City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 242 2012

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. 

           

2.         Approve Agenda

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.

                                   

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; 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, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Mayor Roe welcomed Boy Scout Troop 150 from Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Roseville, present to learn about local government.

 

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming Municipal General Election on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 to select two (2) Councilmembers for respective four (4) year terms.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted a series of planning meetings being held by the Roseville Area School District No. 623 focusing on their property at the former Owasso School site; being held at the District Service Center, beginning Monday, October 29, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

 

Councilmember Willmus referenced a recent Roseville City News newsletter article entitled “Understanding Cash Reserves.”  Councilmember Willmus noted that, at the conclusion of the article, it stated that the City Council “believes it is in the City’s long-term best interest to keep cash reserves at their current level.”  Councilmember Willmus noted that, since no formal action had yet been taken and a determination remained pending, that statement was misleading until budget discussions had come to an end; and therefore wanted to clarify that statement.

 

Regarding the upcoming General Election, Councilmember McGehee noted that historically, a longer time for in-person absentee voting prior to the election had been available; however, she noted that this year provided only one (1) week.

 

As some confusion ensued regarding the actual time clarified for Absentee Ballot voting in person, Mayor Roe asked that City Manager Malinen seek confirmation on the time available for residents to vote by Absentee Ballot at City Hall.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that opportunities remained available for Absentee Voting at Ramsey County (90 Plato Avenue in Downtown St. Paul); as well as by mail as time allowed.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that he had been reminded by an Election Official when voting at the Primary Election to alert the public of the availability for curbside voting for those needing assistance and unable to access their poll.  Councilmember Johnson advised that election judges would bring a ballot to your car, and that this service was available in all ten (10) of the City’s precincts.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

 

          a.         Proclaim November American Indian Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation observing November 2012 as National American Indian Heritage Month.

                       

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, proclaiming November 2012 as National American Indian Heritage Month in Roseville, urging all citizens to join in appreciation for our rich and diverse community.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

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 October 15, 2012 Meeting

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 15, 2012 meeting as presented.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments	$83,513.98
67944 – 67989	49,950.66
Total	$133,464.64

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location	Type of License
Personal Fitness Systems, Inc. 1935 W County Road B-2	Massage Therapy Establishment
Keith Gosline at Personal Fitness Systems, Inc. 1935 W. County Road B-2	Massage Therapist
Aspen Waste Systems, Inc.; 2951 Weeks Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Aspen Waste Systems, Inc.; 2951 Weeks Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN	Recycling Hauler

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

c.            Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 Update

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long Term Goals.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

d.            Receive Shared Services Report

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly Shared Services update.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Receive Grant Application Report

Councilmember McGehee noted the addition of another officer with this grant application, and questioned if such an officer had been approved yet or not; and questioned if that officer was part of the agreement with Wal-Mart for a commercial patrol officer and implications to the agreement if the grant was awarded.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that an additional officer had not been approved yet, and to his knowledge was not intended for designation as a commercial patrol officer; noting that any hire would be subject to award of the grant and subsequent approval by the City Council for a new hire and acceptance of a grant award.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the City Grant Application Quarterly update.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

f.             Authorize an Agreement with Mr. Stanley Jackson for Operation of the Concession Stands at the Roseville Skating Center

Recognizing that there were only two (2) proposers for this service, Councilmember Pust questioned how broad the Request for Proposals (RFP) process had been.

City Manager Malinen advised that the pool of potential service providers was quite small, and assured Councilmembers that staff had sought sufficient applicants.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval a Concession Agreement between the City of Roseville and Stanley Jackson (Attachment A) for the operation of concession stands at the Roseville Skating Center at a lease rate of $12,000 annually as detailed in the outlined scope; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document, pending final review and approval by the City Attorney.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

g.            Request by Property Owner, HarMar, Inc. with Semper Development for Approval of a Parcel Recombination Minor Subdivision at 2700-2730 Lincoln Drive and a Drive-Through Facility as a Conditional Use at 2700 Lincoln Drive

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION of 2700-2730 Lincoln Drive; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-5 and 7, and the recommendation of Section 8 of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 22, 2012.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11019 (Attachment F) entitled “A Resolution Approving a Drive-Through Facility as a Conditional Use at 2700 Lincoln Drive (PF12-018).”

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

h.            Appoint Youth Commissioner to Human Rights Commission

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Julia Laden to serve as a youth representative on the Human Rights Commission until July 31, 2013.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

i.             Award Contract for Engineering Services for the Construction of Twin Lakes Second Addition Public Improvements

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Payment of Costs Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for the Twin Lakes Second Addition Public Improvements.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, award of an Engineering Services Contract (Attachment B) between the City of Roseville and the firm of Bolton and Menk, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,590.00 for engineering services for Twin lakes Second Addition Public Improvements.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

j.             Receive Third Quarter Financial Report

Councilmember Pust noted on page 2 of 3 in under the category key,  the table comments (second bullet point) listed “% norm” and since she was unable to find that column, questioned if that column title had been revised to “percent expect.”

 

Mayor Roe confirmed this new column title.

 

As some of the percentages appeared higher than expected at this time in the budget cycle, Councilmember Pust questioned if overall those line items were coming in higher, or simply represented a fluctuation within the year.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that he would seek clarification from Finance Director Miller as to whether it was a timing issue versus end-of-year projections.

 

Councilmember Pust sought clarification as well as to whether the City was realizing higher revenues than anticipated, or if again, this was due to a snapshot in time and would adjust by year-end.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked that staff’s response and clarification be included as an item brought back before the City Council at their next budget discussion scheduled for November 19, 2012, for further discussion.

 

Mayor Roe concurred that this data be included in the budget items continually updated by staff in their budget information.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the Third Quarter 2012 Financial Report.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

12.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Adopt an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code to Add Limited Processing and Production to the Regional Business District’s Permitted Uses

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized requested text amendments recommended by staff, allowing limited production and processing within the Regional Business (RB) District as a permitted use; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 22, 2012.  Mr. Paschke noted that this text amendment was prompted by staff’s ongoing monitoring of the practical application of the updated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.

 

Mr. Paschke highlighted the definition, currently defined in City Code, for “Limited Production/Processing (lines 51-56 of the RCA).

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke advised that this use was currently allowed in Office Business Park (OBP) and Industrial (I) zoning districts, as detailed in Attachment A to the report.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned the original rationale as to why this use was allowed in some zones, but not in others, and why a determination wasn’t found at that time to identify non-conformities to consider the vision for a particular zoning district.  Councilmember Pust opined that, if the Comprehensive Plan was to serve as an overall guide of the City’s vision and the goal of  where it wanted to move in the future, could memorializing this text amendment serve to move away from that guidance and back away from the overall plan to move particular uses to particular areas.

 

Mr. Paschke stated that this was not an accurate depiction from staff’s perspective.

 

Councilmember Pust further opined that she was surprised to see these proposed text amendments come forward before a recommendation to amend the text based on recent discussions with the Wal-Mart development use, since that had created so much discussion as far as a regulated use, causing preference by many to correct an apparent disparity from the perspective of many in the community.  Councilmember Pust questioned how these recommended text amendments had risen above that other issue.

 

Mayor Roe refocused the discussion on the requested action currently before the City Council.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his potential opposition to allowing light manufacturing in the Rosedale area.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that he didn’t see that as a result of the requested action; noting that there were other uses currently in the zoning code where manufacturing wouldn’t be appropriate at a number of sites.

 

Councilmember Willmus recognized the historical use of some of those sites, and took into account Councilmember Pust’s comments regarding a community process undertaken to change or re-guide properties.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he would be open to looking at some sort of change or addition, but wasn’t sure he wanted to bring retail uses into the mix in this fashion.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification regarding “retail mixes,” Councilmember Willmus advised that he wasn’t sure that Regional Business centers, as they currently exited, should be open to light manufacturing uses.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, by not taking the requested action, it didn’t preclude existing, non-conforming uses from continuing.

 

Mr. Paschke clarified that this created a problem within the overall umbrella of non-conformities or uses.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments expressed by Councilmembers Pust and Willmus; as well as stated a further personal issue with attempting to match the Comprehensive Plan to the Zoning Code versus the way it was supposed to occur, with the Zoning Code brought into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.  Councilmember McGehee opined that such an action would change underlying zoning from the current situation, and further opined that the City got into trouble every time they attempted to do something like that.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council had been told that this type of vague terminology created trouble; and when staff was drafting proposed changes, they needed to be mindful of that.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw no reason to grant this request; noting the recent Wal-Mart development as an example of problems with wording.  Councilmember McGehee further noted an ongoing issue with trailers and other items parked in residential yards, yet never brought forward by staff for resolution.

 

Mr. Paschke reiterated that this was an existing definition within the current zoning code; and clarified that staff’s goal was to apply that definition to the Regional Business zoning district.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if this situation was requested due to a potential business coming into this area, where the use would not be allowed as it hadn’t been grandfathered in as an existing, non-conforming use; to which Mr. Paschke responded in the negative.

 

Mayor Roe emphasized that existing businesses, that were non-conforming uses, could continue; however, noted that they were limited as to the amount of change or growth they could achieve based on the footprint of their existing building.

 

Mr. Paschke concurred that they were limited in how they could expand their building and/or uses within the building; noting that it became a huge issue for those current owners seeking to reinvest in existing buildings.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested moving forward on a case by case basis; to which Mr. Paschke noted that this would not be an option, since the City could not grant variances for a use, and it would therefore make it difficult to consider requests on a case by case basis.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that, since an actual application was not currently before the City Council on which to base their discussion and consider a specific example, any action be deferred until a better context was available in which to frame this discussion and decision-making.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that, going forward, he was not opposed to looking at refinements as recommended by staff; however, he suggested looking at this in a broader view and revisiting what the City hoped to achieve and other things identified in the Comprehensive Plan guidance and Zoning Code practical application that may need revisiting all at once.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he also had concerns with the Community Mixed use as currently worded; opining that he was unsure if staff was applying that use in the intended direction.  While not wanting to totally deny this request, Councilmember Willmus advised that this request did not work for him as presented.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that a business seeking to expand their use come before the City Council requesting a Conditional Use; to which Mr. Paschke advised that this was not an option as it was restricted not only by City Code, but by State Law.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke noted that there was not critical time issues on this request, as no applications were currently pending.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING this item to a date uncertain for further discussion.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

          Staff duly noted Mayor Roe’s request that, when the item appeared before the Council in the future, a copy of the Comprehensive Plan description of Regional Business, and that the Zoning Code Charts outlining uses be included as part of the agenda packet at that time.

 

b.            Adopt an Ordinance Creating a Zoning Code Definition for Limited Warehousing and Distribution

Based on the previous discussion, Pust moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this item to a date uncertain for further discussion.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

13.         Presentations

 

14.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Consider Currency Exchange License Renewal for 2013: Pawn America Minnesota, LLC

Mr. Paschke advised that, as a part of the process for license renewal by a currency exchange, under MN Statutes, Chapter 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit the application to the municipal governing body in which the entity conducts business for that municipality to conduct a Public Hearing and render a decision regarding renewal within sixty (60) days.  Mr. Paschke noted that the process and additional information was detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that staff was recommending renewal, based on their analysis, and recognizing that no concerns or issues had been raised with this operation over the last year.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 6:40 p.m.;

with no one appearing for or against

 

15.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Currency Exchange License Renewal for 2013: Pawn America Minnesota, LLC

          Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, 1715 N Rice Street, Roseville, MN, to renew their licenses to operate currency exchange businesses in Roseville for the 1013 calendar year.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Award Sale of Bonds

          Bench handouts, consisting of a revised Resolution, along with the Sale Document were provided for the record, based on the bid opening held earlier today.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller advised that six (6) compliant bids had been received, with the lowest bid that of Piper Jaffray & Co.  Mr. Miller noted that, while the purchase price exceeded $17 million, this was due to bidders, in the current bid environment bidding out at premium, indicating that they were willing to pay more money upfront in exchange for being able to charge higher coupon rates to bond buyers.  Mr. Miller advised that this had no net effect to the City; and that the low bid was at a true interest rate of 2.072%, with a reduced General Obligation bond issue as indicated at $15,685,000; with the difference made up in premium paid to the City upfront at closing, and was in the best interest of the City from an underwriter’s perspective.

 

Springsted Representative Doug Green, the City’s Financial Advisor, was present on behalf of Ms. Terrri Heaton, who had a scheduling conflict tonight.  Mr. Green advised that the City had actually received eight (8) total bids, but two (2) were non-conforming based on premium bids.  When setting the sale originally, Mr. Green advised that they had estimated an interest rate of 2.19%; and expressed enthusiasm that the actual interest rate of the low bidder had been received slightly under that rate, based on daily market changes, coming out in the City’s better interest in this instance.  While a number of firms had combined their bid, Mr. Green noted that the City had actually received interest from thirty (30) underwriting firms, indicating that this was a good reception.  Mr. Green advised that the main reason for this large demand was due to the preferred Triple A rating held by the City of Roseville that was very enticing in today’s market.

 

In response to Mayor Roe’s question regarding the terms of the premium, Mr. Miller confirmed that the City would receive additional cash at the closing, reducing the total interest paid by the City, reducing the annual principal.

 

Mayor Roe asked that Mr. Miller include this information for the City Council’s next budget discussion.

 

Mr. Miller clarified that this would have minimal impact for the 2013 budget, but may have a nominal impact in the 2014 budget, noting that previous Council action had split the impact of the bond issue over two (2) years, and the bonds had been structured accordingly.  While allowing for some flexibility for the City Council, Mr. Miller noted that the savings would be built into the overall issue over a fifteen (15) year period.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller confirmed that the original $10 million bond issue had received an interest rate of 2.15%, but due to extenuating circumstances and delays, had been finalized at 2.43%. 

 

          Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11020 entitled “Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $15,685,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2012A and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof;” noting that subsequent to bid opening, the issue size decreased from $17,000,000 to $15,685,000 as amended in the draft resolution.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated that the City’s credit rating with agencies was the highest possible, at Triple A, allowing it to realize significant interest savings.  Mayor Roe noted that the comments outlined in the letter from Springsted regarding this credit rating and the impression of rating agencies, provided evidence that the decisions being made by the City Council as stewards of the public’s money  were definitely paying off.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

Nays: None.

         

c.            Consider Temporary Amendment to the City’s Investment Policy with Regard to Investing Bond Proceeds

As detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012, Finance Director Miller reviewed the City’s current Investment Policy directing investment of available funds in accordance with the City’s cash flow needs and MN State Statute. 

 

Mr. Miller noted that the current policy required all investments placed with financial institutions to carry a minimum credit rating of Double A, the second highest credit level classified by national rating agencies.  However, in reaction to the economic downturn and high-profile failures across a number of industries, Mr. Miller noted that credit rating agencies had made wholesale changes to their ratings system, and as a result, many prominent national institutions had their credit ratings dropped from Triple A or Double A to Single A, even though their underlying financial results had not changed.  Some of those large institutions receiving the credit rating downgrade included JP Chase Morgan, Wells Fargo, U. S. Bank, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley.  Mr. Miller noted that the institutions were still regarding as high quality and financially strong; while there remained very few Double A or higher rated institutions in today’s financial industry. 

 

As further detailed in the RCA, Mr. Miller suggested a temporary modification to the City’s Investment Policy, based on today’s financial climate, allowing for greater investment earnings specific to this bond issue and the 2011 issue, to be placed with institutions that have a rating of Single A or better and include collateral pledged by national or state chartered financial institutions.  Mr. Miller advised that the proposed temporary provisions to the Investment Policy is included as part of the RCA (Attachment A) as recommended by staff.

 

Finance Director Miller opined that these remained safe vehicles for the City, while allowing it the best opportunity for a short-term investment, rather than through a typical money market account and providing comparable, significant savings over the next three (3) years.  Mr. Miller noted that there were currently no national banks in the repurchase market, with more interest from foreign banks, even though those banks retained a presence in the United States, their parent company may be located overseas.  Mr. Miller reiterated that he was making this recommendation on a temporary basis only; and specific to these last two (2) bond issues.  For long-term investments, Mr. Miller advised that he continued to recommend the current policy.  In either case, Mr. Miller clarified that collateral security for any of the investments would remain in place.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller clarified that the interest rate would be less than ¼ percent, and a temporary step for the bond proceeds intended to construction purposes, and was intended for no more than 3-4 years in duration; with anticipated interest earnings estimated to be in the $40,000 to $45,000 range.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that when the City adopted its current Investment Policy, it was enacted based on national professional associations and financial institution ratings and the financial industry and economic conditions at that time.  Mr. Miller confirmed that the Policy was based on a number of national professional associations; and clarified that all the “big players” nationally and in the state were no longer rated with Double A’s status; with the Triple A rating no longer used as a benchmarks.  However, Mr. Miller advised that the City still used this standard for its regular investment portfolio.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that this was the “new normal;” and based on the global financial market, with each municipality setting its own parameters.  Mr. Miller advised that, with the relaxed temporary measures, the City should receive a number of bids, opining that the key was security of the City’s investment based on collateral security, providing strength and confidence, with the underwriting done in a United States held bank.  Mr. Miller advised that most American banks in the market are now foreign-based in European countries with stronger economies.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that the City typically received bids on an investment, with assistance from its financial advisors and market tests; and advised that consideration would give given to splitting the investment or keeping it intact, depending on the best comparable options available at that time, using their expertise and best discretion.

 

In response to Councilmember McGehee’s concern regarding diversification of the investment, Mayor Roe noted that the City’s financial experts would also be looking at the timeframe for accessing funds for construction purposes as part of that overall picture.

 

Mr. Miller concurred, advising that cash flow and draw down for proceeds would be based on the projected construction schedule, as well as from an institutional investor perspective; with all of those considerations laid out prior to the actual investment.

 

Councilmember Johnson, recognizing the complexity of the investment strategy, stated that he would prefer personally to see investments stay within the United States.  However, Councilmember Johnson also recognized the practicalities, and staff’s recommendation; and while his personal philosophy may differ, Councilmember Johnson deferred to the expertise and judgment of Mr. Miller for the best interest for the City’s investment. 

 

Mr. Miller noted that he shared that same sentiment as expressed by Councilmember Johnson; however, he recognized the dynamic changes in the global economy over the last 4-5 years, and again stressed the temporary nature of this requested action.  Mr. Miller stated that he hoped to see credit agency adjustments and increased agency ratings again in the near future.

 

          Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11021, entitled, “Resolution Adopting Financial and Budget Policies for the City of Roseville;” approving the revised Investment Policy as detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.

         

          At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified that this action would direct staff to proceed, and they would not be returning to the City Council for subsequent action for approval, based on the need for a fluid and dynamic bid process.  Mr. Miller assured Councilmembers that staff would stay within the approved outlined framework.

 

          Councilmember Willmus advised that, based on his previous comments, he would be voting in opposition to the motion; and while concurring with Councilmember Johnson’s comments regarding deferring to staff’s expertise, from his personal perspective, the risk outweighed any gain, if projected at less than ¼%.

 

          Councilmember Pust clarified that, while this proposed temporary change allowed staff to go outside the United States, it also didn’t preclude them from staying within the United States.

 

          Mr. Miller concurred, however, he anticipated that the best bids would come from outside the United States, as that market continued to provide the best rates at this time.

 

          Councilmember Pust advised that she shared similar concerns to those raised by Councilmembers Willmus and Johnson; however, she also recognized the need to make the best use of the public’s money in this current financial market.

 

          At the request of City Manager Malinen, Mr. Miller confirmed that for regular investments, typically on a bid basis, the City’s investment parameters were provided to several brokers; and that staff would use its best discretion in seeking the best rate, and would be willing to sacrifice a small yield to continue banking in the United States.

 

          Councilmember Pust advised that this provided a comfort level for her in supporting this motion.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe. 

            Nays: Willmus.

            Motion carried.

 

d.            Appoint Commissioner to Human Rights Commission

          Pust moved, Johnson seconded, appointment of Scot Becker to the Human Rights Commission to serve a vacated term ending March 31, 2013.

 

          Councilmembers Johnson and McGehee thanked all applicants for considering service to the City, noted the outstanding pool of candidates for this one (1) vacancy, and encouraged them to find other ways to get involved.

 

          At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that the December 3, 2012 agenda included an opportunity for Councilmembers to approve the process for the next round of Commission vacancies; and advised that this would be the appropriate time for individual Councilmembers to make suggestions for revising policy language for the City Council Policy and process for appointments to its advisory commissions.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Rainbow Foods Liquor Store Alcohol Compliance Failure

Police Lt. Lorne Rosand summarized the process for the second of the semi-annual alcohol compliance checks for Roseville on and off-sale licensees, as detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.  Lt. Rosand reviewed the compliance process, displayed a sample of the under-age checker identification (driver’s license); and the annual notice provided to license holders from Police Chief Mathwig, dated March 26, 2012, and provided to all licensees regarding the two (2) random checks during the year, as well as their need to make server training records available to the Police Department as requested, and how to obtain training information online or by mail from the City Police Department.

 

Lt. Rosand provided specific information regarding the compliance failure on August 31, 2012, of the Rainbow Foods Liquor Store, located at 1201 Larpenteur Avenue; and subsequent findings specific to that compliance failure as outlined in the RCA.

 

Lt. Rosand recommended that the Police Department be authorized to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville C city Code, and also consider further penalty of an additional presumptive penalty for failing to provide current Manager and Server training.  Lt. Rosand used the previous City Council action for the Smash Burger Restaurant as an example of a situation and additional fine applied for a similar infraction.

 

Discussion included how frequently the online training was updated by the Department for use by license holders; pending work by the Department to accept Sure Sell as an authorized training provider for license holders; and Lt. Rosand’s clarification that the Sure Sell website clearly identified the City of Plymouth, not the City of Roseville, as currently having an agreement for training, and recognizing that both municipalities may have different ordinances that applied to alcohol licensing within their jurisdictions.

 

Lt. Rosand reviewed the specific status of the nine (9) training certificates held by Rainbow employees at this site, with two (2) current from Sure Sell, three (3) having been found to be expired beyond the one (1) year training requirements of Roseville, and three (3) completed post-violation (Attachment A to the Police Report.

 

Lt. Rosand advised that he had spoken earlier today to the Rainbow Manager, Susan Quinn, who was ill and unable to attend tonight’s meeting; and read for the record her written comments that she had provided to him in lieu of her attendance, and intent for future training.

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty to Rainbow Foods Liquor Store at 1201 Larpenteur Avenue, of a $1,000 fine and zero (0) day suspension for sale of alcohol to an underage person.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

          Pust moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Police Department to impose an additional $1,000 fine to Rainbow Foods Liquor Store for failure to comply with manager/server training requirements as applicable.

          Councilmember Johnson advised that is he had observed from Rainbow’s employee roster that they had attempted training compliance he may have spoken to granting more leniencies.  However, since less than 50% of the staff had received training, and then some only post violation, Councilmember Johnson advised that he would support the motion as proposed.

 

          Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s comments, opining that training compliance after the fact was not appropriate.

 

          Councilmember Pust noted the frequency that the City Council discussed training and compliance, and expressed her failure to understand how and why people did not read the notice and ordinance information provided to them by the City, as a responsibility of their licenses.  Councilmember Pust opined that the City continued to be consistent in keeping them up-to-date; and asked that the Police Department consider other avenues to communicate and emphasize this to license holders.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

f.             Love from Minnesota Alcohol Compliance Failure

Lt. Rosand provided specifics related to compliance failure at Love From Minnesota, located at 2465 Fairview Avenue; as detailed in the in the RCA dated October 22, 2012

 

There was no representative present from Love From Minnesota at tonight’s meeting.

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, allowing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of the Roseville City Code; imposing an administrative presumptive penalty in the amount of $1,000 and a zero (0) day suspension for sale to underage person.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that, while it was unfortunate that this had to happen, he gave management high kudos for their safety training; further opining that it was refreshing to see that happening.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it was unfortunate that there had still been a violation in spite of that training.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

g.            Cedarholm Golf Course Alcohol Compliance Failure

Mayor Roe noted that this golf course was operated by the City of Roseville as the alcohol license holder.

 

Lt. Rosand provided specifics related to compliance failure at Cedarholm Golf Course, located at 2323 N Hamline Avenue; as detailed in the in the RCA dated October 22, 2012

 

City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised, prior to the City Council’s discussion, that since this involves a City employee, the City Council should limit their discussion to the golf course itself, not its employees, under the MN Government Data Privacy Act, noting that any employee disciplinary action was considered protected information and could only be discussed in Closed Executive Session.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Parks and Recreation Department Director Lonnie Brokke came forward as a representative of Cedarholm Golf Course.

 

Lonnie Brokke

On behalf of staff, Mr. Brokke sincerely apologized to the community and the City Council for this serious offense; and advised that the responsible employee had been dealt with for this lapse in judgment.  Mr. Brokke noted that, while often being made aware that this training is required, Cedarholm had failed to use city-approved training in the past.  However, as a result of this infraction, Mr. Brokke admitted that it had been recognized that the training program currently used was in need of improvement, and during that review process, changes had been made. 

 

Mr. Brokke noted that, at present, all staff at Cedarholm was approved at this seasonal operation, and had been trained immediately following this serious infraction, using the city-approved training program.  Mr. Brokke assured the community and City Council that training records would be kept current in the future, noting that this was the first failure of which he was aware in his twenty-three (23) year tenure with the City.  Mr. Brokke stated that he felt sick about this situation and was taking all possible steps to make sure it did not happen again.   In addition to using the city-approved training program, Mr. Brokke advised that overall training would be provided for all staff at the Golf Course, and even though the Club House Manager was a seasonal, part-time employee, he was placing all staff on call as a reminder for future training. Mr. Brokke advised that, in addition, he had directed that the Police Department send out their annual letter to his attention at City Hall to ensure appropriate follow-up from that administrative level as a clearing house for that information, rather than having notice sent to the Golf Course address. 

 

Mr. Brokke advised that additional on-site signage and alcohol compliance reminders for servers and the public would also be improved; with a staff meeting scheduled, and training documentation on file for managers at the beginning of each season.

 

Mr. Brokke recognized and expressed appreciation to the Police Department for their efforts and concurred with their findings; and expressed appreciation to Lt. Rosand for his guidance for future improvement. 

 

Mr. Brokke again asked that the community and City Council accept his and his department’s sincere apologies for this infraction; and expressed his willingness to accept whatever penalty the City Council deemed appropriate for this serious infraction.

 

Councilmember Pust thanked Mr. Brokke for his sincere apology; and sought clarification if Mr. Brokke meant that this was the first time during his tenure that Cedarholm Golf Course employees had not been trained or the first time found in non-compliance related to that training.

 

Mr. Brokke clarified that this was the first time their training had been found non-compliant.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned why the Golf Course had not gone through the city-approved training.

 

Mr. Brokke advised that he should have been aware of the city-approved training; however, he had not become personally involved in that until after this infraction; although he admitted that, in hindsight, he should have personally been cognizant of the official training program and signature page for confirmation.  Mr. Brokke advised that, since the Golf Course had a Superintendent and Club House Manager, notification letters had previously been sent to the Golf Course; and suggested that there may have been confusion resulting from a changeover in managers earlier this year.

 

While not intending to be disrespectful of Mr. Brokke and his staff, Councilmember Pust noted that this excuse was similar to those heard from private ownership. However, Councilmember Pust opined that it was mind-boggling to her that recipients didn’t read things sent to them from the City; or hear the City Council’s continued discussions of previous infractions and license holder requirements.  For the benefit of fellow Councilmembers, Councilmember Pust questioned how penalizing Cedarholm with only a monetary fine, no matter what amount, would penalize it rather than just the public, since it was all public money; and questioned the right thing to do in this situation.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Brokke for his apology and comments; and expressed appreciation for his thorough and complete action list post-compliance failure.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this provided a good example of someone who sincerely thinks this is a problem and was supportive of the City Council’s efforts to seek alcohol sale compliance; and thanked Mr. Brokke for his attention to detail.  Councilmember McGehee recognized Councilmember Pust’s dilemma in how to address taking money from one pocket to the next.

 

Councilmember Johnson echoed the comments of his colleagues regarding Mr. Brokke’s sincerity; noting that this was a very awkward and unfortunate for the City.  Councilmember Johnson opined that he saw no conflict in taking money from the Golf Course and transferring it to the Police Department.  Not simply just in an effort to penalize, but to avoid being remiss in its duties as a City Council, Councilmember Johnson further opining that City Officials and Department Directors needed to be held accountable to a higher degree than private businesses.  Councilmember Johnson admitted that this had been a very difficult and big issue for him; and noted that since it had been his idea originally to make training mandatory, he found that for that training not to be recognized or applied by City staff, he found it difficult to absorb.  While understanding that things happened, and also confident that it would never happen again, Councilmember Johnson, while recognizing that it may seem cold and heartless, spoke in support of the full penalty, as well as a narrative at the next renewal, why the City Council should support license renewal for Cedarholm Golf Course.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that it was not her intent in previous remarks, to suggest that the Golf Course should not be penalized, and her concurrence that the City should be held to a higher standards; she questioned if holding itself to the same treatment as a private business was appropriate.  Councilmember Pust questioned the remaining term for this season’s operations at the Golf Course.

 

Mr. Brokke responded that the remaining operation would be weather-dependent; however, he estimated an additional ten (10) days minimum remaining in this fall season.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested considering suspension of alcohol sales for that remaining time; and that on top of the fine applied in order to hold the City to that higher standard.

 

Councilmember Willmus recognized the seriousness with which Mr. Brokke and his staff took this situation; and expressed his appreciation for the steps taken by Mr. Brokke in accepting the responsibility squarely on his shoulders as the Parks and Recreation director.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his confidence that Mr. Brokke would not allow such a situation to occur again in the future.  Councilmember Willmus concurred in totality with Councilmember Pust, and the need for the City to send a stronger message since this was a municipal public facility.  Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember Pust’s suggestion for a $1,000 fine for sale of alcohol to an underage person; and an additional $1,000 for lack of training tools; as well as a suspension, at a minimum, for the rest of this season. 

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, given today’s date, and the current weather, the ten (10) days if not longer would be an applicable suspension for the remainder of this season.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the $1,000 presumptive penalty for sale to a minor as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code; to issue and administer an additional $1,000 penalty for failure to comply with manager/server training requirements; and further to issue and administer a ten (10) day suspension of the liquor license at Cedarholm Golf Course; with the City waiving the ten (10) day grace period for appeal, with suspension to commence immediately.

 

At the request of Mr. Brokke, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that the appeal period could be waived by the City in this instance.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

13.      Business Items – Presentations / Discussions

 

a.            Discuss Redevelopment of the Hagen Property at 2785 Fairview Avenue into Market-Rate Apartments and the Use of Twin Lakes TIF Funds to Assist in the Project

          Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the status of the Hagen property, located at 2785 Fairview Avenue as detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this property currently consisted of a multi-tenant trucking terminal; with the City having purchased approximately 2.05 acres of the property in 2009 for future Twin Lakes’ right-of-way.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City had recently been approached by property and developer representatives regarding potential redevelopment of the remaining 5.83 acres of this parcel into 215 market-rate rental apartments.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon noted that this proposed development by Twin Lakes Apartments, LLC, as proposed, would serve to promote a desirable mix of uses in Twin Lakes; provide a housing style (market rate apartments) that is needed and desired; provide a great entry point into Twin Lakes; provide for a significant reinvestment of tens of millions of dollars into the property; and provide a positive revenue stream into Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 17.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the project was proposed in three (3) phases, and proposed 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with high quality finishes and amenities.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that a significant cost of the development was due to design standards established by the City for underground parking for tenants, as well as a proposed 4,500 square foot office/clubhouse; with preliminary renderings provided in Attachment C to the RCA.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon summarized the developer’s estimated total project costs, their equity and mortgage, with a remaining funding gap of approximately $2.3 million.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City’s TIF Consultant from Springsted, Mikaela Huot, was present at tonight’s meeting to review their detailed analysis of the project and financing gap (Attachment E); and their determination that the project would not be able to proceed without TIF assistance, therefore meeting the required “but for” test for TIF financing.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon highlighted financial impacts and staff’s recommendation (lines 52 – 66) of the RCA; and sought City Council direction as to whether staff should proceed to negotiate a TIF Development Agreement with the developer for future City Council review and approval.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Huot reviewed their written analysis dated October 16, 2012, previously identified as Attachment E to the RCA; and noted that part of their review included an analysis of the project pro forma.

 

          Councilmember Pust questioned how Springsted ascertained that the development met the “but for” test, since any development would prefer use of TIF funds, and if this was just a different way of presenting numbers.

 

          Ms. Huot reviewed the process used in analyzing pro formas; and variables in their analysis, based on the 2011 preliminary letter of financing, a contingency for any request for financial assistance to address a funding gap.  Without “pay as you go” funding, and based on impacts to the project based on various assumptions, Ms. Huot opined that the project could not go forward without increasing equity and/or the first mortgage, or by decreasing the scope of the project itself.  Ms. Huot advised that if the first mortgage was increased, the debt service would not be sufficient for any lending institution; and when determining the actual amount, this was a significant determining factor in whether or not the overall project was viable.  Ms. Huot advised that, if the Council directed moving forward, the first step would be to require the developer to provide an updated letter of intent from a financial institution; clarifying that the original letter was considered a preliminary financing letter, not a letter of commitment, and contingent in part on the City agreeing to accommodate a funding gap.  Ms. Huot noted other variables included the loan to value ratio and other factors that could limit a first mortgage.

          Discussion ensued regarding the $2.3 million funding gap and additional funding gap required to be filled by the developer beyond TIF funds from the City; construction costs and land acquisition as part of the overall picture versus operating costs and future revenue stream impacting the overall performance of the project; and updated numbers continuing to be provided by the developer as more detailed assumptions are known; preference for City financial participation to ensure a certain level of quality development; with the first phase anticipated in 2013, and subsequent buildings proposed in the near future.

 

            Brian Solsrud Representatives of Development Team: Twin Lakes Apartments, LLC

          Mr. Solsrud advised that it was intended to phase the project over a three (3) year period; with the overall project dependent on if and how the City would fund the financial gap. 

 

          In response to Councilmember Pust, Mr. Solsrud advised that, given the nature of the site and unknown environmental issues in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, without public financing he didn’t know if the project would not become impossible without TIF funding.

 

Councilmember Willmus, in general, spoke in support of this beautiful project if the developer was spending its own money to accomplish the project, as he had also addressed in July when the City Council was first presented with the concept.  However, if the developer was looking to utilize TIF dollars, Councilmember Willmus advised that he wasn’t sure if this was a project he could support, since he was looking for projects that would provide for office uses or corporate headquarters; and in turn provide high quality jobs; with which he would then be willing to provide TIF assistance to get such a project developed.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in the developer’s project, referencing an article in this past weekend’s Star Tribune newspaper, and a similar project proposed in the City of Golden Valley.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she had contacted the City of Golden Valley to determine the specific of that project proposed at 142 units on 2.7 acres of land, consisting of a five (5) story building offering more amenities than this proposed development in Twin Lakes; and that project not requesting any TIF assistance.  Addressing another issue she had with TIF funding, Councilmember McGehee concurred with comments of Councilmember Willmus regarding the preferred use in the Twin Lakes Area; and her reluctance in this instance to take taxpayer funds away from the County, School District and City for a use as proposed for a significant period.  Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to be mindful that residents had already spent $10 million in infrastructure improvements in the Twin Lakes area; and because of that, she felt less inclined to offer TIF financing for this project, especially in comparing it to similar projects in other suburbs as previously referenced.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this development did not provide the more luxury rate apartments that she preferred; nor did it support the goals and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.

 

          Following up on Councilmember McGehee’s comments, City Manager Malinen expressed his perspective that, rather than reducing the number of units proposed for the project, perhaps increasing the quality of construction to a higher level, and amenities for this market rate complex could make the project more palatable for the City Council to consider TIF financing.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon responded that, obviously the higher quality, the higher cost per unit basis.  Mr. Trudgeon addressed several other considerations for this project, and while not being familiar with the Golden Valley site, he noted that one driver for this project was the requirement for underground parking, with that cost alone representing $1.3 million of the project, and by eliminating that requirement it would significantly reduce the cost and make the project work.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would not be in line with the design standards established by the City for this area in attempting to make the area more walkable and avoid “seas” of asphalt.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could not meet all of its goals and still achieve successful development without some compromise on the part of all parties.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was a significant and higher cost to any development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area to meet the City’s standards; and if the City Council was not amenable to assist with this proposed project financially, something else could take its place that may prove less desirable.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that, from his perspective, this development hits a lot of the City’s requirements and standards for the Twin Lakes area.

 

          Mayor Roe recognized that the City desired to have the level of quality previously adopted; however, he recognized that the level of quality of the proposed project was not below those design standards.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon noted that the exterior guidelines required a lot of articulations based on the City’s design standards, and advised that this project would be required to meet those at a minimum with  or without financial assistance; however, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the difference may be realized with interior embellishments.

 

          Mr. Solsrud noted that the intended interior construction would be similar to the Golden Valley example, advising that both projects were seeking the same tenant pool.  Mr. Solsrud advised that the units were intended to attract the same level of professional tenant to this property; and given budget constraints, a high quality level of finish and related amenities was intended in order to attract tenants to these market rate units.

 

 

          At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Solsrud advised that the first phase would include approximately 1/3 of the total units, or seventy (70) units per phase, constructed in three (3) separate buildings.

 

          At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Solsrud clarified that it was the developer’s intent to have underground parking constructed with each building.

 

          At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Trudgeon advised that, to-date, staff was aware of petroleum spills on the site as the basic knowledge of environmental contamination.  While not anticipating other significant impacts based on studies in the area to-date, Mr. Trudgeon admitted that this remained an unknown factor until digging commenced. 

 

          Councilmember Pust questioned how firm costs could be until the extent of the contamination was known, even with petroleum contamination. 

 

          Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there had been clean-up of spills over time, but he remained unsure of whether or not there was more significant contamination beyond that known at the PIK terminal west of this parcel.

         

          At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Solsrud confirmed that the property owners were also unsure of the extent of the contamination.

 

          Discussion ensued regarding the height of the building (four stories); preliminary nature of the drawings, with the units proposed to have balconies and be typical 2-3 bedroom units, with only about eleven (11) 3-bedroom units out of the total, with most 1-2 bedroom units, based on the most recent Maxfield Study and needs indicated in the community.

         

          Councilmember Johnson, while recognizing that this was an interesting proposal for the Twin Lakes area and that it needed something like this eventually, he concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus regarding any project seeking TIF providing meaningful wage jobs.  While understanding that there would be some jobs created with this project, Councilmember Johnson advised that he preferred to associate use of TIF to address blighted infrastructure used to open this area, but now needing to use remaining TIF funds for more significant job creation.

 

          Mayor Roe noted that the financial participation framework had been evaluated against this project as well as earlier criteria from the City’s 1997 TIF Policy addressing housing needs being met through TIF funding as well.  Mayor Roe noted that TIF funding had been used for the recent Sienna Green project. Mayor Roe personally opined that he found no need to discriminate between housing projects having a gap and whether they met employment needs as well.  Mayor Roe noted that this was a proposed mixed use area, and the City was seeking housing for that area; and sought to ensure that housing needs were not precluded based on employment needs not coming into play as well.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of taking the next step for a more refined analysis of numbers; while not committing to ultimate approval for use of TIF.  However, Mayor Roe questioned if there was a City Council majority supporting that next step; and while he personally thought it was worth taking a further look, he also wanted to avoid something not happening on this site due to a lack of TIF or other funding as applicable.  Mayor Roe noted that the City could not compare this project with a project in Golden Valley, since the actual specifics of the parcel and development were unknown, and opined they were not relevant to the City Council’s discussion and/or comparison.

 

          Councilmember Johnson recognized that Mayor Roe had brought up some good points, particularly use of TIF for Sienna Green; he opined that use of TIF needed to remain a discretionary act of discipline; and opined that he had not changed his mind, even though Mayor Roe’s comments were well received.

 

          Councilmember McGehee noted future discussion at the City Council’s November 19, 2012, meeting to re-vision the process for Twin Lakes.

 

          Mayor Roe questioned if it was Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion that all projects be put on hold until that re-visioning process was completed; to which Councilmember McGehee responded that this would be fine from her perspective.

         

          Councilmember Willmus expressed his ongoing concern with this type of project considered for TIF dollars; further expressing his concern that once Phase I had been accomplished, whether financial conditions may change and the City would end up being responsible for Phases II and III.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon noted that those concerns could be sufficiently addressed in the language of the Development Agreement; and recognized those concerns.  Mr. Trudgeon sought a clear directive from the City Council to staff as to whether or not to proceed with negotiations.

 

          Councilmembers Willmus, Johnson, and McGehee spoke in opposition of continuing with this project as presented.

         

          Ms. Huot, in response to comments of Councilmember Pust during this discussion, addressed upfront uses and sources.  Ms. Huot noted that part of their analysis of any developer’s project included how those total costs would be included.  Ms. Huot reviewed the minimal developer overhead and contingency provided of the overall development costs; and appearance that they intended to pay themselves a huge amount of money upfront at the time of closing beyond the actual land transaction.

          Based on Ms. Huot’s comments, Councilmember Pust questioned where the developer’s profit was for this private market project.

 

          Ms. Huot advised that their profit numbers were identified at the end, with developers relying on the annual cash flow from the project; with Ms. Huot advising that this provided further justification that it was in the developer’s best interest to complete all phases of the project to absorb those upfront costs.

 

          Mayor Roe noted his observations from the grand opening at Cherrywood Point, a phase of the Applewood Point project; with approval by the City Council for some TIF for that project, also a phased project.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon advised that that developer was currently in the process of pulling permits for that second phase.

 

          Councilmember Willmus noted that that project provided for both construction and care jobs.

 

          Mayor Roe, with concurrence of the body, noted that there did not appear to be majority support directing staff to move forward; with the only solution at this time would be if the project was to proceed without TIF.

 

          Based on that conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon asked more general questions of the City Council beyond this project, seeking direction as different developers and/or landowners continued to approach staff with potential projects. 

 

          Mr. Trudgeon questioned how staff should respond to those parties, since several were currently looking at the Twin Lakes area; and what level of development or expectation of development the City Council was seeking in the meantime and until a re-visioning discussion took place at the City Council level.  Mr. Trudgeon asked if staff should continue to use the Twin Lakes development framework to guide their discussion, or should staff bring that to the City Council for repeal.  Mr. Trudgeon asked if it was the City’s direction that TIF not be used for any future project; and if so, should that TIF District remain intact.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that these were but a few of the directives staff would need to proceed with reviewing or considering any project in the immediate future.

 

          Councilmember Pust clarified that she was not against using TIF in all applications; however, she was looking for a connection to job creation.  Councilmember Pust opined that, if the Twin Lakes framework did not sufficiently define that job connection, perhaps the City Council needed to revise language accordingly.   Councilmember Pust recognized the need for staff to have a clear understanding of City Council directives as they met with developers; and to be assured of the support of the elected body during those negotiations.

          Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was fielding calls from interested developers on a weekly basis, and unless more precise guidelines were in place, he was unable to deliver certainties to developers, which would prove a waste of their time, as well as staff; causing them to look beyond Roseville to locate their projects.

 

          Mayor Roe opined that this was a fair question from staff: if the City Council majority wanted the framework revised as it related specifically to job creation; or to wait.

         

          Councilmember Willmus advised that he was interested in long-term jobs, such as those found at a corporate headquarters; and opined that this proposal did not get there.  However, Councilmember Willmus recognized that a new City Council may provide a different perspective.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon sought to make sure, if there was any misperception for use of TIF for this project, or projects down the road, that sufficient funds would be generated from this project for use for future projects.

         

          Mayor Roe concurred, noting that sufficient increment would be generated for future projects and purposes.

 

          Councilmember McGehee advised that her perspective went beyond job creation; and recognized the difficulties this presented for staff.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the re-visioning should be completed as it related to TIF; and personally questioned whether this TIF District should continue to exist at all, since it took away from the County and School District.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that cost-sharing, on a pay-as-you-go status, could be set up outside a TIF District.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the City could not capture tax dollars outside a TIF District without the express approval of Ramsey County; and advised that Ramsey County did not do tax abatements, leaving the only option available that of a TIF District.

 

          Councilmember McGehee suggested the funding gap could be addressed through an exchange of services once the project was up and running, with all parties receiving the full tax benefit.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the City could limit TIF increments, but could not give any more (e.g. site clean-up).

 

          Discussion ensued regarding other funding avenues open to the City (e.g. grants through various agencies for development/redevelopment; bonding; use of reserves; or use of the City’s Port Authority bonding ); difficulties in obtaining or availability of some of those funding options; applicable policy decisions at the City Council level (e.g. use of reserves); and upfront costs for various options.

 

          From a different perspective, City Manager Malinen noted the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and Mixed Use Zoning Designation; and questioned whether a practical application could be found for the preferred type of development, and if it included residential, how much, in order to ensure an ideal mix of uses in that area.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon noted that the mix was usually dictated by the market; and since development of that nature had not occurred in the last twenty (20) years, he found it unlikely that it would occur now in this current economy.  From a philosophical standpoint, Mr. Trudgeon questioned what the City wanted in the Twin Lakes area, opining that it was staff’s understanding that mixed use was preferred.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that, given the ongoing frustration and lack of development in the Twin Lakes area over the years, choices needed to be made, providing clear direction in one direction or another.

 

          Councilmember Pust opined that the financial participation framework was too vague, and providing not to be useful to the City overall.

         

          Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the criteria used by staff to analyze this proposed project, noting that criteria met.

 

          Councilmember Pust questioned the City’s expectations, not necessarily the criteria rating, recognizing that the market dictated some of those items.  However, Councilmember Pust noted that if she considered what Roseville was saying to the private market, offering assistance with those items, differentiations could be made (e.g., LEED certification, job creation, blight elimination).  Opining that every parcel in Twin Lakes would meet those considerations, Councilmember Pust opined that this current framework and criteria was creating the lackluster responses from developers in the area.  Councilmember Pust sought to assure the Hagen development team that it was not the intent of the City Council to suggest that they didn’t want their development; but clarified that the question was whether or not the City wanted to invest or spend TIF on the project, opining that those were two entirely different issues.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon noted that, since the TIF Policy and criteria were both created a number of years ago, it made sense to review them again.

         

          In reviewing the overall policy again, Mayor Roe suggested that a more holistic approach be taken.

 

          Councilmember McGehee advised that this particular parcel was very important to her since it cut across the filtering pond for Langton Lake, requiring environmental and sustainability considerations.  She spoke to the earlier HRA presentation envisioning this area as a vibrant area with small shops; small shops that were anticipated by the new residents in Applewood Pointe II.  Councilmember McGehee noted that she had observed earlier today that the parcel directly across from this site was also for sale, noting this area bordered Oasis Pond and the ditch between Langton Lake and Lake Johanna making this entire area environmentally sensitive.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference in discussing a project that was worthy of investing public money.

 

          Councilmember Johnson opined that the City Council owed staff, at a minimum, a clear directive on how they should allocate remaining TIF funds in order for them to proceed and negotiate on behalf of the City with developers. 

 

          Mayor Roe summarized the apparent direction from the City Council majority in seeking project criteria that represented 1) jobs, and 2) a “wow” factor.

         

          Terry Foster, Hagen Properties Representative

Mr. Foster reviewed the history of this parcel as a truck terminal over the last fifty (50) years and its success as that use.  Mr. Foster noted his discussions with area developers (e.g. Rottlund and McGough), who have all pulled away from the office market for a variety reasons, including that market being soft, with a significant amount of office space already available in Roseville.  Mr. Foster noted that current age mix in Roseville at this time, with a lot of mature citizens, and this proposed development providing an opportunity for young, professionals to come into and live in Roseville.  Mr. Foster noted that the last apartment project in Roseville was The Lexington; and further noted that underground parking was not economically feasible. 

 

Mr. Foster noted that this project presented an opportunity for the City to get rid of the truck terminals if they so desired.  However, Mr. Foster advised that, as a property owner, they continued to get multiple requests for short-term leases from those wishing to operate a truck terminal.  Mr. Foster noted that this remained a viable option, continuing use of the forty-six (46) door terminal, and continued truck traffic for the area.  However, Mr. Foster advised that the property owner had made a conscious decision to pursue housing for young people at market rate, not subsidized housing.  In order to do so, Mr. Foster advised that some financial assistance was necessary to make that happen to provide a quality project.  Mr. Foster opined that this project would not come back, and given the continued interest in long-term truck leases over a 1-3 year period that market remained strong as another viable option.  Mr. Foster opined that, if a strong office market was available, those proposals would come forward.  While not trying to push a point, Mr. Foster advised that he had spoken to other developers, and the market was not there; and opined that this provided an opportunity to bring young professionals into Roseville.

 

Mr. Foster respectfully thanked the City Council for their time.

Councilmember Willmus recognized the complexity of the developer’s and property owner’s situation; comparing his experience in office and apartment construction projects.  While not saying “no” to the project, Councilmember Willmus encouraged them to consider the project without the assistance of TIF.

 

Mr. Foster questioned if Councilmember Willmus would consider building an apartment complex with underground parking in today’s market.

 

Councilmember Willmus responded that he had clearly laid out the criteria he was seeking for a potential project if he was to consider TIF.

 

          In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had received clear direction; and expressed his appreciation for tonight’s discussion, noting that it had proven very informative for staff.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that it was always staff’s intent to use the tools available in facilitating development, and while not all of those tools were perfect for every project, staff’s intent was to move forward and leverage financial participation and uses as applicable.

 

          Mayor Roe clarified his willingness to look at TIF for housing if a specific project made sense; and asked if other Councilmembers were also willing to use TIF for housing in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area or its use in general.

 

          Councilmember Pust advised that she was willing to look at TIF for housing, not just market rate, but mixed rate units as well.  If there was a way to include ground level retail as part of that mixed use, Councilmember Pust advised that she would be even more interested, by creation of jobs and meeting housing needs.  While unable to define what worked economically, Councilmember Pust advised that she was not saying she would never consider TIF for housing.

 

          Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Pust; opining that her vision was for mixed use with jobs provided on the lower level through service businesses previously requested and needed by tenants in that area, as they had originally anticipated.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she did not have a particular aversion to use of TIF for housing.

 

          Mr. Foster questioned the City Council’s support for market rate housing with lower level commercial space, and whether they would consider that as mixed use; while also addressing underground parking requirements as well.

 

          Councilmembers Pust, Johnson and McGehee, along with Mayor Roe, concurred that they could potentially support such a project.

 

          Mr. Trudgeon expressed his appreciation to the City Council for their feedback.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:57 p.m.

b.            Receive Neighborhood and Community Engagement Task Force final Report

Mayor Roe announced receipt of the long-anticipated Roseville Neighborhood & Community Engagement Task Force Report and Final Recommendations; and welcomed Task Force members in attendance.

 

Members present included Gary Grefenberg (Co-Chair of the Civic Engagement Task Force); Teresa Gardella (member-at-large, tonight acting as Co-Chair for Kaying Thao who had a meeting conflict; Jim DeBenedet (Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission m ember); Kathy Ramundt (member-at-large); and Jim Lewis (member-at-large)

 

As presented in meeting materials (Attachment A), Mr. Grefenberg and Task Force members reviewed the nine (9) areas of recommendation as outlined, and detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.

 

Theresa Gardella

On behalf of entire Task Force, Member Gardella thanked Mr. Grefenberg for his leadership and the resulting recommendations created over the last seventeen (17) moths.  Member Gardella encouraged comments/questions after each section as applicable.  Member Gardella also noted that some of the recommendations had budget implications; however, she advised that at this point, the Task Force had not spent a considerable amount of time addressing those impacts, but had been more focused in bringing the recommendations to the City Council. If the City Council accepted those recommendations, Member Gardella expressed the willingness of the Task Force in working with the City Council to strategize and find creative resources for some of those recommended initiatives.

 

The nine (9) main areas emerging:

1)    Integrate citizen engagement into City Hall culture;

2)    Increase effective public participation in City Council and Commissions;

3)    Engage Roseville renters and non-single family homeowners;

4)    Provide public participation support, training, and resources;

5)    Enhance print communications and dissemination;

6)    Enhance website and electronic communications;

7)    Enhance overall city communication;

8)    Foster and support vibrant neighborhoods;

9)    Improve notification process.

 

Item 2: Increase effective public participation in City Council and Commissions

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the Task Force had any suggestions on how to locate leaders of under-represented or minority groups.

 

While not having any specific recommendations, Member Grefenberg advised that this would take considerable time and study; and noted that many City Departments were already making inroads and sharing that information; and noting that many

 

Member Gardella suggested going where they were, working with groups and service organizations, and talking to immigrant business owners, seeking inroads into apartment buildings housing large percentages of that population, and beginning to build relationships as those opportunities came forward.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted previous discussions earlier this year with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and their intent to get out into the community, and asked if those steps had been taken yet.

 

Member Grefenberg advised that the HRC had added that to its 2013 Strategic Plan, with the HRC recognizing that it needed to do more, while being cognizant of their limited resources and time.  Member Grefenberg acknowledged other time-sensitive priorities that had arisen this year.  Member Grefenberg noted, with the addition of two (2) minority members on the HRC, it could begin to task them with some credibility; noting that he looked to this Task Force to assist the HRC in coming to terms with that need.  In reviewing the multiple neighborhoods just in the southern portion of Roseville (e.g. Lake McCarron’s area), Member Grefenberg noted the numerous language barriers, creating a challenge and need for planning and defining how best to reach them and their leaders, with the first step in identifying those leaders.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted the same challenges before the Parks and Recreation Commission eight (8) years ago, and still remaining undone or unengaged; and suggested that there must be a way to do this better.  Councilmember Johnson noted the wonderful example displayed by the Hmong and Karen communities and their traditions of meeting weekly to play together; and questioned if there was a way to tap into that festive opportunity with intergenerational families, through introduction and finding a chemistry and type of people who can pull off that effort.

 

Member Gardella concurred, noting that this is a great example of how and when those relationships and foundations could begin.

 

Member Lewis noted this was also addressed in Item 8 (Foster and support vibrant neighborhoods), and could easily be adapted, perhaps modifying existing societies, but providing neighborhood standards and allowing access to leaders for those groups.

 

Item 3: Engage Roseville renters and non-single family homeowners

Member Grefenberg opined that another under-represented group in Roseville was renters.

 

Councilmember Pust noted the work currently being undertaken by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for rental licensing, with the proposal for providing a list of tenants to be used for various notification and information purposes.

 

Member Grefenberg opined that such an available resource would make these recommendations more reasonable.

 

Member Ramundt advised that, even with tenants changing, rather than knowing their names, just knowing the number of tenants needing recognized would be helpful.

 

Item 4: Provide public participation support, training and resources

Members Grefenberg and Gardella referenced an attachment included in the report from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC); and encouraged City Council review of that document.

 

Item 5: Enhance print communications and dissemination

Member Ramundt noted there must be a method to approach leaders in each specific neighborhood.

 

Councilmember Pust noted the need to recognize that all people may not have access to electronic communication, and they must continue to have printed materials available to access.

 

Item 6: Enhance website and electronic communications

Member Grefenberg noted, as an example, the difficulty for a resident applying for a commission and seeking an online application without initially contacting staff by phone.  Member Grefenberg opined that the City’s website needed significant updating and revising.

 

Mayor Roe noted the under-utilized status of C-TV (Channel 16) as a communication tool; and suggested highlights of staff and others available to produce informational/educational pieces for residents. 

 

Councilmember Pust suggested high school classes, senior citizen groups, as well as other groups to tap into for these efforts.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the difficulty (Section 6.4) in contacting a Commission with an attachment; noting the need to correct this omission.

Discussion ensued regarding availability of staff assistance on weekends for residents seeking contact; the need to recognize Open Meeting Law provisions and requirements for e-mail contact for Commissions and the City Council and how to address frustrations created; technical solutions that may be available; and other options.

 

Item 9: Improve notification process

Member DeBenedet noted past issues and potential solutions.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that this was the intent of the City Council for follow-up after the asphalt plant debacle; however, he admitted it had dropped off his personal radar for follow-up, but he concurred with the recommendations of the Task Force from his perspective.

 

Member DeBenedet noted that rumors always created the worst story, and that a more proactive approach was indicated.

 

Discussion included requiring developers to meet with neighborhoods pre-application for land use decisions.

 

Items for Future Consideration

In conclusion, Member Grefenberg reviewed the three (3) conclusions (page 23):

1)    Monitor progress on recommendations based on City Council priorities;

2)    Monitor implementation and effectiveness of the Civic Engagement elements in the Imagine Roseville 2025 Plan and 2030 Roseville Comprehensive Plan;

3)    Assess the effectiveness of recommendations as they relate to minority or marginalized communities; and if needed, evaluate additional recommendations based on diversity of Roseville’s populations.

 

Member Grefenberg noted the desire of the Task Force to take part in this process moving forward, whether through their continuation as a Task Force or creation of a formal Commission at the City Council’s discretion. 

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for that clarification for the future interest of the Task Force.

 

Member Grefenberg advised that this represented his personal opinion, not necessarily that of the HRC, who was currently charged with these duties.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the original intent was that this Task Force report to the HRC, and then the HRC would monitor its status and make recommendation to the City Council, similar to the work of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP Task Force.  Therefore, Councilmember Johnson questioned if these recommendations were beyond the scope of the Task Force and if they were supported by the HRC.  Councilmember Johnson noted that it had been determined that a bi-annual reinvestigation of the CIP Task Force was indicated, and questioned if that was not indicated in this case for the HRC as well.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that may be a viable solution going forward, making things more manageable, while still addressing available resources and passions.  Councilmember Johnson expressed his appreciation for this well-thought-out report and recommended solutions; all of which he found to be achievable.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s expression of appreciation.

 

Councilmember Pust concurred, noting her amazement with the level of detail; opining that it was great work.  However, Councilmember Pust expressed concern that, if only revisited annually, no one would be tasked with following through; and questioned the intent of the Task Force, whether the HRC be tasked or a separate group.

 

Member Gardella opined that it was the Task Force’s preference that a separate commission be created, with a specific staff liaison (recommendation 4).

 

Councilmember Pust cautioned that she didn’t want to lose the momentum if a staff/budget issue arose.

 

In his three (3) year tenure on the HRC, Member Grefenberg questioned whether the energy or resources were available on the HRC, since the entire purpose of civic engagement was to involve more residents.  Member Grefenberg advised that he too was leaning toward creating another commission or task force with staff support. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Member Grefenberg advised that the HRC had yet to digest and support recommendations of the task force; but noted that it was on their upcoming November meeting agenda.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that this was a vital next step for the HRC and their formal recommendation to the City Council on this specific issue.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that this was an excellent report and commended the Task Force; expressing her hope that the report recommendations would be implemented Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the recommendations having assistance from community groups or commissions related to this issue as well as staff support when needed.   Councilmember McGehee suggested an annual meeting in January with community findings gathered by the HRC to assist the City Council in their priority setting for the upcoming year.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was essential to get that information to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted that he was hearing a lot of positive response to the Task Force’s report; and thanked them for their service and recommendations.  Mayor Roe advised that he was personally very interested in their recommendations and would take it as a charge moving forward to determine from available resources and staffing how to proceed and how to best formulate resolution, including involvement of task force members as makers of those recommendations.

 

Councilmember Willmus thanked the entire task force, and Member Grefenberg’s leadership.  As something he had been personally following closely throughout the process, Councilmember Willmus expressed his sincere interest in the implementation process for the recommendations, and his interest in a formal commission to do so.

 

With the next HRC meeting scheduled for November 28, 2012, Councilmember Pust asked that these recommendations be processed at that level to allow a hearing of the HRC recommendations in December prior to the end of her Council term.

 

Member Grefenberg advised that the HRC members had seen this document and were aware of tonight’s discussion; however, they had not been asked to take a formal position at this point.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she would be looking to the HRC for a recommendation as to structure, implementation, and other details.

 

c.            Discuss Amending Professional Services Policy to Include Best Overall Value General Guidelines

City Manager highlighted this request as detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned the value added portion of the six (6) listed criterion and how that was defined.

 

City Manager Malinen expressed his desire for City Councilmembers to received training as staff had, addressing the best value procurement process and its application the best overall value.  City Manager Malinen noted that each firm brought their unique offerings to the proposal process, or their particular specialty that differentiated them from other proposals beyond meeting the basic Request for Proposals (RFP).  Mr. Malinen noted that this was used in the vetting process, along with cost, do determine who could do the best for the City.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, the last time a contract came through with the value added component defined as the frosting on the cake, it simply meant that they charged more for that frosting.  Councilmember Pust questioned how this was different; and why determining who would come out as the best for the job wouldn’t come out through the other categories.  Councilmember Pust also noted all proposers having to go through the interview or an actual meeting, with them reviewing their past performance, and questioned why they should get separate points for how well they presented themselves in that interview.

 

Given the time constraints for further discussion, City Manager Malinen noted that this was a time-sensitive action required at tonight’s meeting.

 

Roe moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m.  Due to lack of a second, Mayor Roe declared the motion failed.

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting to 10:05 to complete this discussion.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

Nays: None.

City Manager Malinen reviewed the interview step in the best value process geared toward getting into the interview; with all other criterion considered separate from that interview; at which time their ability to fill in the blanks for the best interest of the City was determined, and allowing interviewers to drill into the finer details for additional information.  Mr. Malinen advised that the interview was a highly valued part of the process.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, in the best value process, the interview was part of that defined process; with City Manager Malinen responding in the affirmative.

 

Councilmember Pust expressed her concern with the definitions, and how the weighting was used, whether it was applicable to all contracts, or needed to be based on the service or product being sought on a case by case basis.

 

Mr. Malinen advised that this process had been vetted internally by staff, with weighting specific to this service.  Mr. Malinen advised that giving a minimum weighting to values of all versus the highest cost allowed any equality issues or problems to be avoided.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that a better practice would be to take criterion and weight them for each specific RFP, determining ahead of time based on the right criterion; further opining that any particular percentage would not be right for each RFP.

 

City Manager Malinen noted that if a determination could be made for this specific RFP, further action and discussion could occur in the future.

 

          Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Exhibit A to the Professional Services Policy as detailed in the RCA dated October 22, 2012; authoring the City Manager to use the six (6) criteria and guidelines specific to the purpose of seeking a new contract for legal services only; directing City Manager Malinen to bring this Policy back to the City Council for future discussion on a broader application.

 

          Councilmember McGehee advised that she had unanswered questions regarding this technical services agreement; opining that a best value process was not needed; and therefore spoke in opposition to the motion, advising that she would be voting against it based on her unanswered questions.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.   

            Nays: McGehee.

            Motion carried.

 

d.            Discuss City Manager Evaluation Process

Mayor Roe asked for a consensus of the body regarding the criteria provided and how it was to be rated.  Mayor Roe noted that criteria had been added in five (5) areas to allow for a more detailed evaluation, and an additional category for “professional skills and development.”

 

Councilmember Pust suggested adding commission chairs as part of those evaluations, since they had contact with the processes managed by the City Manager.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that the process be handled through Ms. Bacon as the Human Resources Director as part of her role, including use of Survey Monkey if used.

 

Mayor Roe advised that in his discussions with Ms. Bacon, she advised that she did not have access to or experience with Survey Monkey at this time.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that she had more recent information from Ms. Bacon, and that was willing to learn and participate in the process.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that this review not be used as a steep learning curve for Ms. Bacon.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that Ms. Bacon simply be linked in to the process at this time, allowing for additional checks and balances.

 

Mayor Roe concurred that Councilmember Pust’s suggestion made sense from his perspective.

 

Willmus moved, Pust seconded, moving forward with the City Manager evaluation process for completion before 2013; amended to add commission chairs to the process; and other staff as indicated for involvement in the Survey Monkey process.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.

 

16.         Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:09 p.m.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.       

            Nays: None.