View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for March: Pust; Willmus: Johnson; McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman was also present. Mayor Roe announced that Councilmember Johnson would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to illness.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Johnson had requested removal of Agenda item 13.b entitled, “Discussion on the 2012-2013 Budget & Tax Levy,” until he was available to participate in that discussion. However, Mayor Roe advised that, since several Councilmembers had comments on that item, a brief discussion would occur and the item would remain on the agenda.
Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.g entitled, “Approve Request by James Carr for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a Conditional use at 2478 Hamline Avenue.”
Mr. Carr advised Mayor Roe that he was present in the audience, and available for any questions.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one spoke.
4. Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Councilmember Willmus announced the upcoming Arts and Crafts Festival scheduled at the OVAL on April 2, 2011 from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm; and on Sunday, April 3, 2011 from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm; with additional information available by calling the Parks and Recreation Department at 651-792-7006.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of March 21, 2011 Meeting
Mayor Roe, and Councilmembers Pust and McGehee had submitted comments and corrections to the draft minutes prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 21, 2011 meeting as presented.
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 Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
b. Approve Business Licenses
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
Type of License
Justina Christiansen at Colleen & Company
3092 Lexington Avenue
Christina Torres at Colleen & Company
c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:
Support Agreement for telephone system
d. Approve Budget Amendments from Audit
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approved year-end amendments to the 2010 Budget as detailed on “Attachment A” of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 28, 2011; and summarized as follows:
2010 General Fund
$177,000 in police equipment purchases funded by forfeiture funds.
$15,000 in Police overtime detail that was offset by Federal and State monies for special enforcement details
$91,000 in Public Works engineering consulting services provided to and reimbursed by the City of Arden Hills.
2010 Community Development Fund
$426,500 for “Economic Development” activities related to the pass-through grant received from the Metropolitan Council for the Sienna Green redevelopment project.
2010 Charitable Gambling Fund
$41,000 for additional distributions to the Roseville Community Fund, sourced through high-than-expected donations from various lawful gambling permittees, including funds carried over from 2009 yet to be distributed.
2010 Information Technology Fund
$22,000 for additional capital equipment related to purchases made on behalf of and reimbursed by other cities.
$11,000 for “other services and charges” for additional licensing and hardware support paid on behalf of and reimbursed by other cities.
e. Accept Donations for K-9 Major’s Care at the University of Minnesota
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval to allow the Police Department to make arrangements with the University of Minnesota Veterinary Center to use remaining donated funds to cover costs of K-9 Major’s future care and therapy in the amount of $3,112.19.
f. Approve Amendment to 2009 JAG Recovery Grant Agreement
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval for the Police Department to amend the grant agreement to allow the Department to fully expend the original grant funding of $400,032; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to executive the document.
h. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Agreement with Ramsey County for County Road C and Prior Avenue Traffic Signal
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10886 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving Agreement No. PW 2010-26 (Attachment B): Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement with the City of Roseville;” for installation of a traffic signal at County Road C and Prior Avenue.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Approve Request by James Carr for an Accessory Dwelling Unit as a Conditional Use at 2478 Hamline Avenue (Former Consent Item 7.g)
Councilmember Willmus requested that staff provide a history of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) versus Conditional Uses; new applications under the revised Zoning Code; and staff’s rationale for allowing a larger amount of square footage for this particular ADU than the standard application of six hundred feet (600’).
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided that historical perspective, based on the City’s new Zoning Code, and staff’s rational for recommending the ADU as a CONDITIONAL USE as opposed to an INTERIM USE as a matter of practicality and more permanent in nature than an INTERIM USE used on a more temporary basis. Related to the size limitations of Code, Mr. Lloyd advised that the number was chosen arbitrarily, and its purpose was to avoid over two (2) occupants in smaller amounts of space, but having a unique address from the primary structure; and limiting the bedrooms to avoid higher occupancy as well. Mr. Lloyd noted that, in putting this new portion of the Zoning Code into practical use, staff would be coming forward in the future with an amendment to Zoning Code to limit that occupancy in ADU’s to two (2) people, and require that a unique address be issued to assist public safety personnel as needed.
Councilmember Willmus questioned staff on whether by allowing this ADU at 710 square feet, the City would be setting a precedent at the onset.
Mr. Lloyd advised that this structure was a unique circumstance, being already separated from the primary dwelling structure; and provided several examples of the uniqueness of this distinct and separate space; and even though somewhat larger than code allows, it fell under a legal, non conformity as addressed in City Code, Chapter 1002, as well as State Statute.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that both a CONDITIONAL USE and an INTERIM USE ran with the property, not the current owner.
Mayor Roe questioned if there were differences in an ADU and someone renting out a room in their home; with Mr. Lloyd responding affirmatively. Mr. Lloyd advised that both instances would require rental registration; and that single-family homeowners could have two (2) renters in their home, and that would not be called out separately, or take up a separate and integral part of the home, simply living with the family and paying rent, but would not be occupying a separate unit.
Mayor Roe noted that part of the ADU definition included identifying access points.
Councilmember Pust questioned the public purpose in limiting square footage on a property other than impervious surfaces.
Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent of the size limitation was to limit occupancy and to prevent single-family homes from becoming duplexes, when that was not their original function. Mr. Lloyd noted that duplex properties, originating as such, functioned differently, and created additional vehicle trips and traffic impacts, and impacting a neighborhood differently than a single-family home; thus their location in specific zoning districts.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10887 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving an Accessory Dwelling Unit as a Conditional Use at 2478 Hamline Avenue (PF11-004).
Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, explaining his rationale to Mr. Carr, opining that he thought this use should be designated as an INTERIM USE, not a CONDITIONAL USE, to require that it return to the City Council periodically for review.
Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, opining that people could rent their property if they chose to do so; whether it was a stand alone structure or not; and further opined that there was no reason to treat this differently than any other CONDITIIONAL USE.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion; opining that this ADU designation was part of the update in the City’s Zoning Code, and had been a needed designation. However, Mayor Roe noted the need to keep tabs on these types of situations, and amend the Zoning Code as applicable and if adjustments were indicated.
Ayes: Pust and Roe
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Quarterly HRA Report
Housing Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey provided the quarterly update of the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); with HRA Chair Dean Maschka joining her during the presentation.
Ms. Kelsey initiated her comments by briefly reviewing the HRA’s 2008-2012 Strategic Plan, and its premise of offering “a hand up, not a hand out;” with the Work Plan incorporating housing-related portions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, and the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process goals and strategies.
2011 Work Plan Highlights:
§ Explore partnering with existing land trusts to bring their services to Roseville
§ Create an Employee Assistance Program for people working in Roseville to purchase a home in Roseville
§ Review the existing Home Improvement Area (HIA) policy
§ Continue to support the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) and Living Smarter campaign
Ms. Kelsey reviewed the recently-held 2011 Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair; and thanked the City’s partners in the event: ISD No. 623, and the City’s Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments, as well as the many volunteers who made this year’s “Zero Waste” event, the third in a row, a success.
Ms. Kelsey highlighted the HRA’s marketing and advertising initiative entitled, “Living Smarter Marketing Campaign – Roseville - A Way of Life;” and various advertising venues and the positive results of those various venues and targeting of the younger generation. Ms. Kelsey noted that the campaign has gotten considerable interest from other communities who were seeking to utilize it and modify it specifically for their community; however, she noted that the Family Housing Fund and City of Roseville would share the credits. Ms. Kelsey, as part of the campaign, noted the banners around City Hall and the OVAL.
HRA Chair Maschka noted that the Living Smarter campaign had recently incorporated marketing Roseville’s many, diverse, and cost-effective daycare opportunities, a benefit for and great need of young professionals brought to the attention of the HRA by one of its Board Members.
Ms. Kelsey reviewed foreclosure trends in Roseville from 2008 to 2010, with a slight spike in 2010, but indications that the spike is down-trending. Ms. Kelsey advised that all indications are that recent foreclosures on average-priced houses were related to the economy and loss of jobs. Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA and staff continued to monitor the situation to look at opportunities to address it if it became an issue.
Mr. Maschka noted that the City didn’t have enough foreclosures to apply for any federal funding to assist those homeowners.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if the HRA offered any loan programs for those close to foreclosure, and offering short-term assistance until they stabilized again to ensure they didn’t lose their home.
Ms. Kelsey advised that, at this point, there were no programs of that kind due in part to those homeowners losing their credit rating and unable to obtain loan funds. Ms. Kelsey advised that this was the HRA’s rationale in partnering with the Land Trust to attempt to catch those homeowners before they reach that level, with the Land Trust using a market-driven program, and currently looking to partner with the State of MN to get credit back on track for those homeowners.
Councilmember McGehee noted her strong support for Living Green initiatives; however, she observed that this was missing in the City’s updated Zoning Code, and not stressed in building requirements. Councilmember McGehee noted the information she’d provided regarding the proposed Fire Station and other communities doing green building. Councilmember McGehee further noted that she’d attended the Open House for Applewood Point last week, and was disappointed to find that they were not incorporating green building in their construction. Councilmember McGehee suggested that the HRA have discussions with the City’s Code Department to incorporate those things currently being used by the HRA to market Roseville.
Ms. Kelsey advised that, to-date, HRA staff had not consulted with Code staff; however, she noted the Energy Audits being offered to one hundred (100) Roseville residents; and the HRA’s encouragement for residents to see the financial incentives in cutting their operating costs.
Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Kelsey and Mr. Maschka for their update.
b. Receive Citizen Survey
Executive Director William SaintAmour of Cobalt Community Research joined the meeting via the internet for presentation of the survey results; coming from Lansing, Michigan; and facilitated by the City’s Communication Coordinator Tim Pratt.
Mr. SaintAmour provided an Executive Summary of the “City of Roseville Citizen Engagement and Priority Assessment dated March 2011.” For the benefit of Mr. SaintAmour, Councilmembers introduced themselves.
Mr. SaintAmour advised that the purpose of tonight’s overview was to provide highlights and summaries of survey results, allowing Councilmembers, staff and citizens to review and absorb the data taken from a random and scientific sample of 1,500 Roseville residents culled from voter registration records, and then have opportunities to ask further questions at a later date on specific. Mr. SaintAmour advised that this presentation would provide a basic background and communicate more effectively going into future decision-making. A sample of the survey was included in agenda packet materials for reference; and a copy of the Executive Summary presentation was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. SaintAmour noted that an opportunity was also provided for volunteer respondents (84 people, with 58 respondents ) on the City’s website to participate in the survey; however, he noted that this data was beyond the core scientific-based random sample.
Discussion among Councilmembers, Mr. SaintAmour, and staff included Roseville’s results compared with experience in surveying other communities; questions on specific services provided by Roseville, and generic questions related to common and core City services; high response rate of respondents; written comments with open-ended answers and not included in statistical information provided directly to the City by approximately seventy (70) respondents, and available in the near future from Mr. Pratt following their compilation; and distinguishing between those responding on-line and those responding to mailed surveys, based on identification numbers.
Further discussion included distinguishing between and balancing statistical and essay results; use of American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) National, Sector, Industry Scores for comparison with Roseville scores and for perspective on best practices in reviewing individual federal agencies and major corporations and access to that data and its use for baseline studies on satisfaction levels on an aggregate level; ownership by the City of Roseville of its specific survey data for dissemination and sharing at its discretion; and review of specific data related to perception versus reality and minimizing distortion or fixing real performance issues.
Mr. SaintAmour led the Council through various exercises in examining the data with the strategy to improve performance to improve outcomes as a framework in following the survey and validation process.
Additional discussion included the underlying methodology used in the survey; response rates per question and a request that Mr. SaintAmour provide that information; bubble charts versus response rates; accuracy of questions and responses to ensure they truly reflected the community-at-large; how potential false measurements from false numeric responses were addressed in the scientific data; removal of “don’t know” and skipped questions from the totals prior to compiling the data; how to determine if those eighty-four (84) website respondents were Roseville residents, with them registering by phone number for tracking purposes; and commonality among communities for many of the core services and programs they provided to their citizenry.
Further discussion included how Cobalt Community Research generated their upper Midwest cluster information and data in evaluating regions versus national trends; annual indexing of the scientifically-based information to ensure its validity; and data specific to Roseville that was included in the generic questions.
At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Pratt advised that the underlying data and the full survey report was available to the City Council at their request; and could be compiled specific to individual needs and questions, as well as areas of interest; and included very detailed spreadsheets of demographic groups. Mr. Pratt advised that the survey information in its entirety was downloadable and available to the City from Cobalt.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. SaintAmour for his participation and presentation; and Mr. SaintAmour thanked the City Council for the opportunity to work with the City of Roseville.
Discussion among the City Council and staff included survey results and Data Practices concerns with the amount of and content of the information available to the public.
City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman advised that the public could make a Data practices Request to Ms. Curti at City Hall and she could respond accordingly.
Councilmember Pust suggested that the information should be downloaded onto the City’s website or a link provided with Cobalt to allow the public to do its own research on specific areas of interest.
Councilmember McGehee stated her expectation that the entire product would be available on the City’s website, since the data was public.
Mr. Pratt advised that his intent had been to make the data easier to find for Councilmembers, not excluding them from receiving the information.
Mayor Roe advised that it would be worthwhile for staff to report back to the City Council on how to interface and options for making the data user-friendly; and spoke in opposition to require citizens to submit a Data Practices Request for any data.
Councilmember Willmus concurred; and added that he would also like a report on volunteer responses.
Mayor Roe concurred, and asked that those responses be provided to all Councilmembers; and also that an electronic copy of the Power Point presentation be provided to Councilmembers as well.
City Manager Malinen advised that additional information would be provided as a tool during the 2011 budget process.
Councilmember Pust noted that responses, such as the example of the public’s lack of interest in C-TV 16 services and/or funding, brought forward the lack of information on Communication Funds from franchise fees, and their inability to be used for General Fund or other budget purposes.
Mayor Roe noted that this example was a discussion and decision point the City Council could consider in new franchise rules and fees currently underway and could be factored into that process, as well as the City’s budget process.
Mr. Pratt provided recent statistics from Comcast on residents using cable services.
Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included whether that information was based on marketable homes and apartments; or whether the data included those receiving the free cable service as a public universal coverage or only subscribers.
In response to Councilmembers Pust and McGehee, Mr. Pratt noted the questions specific to Roseville were included in the budget module, a custom feature, with the survey divided into two (2) sections: benchmarking and budget modules. Mr. Pratt noted that the Budget module questions allowed citizens to rate funding priorities by topic and was unique to Roseville; with Department Heads having brought that information to the City Council prior to final authorization of the survey to seek their assurance that staff had identified all services needing evaluation.
Mayor Roe reiterated the City Council’s request to staff to provide the additional detail as previously identified.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:53 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:00 pm.
11. Public Hearings
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1065 Ryan Avenue
Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the violation at this single-family detached home located at 1065 Ryan Avenue, currently owned by Jeff and Laurie Bury, with one of the owners currently living in the home at this time. Mr. Munson provided a visual and narrative update on this neighbor complaint of outside storage of junk, debris, household items, and fence sections leaning against the side of the home and visible from the front of the home; with an estimated abatement cost of $350.00 to remove the items; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 28, 2011. Mr. Munson advised that the owner had received three (3) notices from staff, as well as personal contact by City Code Officer Rick Talbot to no avail. Mr. Munson advised that the owner could simply resolve the situation by moving the items into the garage; however, he had failed to respond to-date and seemed to be pre-occupied with other things at this time. Mr. Munson advised that staff could move the items into the garage, if allowed to do so by the owner; otherwise, the items could be removed as indicated in the staff report.
Mayor Roe noted that the property owner was not present at tonight’s meeting.
Discussion among Councilmembers and staff regarding identifying the timeframe of the notices (since December of 2010); and leniency in response time due to excessive snowfall.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 1065 Ryan Avenue, if not abated by the property owner by April 15, 2011, by hiring a general contractor to remove the junk, debris, household items, and fence sections as detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2011; at a cost estimated to be $350.00; with the actual abatement and administrative costs to be billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
b. Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2030 Lexington
Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the violation at this single-family detached home, used as rental property, located at 2030 Lexington Avenue, with current owner of record Ryan Colbert, residing in Coon Rapids, MN; and as detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2011. Mr. Munson provided a visual and narrative update on this complaint from neighbors of building maintenance issues consisting of a leaking roof, and window trim needing repair and paint, at an estimated abatement cost of $2,000.00. Mr. Munson advised that the biggest concern was the leaking roof, with a number of neighbor complaints originally received last fall, and many addressed by the owner with the exception of the roof and trim. Mr. Munson advised that the owner claimed he didn’t have the money to repair the leaks and deteriorated trims; with staff sending information on housing resource options to Mr. Colbert, who did not qualify for any of the programs.
Mayor Roe noted that the property owner was present at tonight’s meeting.
Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included how the City would repair the wood trim with wood filler or through replacement, not just painting over the trim; interior ceiling damage and potential molds, with staff clarifying that the City did not perform interior abatements, and at this time it appeared that the ceilings were only stained, that no other damage to insulation or indicating mold had been observed, but would be inspected when potential roofers reviewed the structure prior to submitting a bid, at which time staff would return to the City Council for further direction before proceeding; and confirmation by staff that this property was registered with the City as a rental property.
Ryan Colbert, Property Owner
Mr. Colbert concurred with staff that a number of items were originally cited, and confirmed that he had addressed the majority of them, including the painting that remained pending until the weather warmed up again, as he had been unable to complete that project last fall. Mr. Colbert noted that the roof was flat and not friendly to Minnesota winters; and while he had tried a number of options to repair the roof, they had failed in the long-term. Mr. Colbert concurred with staff’s assessment that he had not qualified for any grant funds; and admitted that he was an “exhausted landlord.” Mr. Colbert advised that he had recently put the property on the market; and that the structure needed a new roof, but he didn’t have sufficient funds to complete that work. Mr. Colbert advised that he would complete the painting when the weather allowed him to do so, but that he couldn’t afford to replace the roof at this point.
Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Colbert on the number of rental properties under his ownership, and their location.
Mr. Colbert responded that he owned a total of ten (10) properties, with one (1) located in Roseville, and the others located in the Cities of Blaine, Champlin, Bloomington, Minneapolis, and Coon Rapids; and advised that he was in the process of selling a number of them.
Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Colbert on how long he had been renting the Roseville property with the leaking roof conditions.
Mr. Colbert advised that he had owned the Roseville property for nine (9) years, but over the last two (2) years, the leaking had gotten worse; and while he continued to attempt to remedy the situation, he ran out of money to do a complete replacement of the roof; and had only been attempting to “put band aids” on it over the last two (2) years.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Colbert for attending tonight’s meeting.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2030 Lexington Avenue as detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2011, if not completed by Mr. Colbert by April 15, 2011, by hiring a general contractor to repair the leaking rubber roof, and repair and paint the window trim at an estimated cost of $2,000.00; with the actual abatement and administrative costs to be billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
In response to Mr. Colbert’s query, Mayor Roe advised that if the abatement proceeded, it would serve as a tax lien against the property.
Mr. Colbert advised that he would confer with staff on his additional questions related to the proposed abatement process and to avoid disrupting his tenants.
Councilmember Willmus questioned the number of tenants currently in the building.
Mr. Colbert responded that there were currently four (4) guys living there in the single-family home.
c. Appoint Advisory Commissioners
Mayor Roe advised that he would like to break down the commissioner appointment process into three (3) parts: Responding to Councilmember McGehee’s general discussion prior to making appointments; the appointments themselves; and the entire process itself for future appointments and whether any changes were desired.
General Comments on Commission Appointments
Councilmember McGehee noted that her original questions on appointments to the Civil Service Commission had been answered by City Manager Malinen’s response included in the meeting packet. Councilmember McGehee questioned how other individual Councilmembers determined their selections and their process for distribution of people on commissions.
Mayor Roe advised that he attempted to balance commission membership in a variety of ways, including the applicants’ general point of view and philosophy expressed during the interview; demographic issues as much as possible; and appointing someone who works well with others.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he primarily based his appointment rankings on the interviews themselves; and noted that he had reviewed tapes of the interviews prior to tonight’s meeting and was changing his opinion on several of his original appointment suggestions based on that further review.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she was interested in whether to pick people with a strong emphasis in a particular field versus diversity; and noted, as an example, that the Planning Commission currently had no women serving, nor any small business interests; while two (2) of the applicants had a strong background in planning and zoning.
Mayor Roe advised that individual Councilmembers tended to take a number of those same factors into account; noting that it was difficult to weight expertise and experience versus new applicants; or renters versus homeowners.
Ethics Commission (2 vacancies)
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Anne Collopy and Benjamin Lehman to the Ethics Commission for terms ending March 31, 2014.
Mayor Roe noted that they were both very qualified, did well in the interview, and supported their appointment; and noted Ms. Collopy’s present in the audience.
Human Rights Commission (2 vacancies)
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Kaying Thao and Jill Brisbois to the Human Rights Commission for terms ending March 31, 2014.
Mayor Roe offered his support of both appointments.
Parks and Recreation Commission (2 vacancies)
Willmus moved, Pust seconded, appointment of Diedrick and Simbeck to the Parks and Recreation Commission for terms ending March 31, 2014.
Planning Commission (2 vacancies; 1 vacancy for a partial term)
Mayor Roe noted that this situation was unique, with one (1) partial term due to unfortunate death of former Commissioner Jim Doherty, leaving his term unfulfilled.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Mike Boguszewski to the Planning Commission for a three (3) year term ending March 31, 2014.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised that the partial term could be appointed, with the applicant able to reapply for two (2) more full terms at their discretion.
A brief discussion was held on individual perspectives of the maker and seconder of the motion, and their rationale in making the motion as indicated.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the appointment as presented.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Mr. Strohmeier to the Planning Commission for a three (3) year term ending March 31, 2014.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the appointment.
Willmus moved, Roe seconded, appointment of Mr. Lester to the Planning Commission for the partial term ending March 31, 2013.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Willmus elaborated on his motion, noting that this was one of the situations where he had changed his original position after watching the interviews again; opining that Mr. Lester was a better fit for the Planning Commission, as well as being a strong candidate for the Ethics Commission; but was a better fit here and appeared eager to become involved.
Mayor Roe echoed the comments of Councilmember Willmus, noting that he wanted to see him serving the community, and opined that Mr. Lester was a very strong and good applicant and appeared enthusiastic to become involved, a valuable asset from the Mayor’s perspective.
Police Civil Service Commission (1 vacancy)
Mayor Roe noted the updated information in the agenda packet materials addressing State Statute requirements related to candidates on Police Civil Service Commissions unable to hold employment with other police departments, thus excluding Mr. Voss; and expressed his appreciation to City Manager Malinen for providing the additional research.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Ms. Jenkins to the Police Civil Service Commission for a term ending March 31, 2014.
Mayor Roe expressed his support of the appointment.
Councilmember Willmus noted, for the benefit of all applicants, the limited positions available, but encouraged other applicants to consider applying in the future.
Mayor Roe congratulated appointees and echoed Councilmember Willmus’ comments; in addition to encouraging them to become involved with other opportunities to serve the community, by contacting staff to get them plugged into their appropriate areas of interest.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a. Review City Council Work Plan
City Manager Malinen provided a brief background on the development of the draft work plan (Attachment A), and staff’s subsequent consolidation and categorization of individual comments, using the Imagine Roseville 2025 as a guide; and now seeking any additional revisions by the City Council to move forward with strategic planning and budgeting processes.
Mayor Roe noted one correction in the RCA that the 59 recommendations were now only 46. Mayor Roe questioned the meaning of the asterisks on the list.
At the request of Mayor Roe for further clarification and foot noted as appropriate, City Manager Malinen advised that the asterisks referred to councilmember items, and that he would check with staff and provide that key on the future draft.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the purpose of the City Council should be one of thinking about policy; and that in carefully reviewing the list, the City Council could begin to formulate some general areas for policy development, that would serve to be more productive and in line with the City Council’s purpose, as well as more helpful to staff in having a set policy from which to work.
Mayor Roe advised that a number of the items listed were based on determining and/or evaluating, and may not all come before the City Council for action; but included those things being done by the City over the coming months or in the short-term. Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee’s perspective, but noted that not all were policy statements or intended to be policies as a basis for moving forward; and provided several examples already in process or coming forward in the near future.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she would like to see the City Council as a body not have everything coming to it, but the City Council providing policy direction to staff in terms of an overview of where individual Councilmembers and as a collective body they wanted the City to go.
Mayor Roe, in addressing City Manager Malinen, clarified that the list incorporated short-term programs and projects to focus energies on with limited resources, with the list still being large for staff to carry forward. Mayor Roe didn’t disagree with those items needing to be addressed on a policy level; but suggested that the list be further refined for planning with emphasis on specific years (2011, 2012, and 2013) to ensure progress continued.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that, once the items were codified by category, there may be other ways to combine items that would allow the City Council to provide a broader direction.
Councilmember Willmus clarified that his intent of Item #36 on page 2 of 3 under HRA items, was for further discussion of HIA’s in the context of what may be missing, rather than his interest in doing a number of them.
Mayor Roe suggested that staff’s consolidation may have created some misperceptions; and noted the need to keep revisiting the document periodically. Mayor Roe noted several small corrections: #8 under civic engagement, from his original list, and clarified that it was his intent to support the Human Rights Commission on civic engagement and neighborhoods, and he didn’t want that additional language lost; and #11 also under Human Rights, and the need to correct language form “Committee” to “Commission.” Mayor Roe noted the need to clarify and identify the meaning of the asterisks as well.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded, approval of the City’s Work Plan (Attachment A) as amended.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that individual Councilmembers attempt further prioritization to assist and direct staff.
Mayor Roe personally responded that this list was developed from the “Must DO” lists as discussed by the body during the process, and listed the body’s highest priorities; and while not getting them all done, they needed to be worked on based on that original City Council and staff collaborative discussion.
Councilmember McGehee concurred.
b. Discussion on the 2012 – 2013 Budget & Tax Levy
Mayor Roe noted that this item was based on the larger context and process discussions, with staff directed by the City Council to perform several exercises, including a ten percent (10%) reduction across the board as presented. Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Johnson had originally requested the exercise, and additional discussion would occur at the April 11, 2011 meeting upon his return.
Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration in the information presented, opining that it was not at all what she had expected, and had anticipated dollar amounts or savings included as part of the exercise; or at a minimum 2011 budget amounts and the percent of reduction being recommended.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus concurred that the information could be added to the exercise.
City Manager Malinen advised that the information could be provided; however, in his discussions with Councilmember Johnson and his intent for the process, they met with each Department to discuss and understand the potential impact to programs and/or services to be affected and the extent to which they’d be affected, with some eliminated and some reduced as indicated in the exercise. Mr. Malinen advised that, while there could be more specificity provided about the level of service, it was intentional to avoid showing dollar amounts, both from his and Councilmember Johnson’s perspective, as the goal was to understand what a 10% levy reduction would mean to services provided. Mr. Malinen advised that, in the priority based budgeting process, they started at the bottom of the priority list; and this was a culmination of all departments working collectively to eliminate or reduce those items, no matter the dollar amount. Mr. Malinen clarified that the point of the exercise was to understand what was in the mix and what would be affected to provide a sense of those impacts, and achieving a $1.4 million reduction, or 10%, without specifying the level of FTE’s affected, since it was a prioritization exercise at the preliminary stage of the process, but may be misconstrued at this point by individuals who could fall under those significant associated impacts.
Councilmember McGehee noted that she had not participated in the previous prioritization exercises; and didn’t anticipate that staff would use that ranking completed by a previous City Council; and clarified that she didn’t see it as an exercise, but as a genuine attempt to provide an example of every staff member taking a five-day furlough; wages frozen; and from her point of view, she didn’t see it as a random exercise but as a meaningful and genuine first pass to show alternatives that had real meanings and dollar amounts, and within State Statutes.
Mayor Roe noted that in previous packets (Attachment B), 2011 dollar amounts were available as a line item from various categories in the prioritization program.
Councilmember Willmus noted that he took this as an exercise; and expressed interest in taking those items identified from the last budget cycle, in their context with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the Imagine Roseville 2025 process; and suggested that it could serve as another tool as this City Council develops new initiatives or priorities going forward, and opined that as an exercise it was a good starting point and served to highlight contract items, those identified through community input done over the last few years, and the categorization process, each used as budget tools.
Mayor Roe suggested that staff add a column for 2011 budget amounts to the next draft for discussion purpose.
Councilmember McGehee requested a column for 2011, in addition to one indicating 2011 with reductions.
Councilmember Pust questioned how FTE’s could be identified.
City Manager Malinen cautioned identifying any specific FTE’s with specific programs as part of this exercise to avoid creating anxiety for those employees, when results of the exercise may not be an actual outcome. Mr. Malinen noted that, to the extent programs were reduced during the process that may generate a reprioritization; but that he would prefer to avoid singling out personnel at this time.
Mayor Roe suggested two separate discussions: program areas and FTE’s.
Councilmember Willmus noted that, he did not need that information, but if an individual Councilmember requested the information, it should be provided.
Mayor Roe concurred, opining that the requests should be couched in terms that this was still only an exercise.
Councilmember McGehee then agreed, that no one should feel threatened, but it would clearly show what the City Council meant, and that their intent was not to get rid of a bunch of people.
Councilmember Pust recognized that distinction; however, she opined that the City Council kept talking around the issue during every budget cycle.
City Manager Malinen clarified that the budget process was based on programs, and the ranking offered the menu.
Councilmember McGehee opined that choices could be made in combination that could retain positions.
Councilmember Pust clarified that that was not what staff had been directed to do.
City Manager Malinen offered to assist with additional detail; and suggested that the City Council review the menu of items to determine their priority-based budget workable from line #80 on up.
After further discussion, Mayor Roe suggested that the discussion continue at the April 11, 2011 meeting; with staff providing 2011 amounts for each listed item.
c. Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 302, to allow for a Brewery and Off-Sale Retailing Liquor Licenses
Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the RCA dated March 28, 2011; with the applicant, a prospective business, seeking a separate license for retail sales of small production brewery items at retail locations.
Discussion included regulations of the industry by the State of MN; noting that the City allows ten (10) off-sale liquor licenses and is currently at its maximum of ten (10); distinctive operations of a brewery, with implications for retail sales.
Councilmember Pust opined that, if the City were to proceed, that a separate and specific license for a brewery be created, not to increase the number of off-sale liquor license to avoid resale of that license. Councilmember Pust noted staff’s reference to other metropolitan communities having recently amended their codes for a separate licensing category, and suggested that they be used as a model for Roseville.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus concurred.
Applicants: BJ Haun and Dr. Kristen England
The applicants provided a brief review of their request; and recommended a separate license, noting their desire to work cooperatively with other retailers in marketing their product and not to compete with them; barrel limits established by State Statute; the City Council’s desire to welcome the business and potential jobs, but their sincere interest in avoiding sales to minors and the applicants’ need to consult with law enforcement personnel about training; the need to review distinguishing off-sale wine licenses as part of the process as well; and pending legislation that needed to be considered as well.
By consensus, the City Council directed staff to return to the City Council with a City Code amendment; and providing consistent language and addressing any pending legislation.
d. Major Zoning Code Amendments Discussion
e. Long Range Development Planning
Councilmember McGehee briefly reviewed her interest in a roundtable discussion among Councilmembers and staff in work session format, exclusive to reviewing potential development and redevelopment options in the community, in particular the Twin Lakes area, and soliciting input from the community on their preferences; and those tools preferred to encourage that growth and what things to emphasize (e.g. green buildings; possible creation of an Economic Development Commission; use of Planned Unit Developments; and the focus of revenue streams from that growth).
Mayor Roe suggested that he and Councilmember McGehee schedule such a discussion for a future meeting, exclusive of the PUD discussion, noting that it would be part of the overall zoning discussion scheduled for April 18, 2011.
f. Review City Manager Goals
At Mayor Roe’s expression of confusion on the goals included in the packet, City Manager Malinen advised that the goals had been somewhat revised; and that the 3rd bullet point was no longer relevant.
Mayor Roe noted that some items may need to be implemented into the Council Work Plan, and suggested that this item be deferred to the April 11, 2011 meeting when Councilmember Johnson was present, as he currently serves in the role of the City Manager Interview Committee.
After further comments, City Manager Malinen advised that he would consult with Councilmember Johnson before returning to the City Council.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Willmus suggested delaying the joint meeting with the Planning Commission, since they had three (3) new members on board.
City Manager Malinen advised that he would consult with staff on whether to delay that meeting.
Councilmember Pust advised that the Gambling Task Force should have their information available by April 9.
City Manager Malinen noted Ethics Training was scheduled for April 14, 2011.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Roe noted his omission during Commission Appointments of discussing whether to continue the process as currently used and governed by resolution.
Councilmember Pust suggested, and Mayor Roe concurred, that if anyone was interested in changing the process, they bring forward a proposal for change, or the current process would remain in place.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:30 pm.