (HCM) was within reason at 8% of the project cost for preparation of plans and specifications; with those costs typically falling between 7% and 10% of total project costs. Based on the good faith of HCM’s past work and anticipating that same level of service in the future, Mr. Trudgeon reported that this prompted staff’s recommendation in an effort to keep the project moving and recognizing timing impacts on golf course seasonal operations.
Councilmember McGehee opined that issues that have come up around existing park buildings had proven significant and not yet discussed; and noted that this was also a separate building from those developed as part of the Park Renewal Program and therefore not asked to function in the same way. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was uncomfortable with an expenditure of $146,200 for architectural plans, along with not being happy about no mention of sustainability, energy efficiencies, or possible orientation for solar energy considerations. Councilmember McGehee opined that not considering those options for other park buildings was a shortcoming and should be included here. She further opined that taxpayer monies should not be expended at this stage without a long-range sustainability plan in hand.
Mayor Roe referenced Attachment B detailing the scope of services and deliverables for Task 1(Design Development) and Task 2 (Construction Documents) in HCM’s proposal; and final cost estimates as part of the scope of work for Task 2. Mayor Roe asked that the work be phased, with Tasks 1 and 2 and their respective costs separated for City Council approval per phase rather than as a final deliverable of the contract. Mayor Roe asked if Phase 1 would provide more of a comfort level as to costs for the City Council rather than the proposed action being requested.
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke reviewed City Council action and direction to staff on March 20, 2017 to obtain solid numbers for architectural costs versus cost estimates in order to proceed; with staff’s intent to get as close as possible to actual costs, even though there may be some variability once bids come in.
Mayor Roe asked how much firmer those numbers would be at the end of Task 2 than those of Task 1 or if it would be possible to get an estimate as part of Task 1 through expending $55,000 but not the entire amount until those numbers are closer to reality.
Mr. Brokke advised that each stop would get closer to the final bid step and beyond current architect estimates as presented on March 20th; and as designs become more detailed and numbers can be updated. Mr. Brokke clarified that the design and specification process could be phased at the City Council’s discretion.
To the concern raised by Councilmember McGehee specific to the decision not to seek an RFP for an architectural firm, Mr. Brokke reiterated the comments made by City Manager Trudgeon in the choice of HCM and their work and comparable percentage of the total project cost for this phase of the design work. Specific to Councilmember McGehee’s comments about and energy efficiency, Mr. Brokke advised that there had not been a full solar study done to-date for this proposed building, but clarified that it had been considered and investigated with some of the park buildings, but had been found due to their size, it would not be practical or cost-effective. As far as sustainability, Mr. Brokke pointed out that it had been considered for the park buildings constructed as part of the Park Renewal Program, and would be for this project as available under current building code.
City Manager Trudgeon sought clarification as to whether the intent of checking in after Task 1 was a request for additional information or if that was a decision point for the City Council.
Mayor Roe clarified that he intended it as a decision point as numbers became available beyond the first square footage dollar estimates based on building size, but somewhat more refined with two phases.
Councilmember Willmus stated his support for moving forward with Task 1 and Task 2, with it then coming back to the City Council at that point. Councilmember Willmus stated that his goal was to have the most accurate picture possible for the overall cost of the building, whether it came at the end of Task 1 or Task 2, or evolved later into the process.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she completely understood the level of satisfaction with this firm and staff’s desire for consistency with other park buildings. However, Councilmember Laliberte reported that the Task Force hadn’t felt strongly that this proposed building necessarily match other park buildings; and noted her personal disappointment in HCM’s preliminary design services, opining it was a lot of money for the deliverable provided; and questioned why some of this information was not included as part of the scope of that initial design service.
Councilmember Etten expressed frustration with the many new bits of information coming forth tonight. In general, Councilmember Etten stated that he was in agreement with Councilmember Willmus in that the full information would remain unknown until the end of Task 2, with the next step further refining costs, with proposed building images and cost estimates not available before then. While remaining hopeful that those final numbers would be close to estimates, Councilmember Etten questioned how the City Council could make a good decision without stronger numbers and without Task 2 being done now.
Whether it was the decision to move forward with Task 1, Task 2 or both, Mayor Roe opined that the design would be fairly well-set at the end of Task 1, but without design plans and specifications being finalized at that point, and providing another good check-in point for the City Council to determine if the general design fit with what the City Council and community were expecting. From that perspective, Mayor Roe opined that sustainability, design and other details could then be approved before the City Council spent another $100,000.
While appreciating that perspective, Councilmember Willmus stated that there had already been considerable discussion at the Task Force and City Council levels as to what the building should be and what it should look like; opining that this information had been conveyed to HCM already and the desire that the building design be unique and make an individual statement in the community. If the scope of work was broken up between Tasks 1 and 2, Councilmember Willmus asked what ramifications that would have to the overall project timing.
Mr. Brokke referenced the proposed timeframe outlined in the RCA, opining it was already a very aggressive plan with a projected September 2017 start date. Mr. Brokke stated his preference for keeping on that schedule if possible avoiding interfering with golf course operations and preventing delaying the project for bidding after the first of the year with construction to follow sometime in 2018.
Mayor Roe sought clarification as to whether there could be a check-in with the City Council after Task 1 if the City Council authorized all phases and prices as currently recommended in the RCA and attachments.
Mr. Brokke clarified that the intent was to advertise for bids and return to the City Council at that time.
Mayor Roe stated support for the recommended action if there was a check-in at the end of Task 1.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she could not support the recommendation without a serious check-in to approve the design. Even though Councilmember Laliberte had been part of the Task Force, Councilmember McGehee opined that since this is being paid for with taxpayer monies, the City Council would be remiss without seeking public buy-in on the project before proceeding beyond that.
Mr. Brokke advised that as many check-ins and updates could provided as directed by the City Council and at any time in the process while still keeping the project on track.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approving a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain Architects for services referenced in the document for replacement of the Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse Community Building at a cost not to exceed $146,200; authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document; and authorizing advertisement for bids, with final City Attorney review and approval; amended as follows:
§ Staff is directed to schedule periodic check-ins along the way, not necessarily for formal action but for City Council review and possible redirection at that point; and
§ With agreement by the makers of the motion, directed staff to provide a definite check-in at the end of Task 1.
Councilmember Etten stated that he was fine with a check-in but not with Mayor Roe’s proposed separation of the two phases. Councilmember Etten noted that the motion as amended would allow another chance for review but still keep the project moving forward to provide as little disruption as possible to services and programs at the golf course. As far as keeping the community involved, Councilmember Etten opined that they had been and will continue to be involved, and if at any time in the process they had any questions or comments, as long as the city continued keeping them informed, they could bring those to the City Council’s attention at any time.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she had no problem with the desire to keep the project moving; but admitted that she did have a problem if the project itself was not well-thought out and that an opportunity to vote could be taken at any check-in point.
Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council members maintained the right to make any motion at any time.
As the party responsible for drafting the document, for clarification and directive purposes, City Attorney Gaughan sought clarification if the City Council’s concerns were with the Termination Clause provision of the contract.
Mayor Roe responded that it was not, but clarified that concerns were with the
product deliverable coming out of Task 1.
In that case, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the problem would persist in this agreement as written; clarifying that the City Council wanted revised language providing for a formal presentation and check-in by consultants with the City Council at the conclusion of Task 1 and at the conclusion of Task 2 as well.
Mayor Roe agreed with that statement; noting that the understanding would then be that the City Council would have to authorize going out for bid at the conclusion of Task 2.
However, City Manager Trudgeon advised that in accordance with the requested Council Action in lines 40 -54 of the RCA, putting the project out for bid is part of that proposed motion language.
Mayor Roe stated that was not his understanding.
As the maker of the motion, and in agreement with that intent, Councilmember Willmus sought further clarification from Mayor Roe on whether he was seeking a hard break at the end of Task 1 before proceeding to Task 2.
Mayor Roe clarified that, at a minimum, he was looking for that hard break before going out for bids (e.g. at the end of Task 2), and also anticipated a presentation and check-in at the end of Task 1 to make sure any plans and specifications for Task 2 are in line with the City Council’s understanding and direction.
Discussion ensued regarding possible amendment to the motion to consider separate City Council action to go out for bids; with City Manager Trudgeon pointing out that the motion currently on the floor included the entire scope of services as presented in the agreement (Attachments A and B), with the addition of a check-in at the end of Phase 1; and with City Attorney Gaughan clarifying that his understanding of Mayor Roe’s requested action also included a check-in at the end of Task 2 before going out to bid; with Mayor Roe agreeing that his concern was for City Council review at the conclusion of Task 2 but before letting the project go out for bid.
City Attorney Gaughan noted the need to redraft the scope of services to clearly reflect that.
From his perspective, Mayor Roe restated his understanding that once HCM was done with the scope of services in Tasks 1 and 2 only, unless the city contracted separately for additional services, this motion only authorized to proceed with Tasks 1 and 2, and preparation of plans and specifications, but not authorizing staff to proceed to bids, which he understood to be Task 3 and not part of tonight’s request for consideration or part of this motion.
City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the scope of the contract for service needed to be revised to indicate that change.
Mr. Brokke agreed with City Manager Trudgeon’s comments and staff’s understanding of how the process was meant to proceed; with completion of Tasks 1 and 2, and at that point to take the project out to bid, with those bids then brought back to the City Council for their consideration and approval/denial; and subsequent construction administration then done only if the project was accepted; but not part of tonight’s action. Mr. Brokke reported that HCM had made that part of their original proposal, but clarified that it had not been accepted by staff, nor was staff recommending it at this point; with Mayor Roe suggesting that needed to be more clearly integrated into the agreement.
Mayor Roe restated the motion, as amended, clarifying that it was to complete Tasks 1 and 2, and at the end of Task 2, specific action would be required on the part of the City Council to consider whether to go out for bids at that point.
Councilmember McGehee stated that her understanding was a key part of the motion would be the check-in at the conclusion of Task 1; with HCM presenting a clearer picture of what the actual building was intended.
Mr. Brokke clarified that the intent would be for HCM to provide images or building sketches at that point; and advised that if the City Council was interested, the architect could come back with that information.
Mayor Roe read Task 1 and 2 from Attachment B, opining that a lot of information should be available at the end of Task 1 that is not now available; opining that was the information the City Council was seeking.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
7. Business Items
a. Update on the 2016 Budget Surplus/Deficit for Key Operating Funds
Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted information as detailed in the RCA, and displayed the chart on page 1 adding an additional column entitled “Amount available above the low target percentage.” By Fund, that included:
General (unrestricted) = $1,529,427
Parks & Recreation = 470,070
Communications Fund = 384,309
Information Technology = 814,042
License Center = 995,551
TOTAL = $4,193,398
Mr. Miller advised that any imbalances would come up for additional discussion in May of 2017 as part of the 2018 Budget related to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and short-term sustainability over the next few years.
Regarding the CIP information provided in the packet, Councilmember Willmus asked if the License Center number had increased or was being addressed for future planning.
Mr. Miller advised that at one point, $650,000 had been earmarked, but as conversations continued to evolve over the last year, staff was not clear on what the City Council wanted to keep in there or if the intent was to make improvements on-site or consider a grand scheme. With those numbers still in flux, Mr. Miller advised that staff continued to await City Council direction. In agreement with Councilmember Willmus’ estimates, Mr. Miller confirmed another $500,000 could be added to the License Center CIP.
Councilmember McGehee asked for Mr. Miller’s suggestions for the City Council to consider weaning itself off the use of reserves for day-to-day operations, and whether they had any new input based on 2017 operations.
Mr. Miller advised that he and City Manager Trudgeon remained consistent in recommending that the City Council wean itself off the use of reserves. While it has been relatively painless to-date since the reserve levels were in such good shape, Mr. Miller stated his and Mr. Trudgeon’s concerns for the city’s long-term financial sustainability in continuing that practice; rather than reforming and reducing programs and service levels in the near future. Mr. Miller advised that there were three choices before the City Council in addressing the issue: through redirecting funds from one program to another; by re-prioritizing services and programs; or by raising taxes. While admitting that all of the choices required hard conversations, Mr. Miller advised that there was no easy way out as the City Council looked ahead with its CIP that would be highlighted in more detail at the May 16, 2017 City Council meeting.
In addition to Mr. Miller’s comments, Mr. Trudgeon addressed the sustainability issue by noting the need to determine if the city was “right-sized,” advising that he and staff would be looking at all options in the near future to ensure the long-term sustainability of the city, but had no specific proposals at this point.
Councilmember Willmus thanked Mr. Miller for the additional column displayed as part of tonight’s reserve balances providing good comparisons of reserve levels, and their respective lows and highs. Councilmember Willmus addressed previous discussions and his suggestion for creation of a “Cash Carry Forward” Fund to more accurately track monies from one year to the next, as well as providing more transparency for the public and the City Council. Councilmember Willmus stated his intent that the fund could be available to supplement any funds that may be falling short.
On that topic, Mayor Roe questioned where that topic was left in previous discussions: whether the City Council needed to make a decision to create the fund or whether they had referred it to the Finance Commission for their review and a subsequent recommendation. Mayor Roe sought clarification, confirmed by Mr. Miller that the $1,631.824 2016 total reserve levels would remain in those individual funds.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t recall any formal action; and clarified that she was initially seeking the City staff’s review in advance versus a solution.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, directing staff to create a “Cash Carry Forward Fund” as outlined this evening.
Councilmember Willmus noted that this was something talked about at great length in the past by the City Council; and during annual budget processes, opined that it was difficult tracking cash carryover from one year to the next, with this step addressing that information need and informing future discussions and decision-making.
Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for the ability to have that information available during budget discussions; and this step in addition to information from the previous year would be great to have as part of budget documentation.
With discussion by Councilmember Etten and Mayor Roe differentiating cash carry forward from the operating fund and/or CIP fund, Finance Director Miller clarified that three of the funds (e.g. Communications, Information Technology and License Center) served as both operating and capital reserve funds, which would need to be taken into consideration.
As further discussion ensued, Councilmember Laliberte noted ongoing work with the City Council’s priority planning, including its CIP, and expressed her confidence that each of these items would be addressed as part of those and upcoming budget discussions.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus
confirmed that cash carry forward would be reviewed for all operating funds identified
on page 1 of the RCA, but not for the enterprise funds, involving restricted
funds.
For clarity of direction, City Manager Trudgeon noted that from his understanding, as staff presents its budget, this information would be included to address accountability, and recognizing that there may be a need to keep some funds in reserve based on each fund’s individual budget.
Mayor Roe clarified that the intent was that carry over funds could be used for one-time operating or future budget expenses, or assigned to an existing fund balance.
Councilmember Laliberte stated for her the key words were “one-time” and cautioned that the City Council remain cognizant of that.
Finance Director Miller also sought to clarify what he was hearing the City Council advocate for was that for these individual funds created with specific purposes in mind and currently managed with the knowledge that any surplus or deficit in the funds be factored into future operating decisions now may be subject to allocation or reallocation to another fund or to support another program or function subject to City Council discussions.
Mayor Roe confirmed that was the intent, with recommendations from staff on any of those actions as well.
Subsequent Motion
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, a substitute motion to refer this idea to the Finance Commission seeking their evaluation, suggestions and recommendation to the City Council before taking action to create this fund.
Mayor Roe declared a substitute motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to create the fund.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation for the Finance Commission’s input and enhancing further budget transparency; stating that she was not prepared to create this fund tonight without receiving their input and any suggested improvements.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller reported on the context of Finance Commission discussions about this topic in the past four months, with the sentiment by several commissioners that it seemed to create a complex structure to get at what was available or appropriate for the next budget cycle. Mr. Miller further reported on a nuance he had suggested as part of their consideration and similar to his suggestion to the City Council tonight, was possible unintended consequences in taking away multi-year budgetary management foci of departments and how that impacts today’s management or business model with resources deferred or needed for tomorrow; ultimately changing how you chose to manage those resources. Mr. Miller stated the need to have internal discussions with management staff and give that further consideration for long-range budget management.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, in his viewing of Finance Commission meetings and talking with individual commissioners, he found them quite supportive of this and the ability to separately track those dollars from year to year. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would not support this motion to return to the Finance Commission; but would support a motion to create a carryover fund.
Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification from Mr. Miller if his comments indicated that departments would consider this as a warning to spend their money before yearend to avoid losing carryover dollars.
Finance Director Miller clarified that his comments were in no way intended to be taken that way; and clarified that currently department management evolved over years, and if dollars weren’t available in one year, needs could perhaps be moved to the next budget cycle. Therefore, Mr. Miller advised that his only concern, without having talked to management staff to hear their perspectives, was that such an action may create additional challenges not currently present, and have consequences not yet identified without having those internal, staff-level discussions.
Councilmember Etten stated that he would support the motion for more formal discussion and recommendation from the Finance Commission.
While understanding that this had been discussed by the Finance Commission, Mayor Roe advised that he was seeking a formal recommendation from them.
With Councilmember Laliberte noting the Finance Commission was scheduled to meet tomorrow night, Mr. Miller suggested that in order for him to provide guidance for the Commission on unanswered questions brought up tonight, those staff level discussions occur before the Finance Commission makes a recommendation, or formal action is taken by the City Council. Mr. Miller noted his hesitancy in speaking on behalf of staff or City Manager Trudgeon without knowing more about any flags that may surprise the city before hand, therefore his request to defer taking this to the Finance Commission at their meeting tomorrow night, but doing so at a later meeting.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she asked for this review by the Finance Commission without being aware that staff hadn’t yet had an opportunity to look at it; and therefore, stated that she was not ready to move on this before staff had that opportunity, and a recommendation could be heard from the Finance Commission.
Councilmember Willmus asked why staff hadn’t looked at this yet since the City Council had previously discussed it several times.
City Manager Trudgeon clarified his understanding of Mr. Miller comments by stating that from staff’s perspective it may be easier to purchase something in the future based on long-term building of those respective department reserves. If the Cash Carry Forward Fund is created there could be a concern that the money may be transferred and no longer be there. Since it was the City Council’s ultimate decision as to how those reserves were spent, Mr. Trudgeon admitted there was always some degree of uncertainty. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the information being discussed tonight would be incorporated by staff into the budget process; and anticipated that staff would advocate still meeting targets of those reserve levels, while still meeting CIP needs. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would be the information staff would provide to the City Council.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion.
Councilmember Etten, while opining that creation of the fund tended to obscure the picture when separated from all other funds, agreed to support the motion for the Finance Commission’s review and recommendation before making his final decision about creation of a carryover fund.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: Willmus.
Motion carried.
Mayor Roe ruled that the motion to create the fund was a moot point due to passage of the substitute motion to refer.
b. Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 208 (Finance Commission)
Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this request as discussed at the most recent joint meeting with the Finance Commission.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1522 (Attachment A), entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title Two, Chapter 208 to Modify the Finance Commission’s Role with Regard to the City’s Financial Controls.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1522 (Attachment B), entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title Two, Chapter 208.”
Roll Call (Super Majority Vote)
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Consider Community Development Department Request for Approval of Proposed Text Ordinance Amendments of the Roseville City Code, Chapter 907, Registration of Residential Rental Property with 1 to 4 Units
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund briefly summarized the most recent updates to this proposed ordinance revision; and noted additional suggestions provided by Mayor Roe after distribution of Attachment A in the agenda packet materials.
Councilmember Willmus requested that when additional information comes forward or an individual suggests revisions that it is provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. City Manager Trudgeon duly noted the request, advising that the changes were straightforward and would be reviewed during tonight’s discussion.
Mr. Englund noted that the revisions offered by Mayor Roe as detailed in the bench handout basically removed redundant language (e.g. seven-county metro area) defined elsewhere.
Mr. Englund noted that due to recent staffing realignment in the Community Development Department and other operational considerations, staff was requesting that the effective date be deferred from the original proposed June date to year end for more effective implementation of renewals and to correspond with the permitting and licensing software.
Section 907.02 (Definitions)
Councilmember Willmus requested the definition of “owner’s representative and proposed stipulations that they reside in the seven-county metropolitan area.
Mr. Englund clarified that the intent was that rental properties have a local agent or property manager on site; with City Manager Trudgeon further clarifying that this had always been a part of the code.
Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee stated their concern in requiring a local agent or a property manager to be local; as long as there was person for the city and/or tenants to contact for immediate response to emergencies, concerns or other on-site issues of a rental property. Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference that rentals are posted conspicuously with that contact information; but not to preclude someone from outside the seven-county metropolitan area from owning rental property in Roseville.
Mayor Roe stated his reading of the text didn’t preclude that, but only sought to ensure that a designated local contact person was available, encouraging quick responses to code violations or other rental property issues. With confirmation by City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe opined that the original purpose was because of the difficulty in tracking owners and getting timely action on code enforcement issues. City Manager Trudgeon advised that this language was taken from best practices researched from other communities in dealing with absentee landlords, first to be able to contact them, and then to get action, thus the language for someone local as a representative within the seven-county metropolitan area. Mayor Roe noted that the language was referenced elsewhere in the code, and if removed, there would be additional changes to consider in other text.
Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification as to the separate designation for “agent” and why a property owner couldn’t serve as their own representative and yet live wherever they chose
Councilmember Willmus requested adding language requiring all Roseville rental properties to have contact information clearly posted on site; and posted on the outside of the home.
Councilmember McGehee stated her understanding that an owner should be able to serve as their own agent, no matter their location, with their obligation to provide their contact information to their tenants as part of their contract between owner/tenant, and also to provide adequate information to the City of Roseville and have a process in place to respond to any code issues of the city. Councilmember McGehee suggested an agreement with rental property owners that if something was not responded to within ten days, city code enforcement staff would have it taken care of and the property owner assessed on their property taxes for any expenses in doing so. Councilmember McGehee opined that this provided the city with authority to get the job done, while not meddling in the relationship between the property owner and their tenant(s). Councilmember McGehee noted that the ultimate goal is to allow the Community Development Department staff to do their job effectively in the city’s efforts to keep Roseville properties well maintained, whether owner-occupied or rental properties.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Englund advised that staff could include contact information as part of the application process if language about a “local agent” was removed; with current practice including accelerated abatement in five days for grass mowing, opining that a similar timeline and process could be incorporated for other code violations as well. However, Mr. Englund expressed some concern in the due process notification for out-of-town owners, but perhaps with email and phone in today’s technological climate it would not become an issue.
On a broader sense, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not opposed to any of the changes recommended by staff earlier or those additional comments of her colleagues tonight. However, Councilmember Laliberte stated her concern with rental properties of 1-4 that were not addressed in this ordinance revision, specifically the voluntary nature of the program and only being able to enforce those doing so, while not being able to keep those choosing not to register as responsible for upkeep and maintenance as well. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would support not only an investigation fee, but also requiring the property owner to be responsible for educating their tenants on Roseville regulations (e.g. parking).
Mr. Englund reported that the city already supplies that information (renter rules) not only to the property owner, but also to tenants of the property.
Mayor Roe noted that the key part in initially passing the original ordinance as proposed by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority had been the voluntary nature of it, and an educational versus enforcement focus.
Councilmember Etten referenced Section 907.10 (Violations), Item A noting that this provided recourse for rental property owners not registering their properties in Roseville.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte in how to enforce registration, City Manager Trudgeon advised that no rental property owners under this ordinance had yet to be taken to court since staff works with them to register although it sometimes it is a lengthy process.
Councilmember McGehee questioned definition of a “natural” person, also included in previous text language as noted by Mr. Englund, and referenced elsewhere in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember McGehee suggested deleting the “natural” and leaving references as a “person” or individual.”
Etten moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1523 (REVISED Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 907, to Registration of Residential Rental Property of 1 to 4 Units;” further amended as follows:
§ Including Mayor Roe’s revisions as noted in the bench handout;
§ Strike “natural” person and replace Line 82 and any similar references with “individuals”
Councilmember Etten, with agreement by Mayor Roe, stated that other discussion items addressed tonight were part of a larger policy discussion and didn’t need to prevent this ordinance from moving forward for the code enforcement staff’s administrative work.
While it may be nice to move the ordinance forward tonight, Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to remove additional specifications dictating where an owner or local agent resides; and also incorporating the suggested made by Councilmember Laliberte to ensure registration compliance.
Specific to those points raised by Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee about the local agent, Councilmember Willmus stated that he could not support the motion as proposed.
Amendment to the Motion
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, revising language of Section 907.02 (Definitions) Item C (Lines 72 – 78) to remove references to living in the seven-county metropolitan area.
Based on his understanding with the rationale in having the language in the original ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked what happened if someone needed access to the building and if that now meant the tenant would be responsible to provide that access; and if so, did they then become the “local agent” as defined in the ordinance.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten voiced their lack of interest in removing that language.
Councilmember Willmus noted that his concern was with long-lasting impacts on a property, and how a representative was authorized or entitled to act on behalf of a property owner, raising risk issues for property owners, agents, tenants and the city. If the language is struck from this section, Councilmember Willmus noted other areas in the ordinance that also needed revision (e.g. Section 907.03 - Registration Requirements).
After further discussion for residency location requirements, at the suggestion of Mayor Roe, and accepted by the makers of the motion, reference to the seven-county metropolitan area residency lines were also stricken from the amendment to the motion (lines 106-107).
Roll Call (McGehee/Willmus Amendment)
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus and Laliberte.
Nays: Etten and Roe.
Motion carried.
Roll Call (Original Etten/Roe Motion as Amended)
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus and Laliberte.
Nays: Etten and Roe.
Motion carried.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1523 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 907, to Registration of Residential Rental Property of 1 to 4 Units.”
Roll Call (Super Majority Vote)
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Consider Community Development Department Request for Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City Code, Chapter 901.11, Deposit for Protection of Concrete Curbs, to Ensure Cleaning of Streets and to Ensure Compliance with Building Code
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund summarized this requested amendment as detailed in the RCA.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1524 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Section 901.11, Deposit for Protection of Concrete Curbs, to Ensure Cleaning of Streets and to Ensure Compliance with Building Code.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Consider Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2012 Eldridge Avenue W
As previously noted, this item was removed from action in lieu of resolution prior to the meeting.
f. Consider Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1890 Huron Avenue
Codes Coordinator Dave Englund summarized this request and provided updated photos of the code violations as of today for this single-family, owner-occupied home, with the owner of record listed as Linda Bangert. Current violations include a POD storage unit in the driveway (407.02.L, M), disrepair of a side-hinged garage door (407.02.J, K), and outside storage of household items (407.03.H). Mr. Englund reviewed the origination of this complaint and reported that notices had been posted on the property and sent to the property owner via certified mail. While subsequent complaints on this property have been received, Mr. Englund clarified that there were not part of this abatement action request, as staff continued to work with the property owner on resolution of those violations in a timely manner.
Mr. Englund reported that as part of an inspection update earlier today, staff had observed that two of the three violations had been resolved, with the POD still in place. Mr. Englund further reported that as of 5:00 p.m. today, he had received a voicemail from the property owner advising of her intent to remove the POD, and that it was scheduled to be removed on Wednesday, April 12. Since the POD was still in place, Mr. Englund advised that he felt obligated to bring it to the City Council’s attention for action; but asked that the requested action include a provision to proceed with abatement if the POD is not removed at the time specified by the property owner.
Mayor Roe called for comment from the owner and/or from the public specific to this request, with no one appearing for or against.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance at 1890 Huron Avenue by contacting the owner of the POD unit (POD ENTERPRISES, LLC) if it is note arranged for removal by the property owner by the end of business on Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at which time staff is authorized to proceed with its removal; with the property owner billed for actual and administrative costs; and if those charges are not paid, staff will recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation for staff including a more detailed timeline tonight and asked that be standard procedure with future abatement requests, if possible in the written report, and if more recent, provided verbally by staff.
Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to include Councilmember Laliberte’s request and also an excerpt in their report of the code sections outlining each particular code violation, no just the section number versus the City Council researching related code sections.
g. Consider Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2749 Churchill Street N
As previously noted, this item was removed from action in lieu of resolution prior to the meeting.
h. Discussion of 2017 Policy Priority Planning (PPP) Document
City Manager Trudgeon briefly noted the updated Policy Priority Plan (PPP) as provided in the staff report and attachments (Attachment B redlined and Attachment C new). Mr. Trudgeon noted one new addition entitled, “Inclusive Community and Governance” with four focus areas. Mr. Trudgeon noted that tonight’s revisions were intended as a broad picture for City Council review and approval, with the next step then being for staff to develop measures of accountability and responsible parties for additional approval.
For the “Capital Improvement” priority, Councilmember McGehee suggested adding the word “adequate” to the second bullet point “Ensure Capital Improvement Funding.”
Mayor Roe suggested the word “sustainable” instead of “adequate.”
While pleased with the economic development priority strategies underway and staff’s proposed next steps (e.g. visiting businesses, creation of the database, etc.), Councilmember McGehee suggested including options for small businesses to look to the city for support.
With the inclusive community and governance priority, Councilmember McGehee advised that she needed more information on the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) “Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) Program.” In the third bullet point of the “Inclusive Community and Governance” priority, Councilmember McGehee questioned what “enact” meant with city policies and procedures, opining that the city couldn’t do much more than to enforce state and federal law. With the last update of the PPP, Councilmember McGehee noted improvements and accomplishments, including recruiting from the diverse community for advisory commission vacancies, positive benefits of the community garden project, and the focus on SE Roseville; and applauded the city’s fire and police departments for their significant steps in helping to achieve those goals. Specific to the “Capital Improvement” priority, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her advocacy for sustainability of the CIP, having the cost benefit analysis as part of that priority, and being able to support the things needed by the community whether they be a program, a policy. or an inspection.
Councilmember Laliberte stated her concern in moving the focus on SE Roseville out of the “Economic Development Strategic Initiatives” priority, opining that it had been included for a reason; While understanding the rationale in relocating it in the second inclusive priority, and even with the work underway, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she wasn’t sure if it should be checked off the list, and therefore, suggested moving it back under the economic development priority. Under the second priority, Councilmember Laliberte stated her need for additional information on the second and fourth bullet points. Councilmember Laliberte sated her agreement with the “sustainability” wording for the CIP in the second bullet point for that priority.
Mayor Roe referenced the SE Roseville priority in the past PPP in two places recognizing the efforts of the working group as well as the economic development focus. From his perspective, Mayor Roe stated that was a natural dividing point, and even though one dealt more with the inclusivity and the other with economic development issues, he supported having it in both priorities. As noted in the meeting minutes (Attachment A), Mayor Roe noted that was also addressed by Councilmember Etten during that previous discussion.
Councilmember Etten agreed with the points made by Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte in leaving SE Roseville in both priorities. While it may seem redundant, Councilmember Etten stated that it also recognized that the priority would be viewed from two difference lenses.
Noting the good points made regarding the focus on SE Roseville, City Manager Trudgeon referenced and reviewed the categories as they were listed in the last iteration and under two categories.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of retaining that placement in both categories with updated language to more clearly understand the intent of the particular focus.
On the second priority, last bullet point for the LMC program in 2018, Mayor Roe suggested revising the language to: “Prepare for possible participation in the GARE program”. Also in the second priority, Mayor Roe suggested adding the word “consider” to replace “enact” for inclusive city policies and procedures.
Specific to the GARE Program, Councilmember Etten stated that he had suggested this in the past as a result of his attendance at an LMC conference. Councilmember Etten reported that this is a year-long program; and advised that he had some of the materials being used in the City of Shoreview as they also participate in the program. Councilmember Etten briefly reviewed some of those materials, including measurement tools for exacting change for operations and working with coalitions during the year to use those tools to enact changes.
Based on his understanding of the GARE program, City Manager Trudgeon reported that it was primarily staff-focused with diverse implementers, both at the management level and through the ranks to identify methods to provide the best service possible. Mr. Trudgeon stated that it was his understanding that the program was a self-reflection process to guide you through the process.
Councilmember Etten noted that in the LMC session he had attended, the program included how a service or program was delivered, and how unintended consequences may result from something not working as well as intended (e.g. rental registration program, or immigrant population and new owners and city code language). Councilmember Etten advised that the intent was to provide a more holistic way to review city policies and procedures, and day-to-day operations, by pausing to see if the process was going to create a new problem before implementation or to review existing services/programs for any adjustments that may be indicated.
In the second inclusive priority, third bullet point, Councilmember Laliberte suggested instead of “enact” that the language read: “review city policies and procedures for inclusivity.” As an example, Councilmember Laliberte reported that this had been worked on to some degree in discussions with the new CEC/HRC combined advisory commission, and may not be adequately incorporated in these policies until those recommendations come forward.
With the GARE process, Mayor Roe noted this was also an effort to enact city policies and procedures to get at equity and inclusivity.
Specific to the GARE program, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would want to know how much staff time would be required as a factor to consider.
City Manager Trudgeon estimated that the GARE program would consist of a two-day session and perhaps one meeting/month for the identified staff group.
Specific to Councilmember Laliberte’s suggestion with the third bullet point under the inclusive priority, Councilmember Etten defended the intentional addition of “enact” to move the city from continuing to just talk about it versus actually doing something about it. Councilmember Etten stated that he was fine with continuing to receive updates or reviews, but emphasized the need to act. As an example with taking action on inclusive policies and procedures, Councilmember Etten noted this would be further emphasized with the GARE program and now the combined CEC/HRC commission under consideration. While the community may have been discussing it, Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council needed to discuss it and take action as well.
Further discussion ensued regarding language for the inclusive priority, with wording suggestions about city policies and procedures of “review and consider” (Etten) and “review and update” (Roe).
Councilmember Etten opined that the goal needed to be new items versus only reviewing existing efforts.
Specific to the inclusive priority, second bullet point “Continue Imagine Roseville Efforts,” Mayor Roe suggested additional language “…and follow-through on outcomes.” Mayor Roe opined that this would ensure that not just conversations continued, but that recommendations result in decision-points for the city response; and possibly even have a separate bullet point to ensure focus.
The consensus was to leave the wordsmithing to City Manager Trudgeon based on tonight’s discussion.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that School District No. 623 would be coming forward with a referendum in the near future for their member area communities. With the city having its own CIP to fund and sustain going forward, Councilmember Laliberte stated her concern that the city take a business-as-usual look at operations as part of the upcoming budget process, whether through this PPP or the budget process itself.
Mayor Roe opined that it would be part of the city’s ongoing budget process.
Councilmember McGehee suggested adding some thought to the city partnering with the school district as they move their capital initiatives forward to take the opportunity to fill any voids in the city’s programming, and at the same time help the school district and community-at-large in achieving more amenities.
While very interested in hearing from the school district, Councilmember Willmus clarified that the City of Roseville is only one of the many communities in School District No. 623. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus suggested approaching the topic from that perspective with potential capital needs; noting they were not entirely on the shoulders of this community, but brought forth a broader question that needed time to work through.
Since this PPP is specific to the city, Mayor Roe opined that until more conversations come forward, he didn’t see any need to include the school district’s future planning in this document, especially until more was known. Mayor Roe stated that he was not personally comfortable that the city should cut back on its activities or plan due to the school district’s planned referendum.
8. 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 City Council Minutes – March 20, 2017
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the March 20, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
§ Page 3, Line 19 (Laliberte)
Typographical error: Retain “owners” versus striking it out
§ Page 19, Line 19 (McGehee)
Typographical error: Delete “that”
§ Page 24, Line 44 (Roe)
Typographical error: Delete “the”
§ Page 28, Lines 42-44 (McGehee)
Correct
sentence to read: “Councilmember McGehee noted [that] additional
needs [in] [crossing] the budget; [stating
that] [and] without a massive increase in rental fees, [noted
that] she had not seen any other form for sustainability of the
facility yet presented.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Approve City Council Minutes – March 27, 2017
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 27, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
§ Page 7 (Roe)
Lines 24-25
Correct to read: “City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the option would only apply to the specific portion of code referenced [storage] as subject to a variance].
Line 30
Correct to
read: “In reference [storage] to Councilmember Willmus’
thoughts for…]”
§ Page 13, Line 43 (Roe)
Typographical error: Correct “no” to “not”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve City Council Minutes – March 31, 2017
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 27, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated April 10, 2017.
a. Approve Payments
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.
|
ACH Payments |
$530,877.90 |
|
85026 – 85418 |
572,459.93 |
|
TOTAL |
$1,103,337.83 |
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. 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,” updated February 28, 2017.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Approve Resolution for Twin Lakes Parkway Project Easement Acquisition
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11408 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute the Earnest Money Contracts and Close on Easement Acquisitions at 2830 Fairview Avenue.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Approve Hotel Inspections Agreement between the City of Roseville, Fire Department and State Fire Marshal
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Mayor, City Manager and Fire Chief to enter into an agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and its Fire Department and the State Fire Marshal for purposes of conducting fire life safety inspections on hotels located within the City of Roseville, for a term of three years beginning May 1, 2017 and ending April 30, 2020; subject to renewal at that time.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to utilize the above-listed fee schedule to be utilized in the interim period of May 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Request for Approval for a Training Agreement between Midwest Training Associates and the City of Roseville
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to enter into a Training Agreement between Midwest Training Associates and the City of Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
i. Consider Adopting Revised Finance Policies
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11409 (Attachment A and appendix A) entitled, “Resolution Amending the Financial Policies for the City of Roseville.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
k. Consider Issuance of Premises Permit for Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association to Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at 2350 Cleveland Avenue N (Joe Senser’s Restaurant)
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11406 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving a Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.
10. Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
11. Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review
Councilmember Willmus left the meeting at approximately 8:19 p.m.
12. Adjourn
McGehee moved, Etten seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:23 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays: None.