View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2013
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: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan
was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Items 7.g
and 7.i respectively entitled, “Approve Teamsters 2013-2015 Contract Terms;”
and “Establish Sale Date for 2013 Refunding Bonds.”
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee;
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the
audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and
Councilmember Willmus announced an opportunity to support
local military troops and their families, as part of the North Suburban Beyond
the Yellow Ribbon Program, scheduled for the second Monday of each month
(upcoming events scheduled on March 11 and April 8, 2013, at the White Bear
Lake V.F.W. on Highways 96 and 61 in White Bear Lake, with burgers and chips
available for $5.00 each.
Councilmember Laliberte announced the upcoming meeting of
the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 7:00
pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, with plans presented for Lexington Park.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that this park renewal had been approved with
various discussions during 2012; and that the purpose of this meeting was for
review, funding sources, and to seek guidance from residents and park
Councilmember Etten announced the next seven week session of
Roseville University every other Thursday from 6:30 – 9:00 pm, starting on
February 28, 2013. Councilmember Etten noted that this interactive process
provides a fun and informative behind-the-scenes look at local government. Roseville
U is free, but space limited, residents were asked to sign up to keep class
sizes reasonable; with sign up available at City Hall or via the City’s
Councilmember McGehee announced vacancies on various City
Council Advisory Commissions (Ethics Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and Planning Commission), and encouraged citizens interested in
applying to seek applications on the City’s website or through calling City
Hall at 651/792-7001; with the application deadline at 4:30 pm on February 28,
Mayor Roe announced scholarships available for
communications/journalism students in member cities of the North Suburban Cable
commission, including Roseville, with application and additional information
available at CTVNorthSuburbs.org with an application deadline of April 12,
Councilmember Willmus asked staff to provide information to
the NextDoor website regarding commission vacancies.
Mayor Roe, in his role as City Council liaison and Board
Member to the North Suburban Cable Commission, provided the “100 hours” report
to Councilmembers regarding various services provided to member cities by CTV
staff, at no cost. Mayor Roe noted that the City of Roseville had the highest
participation of any member city in 2012, and expressed his appreciation that
the City was taking advantage of this valuable service. Mayor Roe advised that
he had requested CTV to provide a comparable valuation of those services, if
obtained at market rates, with that information still pending.
Mayor Roe also noted that Comcast had recently announced
their transfer from analog to digital service, requiring an adapter, free of
charge to cable users for up to two for customers with certain levels of
service. Mayor Roe noted that this had caused some confusion, and some
difficulty in contacting Comcast for further information and clarification.
Mayor Roe advised that the Cable Commission was another source of information
and a resource for customer service assistance with the transition and
adapters. Mayor Roe advised that Comcast was implementing a different model
for customer service entitled “Centers of Excellence” with each location
focusing on a specific area of customer service. Mayor Roe noted that,
unfortunately, this had created some challenges and/or long delays; and wanted
to make the public aware that Comcast was attempting to resolve those issues.
Mayor Roe clarified that universal service for city channels was available at
no charge, and misinformation had been given by some Comcast customer service
representatives who were unfamiliar with the provision. Mayor Roe encouraged
the public to be persistent, and suggested that they contact the North Suburban
Cable Commission to resolve any outstanding issues.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised
that a resident needed cable to receive universal services, such as City
Council meeting broadcast; however, he noted that residents can also stream City
videos via the web as well.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of January 28, 2013 Meeting
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of
the January 28, 2013, meeting as amended.
Page 2, line 27 (Laliberte)
Correct meeting date to May 30, 2013.
Page 21, line 39 (Laliberte)
Typographical correction for Finance Director Miller’s name
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.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following
claims and payments as presented.
68888 – 69065
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
A revised Request for Council Action dated February 11, 2013
was provided as a bench handout. At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director
Miller advised that there was a misprint in the original list of exempt
gambling licenses, with one carryover that had already been approved at a
previous City Council meeting.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business
license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following
Type of License
New Dragon Acupressure Massage, LLC
320 Rosedale Center
Aurielle Moyer at Roseville Lifetime Fitness
2480 Fairview Avenue N
Hayley Espelien at Massage Envy Roseville
2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120
Sixiu Liu, Cun Liu, Simon Chan, Yan Xu, Dong Sui at
New Dragon Acupressure
Samantha Miller at Massage Xcape
1767 N Lexington Avenue
H.E.A.R.T. (Help Enable Alcoholic Addicts Receive Treatment),
Inc.; 1315 Red Fox Road #400; Arden Hills, MN
Raffle scheduled at Midland Hills Country Club
2001 Fulham Street, Roseville, MN (August
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
A revised Request for Council Action dated February 11, 2013
was provided as a bench handout.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted
list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:
Fiber locates and maintenance services (cost-share with
Roseville Schools, Ramsey County Library, and TIES, with net cost to Roseville of $7,800)
BSS Audio DSP Platform
Broadcast Pix Switcher
Asphalt patching material for parking lots
(State Bid Contract)
Asphalt patching material for streets (State Bid
OHara Ranger GM
Chevy Suburban –
Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2013 Apportionment of Assessments
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11049
(Attachment A) entitled, Resolution Relating to Apportionment of Assessments
for the Year 2013.”
Accept City Attorney Evaluation Report
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, acceptance of the City
Manager’s Evaluation Report of the City Attorney.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director
Miller responded that Ramsey County only assessed these charges at the end of
each year; however, the purpose for the City to record them quarterly was to
make sure the information was available to title companies and others for property
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised
that staff was not tracking properties with repeat unpaid utility or other
charges, as the City continued to collect the money through property tax
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11050
(Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy
Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2014 or Beyond;” as
detailed in Attachment B.
h. Set a
Public Hearing on February 25, 2013 regarding the Lake Owasso Safe Boating
Association’s Request for Placement of Water Ski Course and Jump on Lake Owasso
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, establishing a Public
Hearing for the City Council meeting of February 25, 2013, to provide an
opportunity for public comment regarding placement of a water ski course and
jump on Lake Owasso for the 2013 season.
Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Roseville and the City of St. Paul
for use of the St. Paul Fire Department’s Training Facility
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorization of a Joint
Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the Cities of Roseville and St. Paul
for use of the St. Paul Fire Department Training Facility.
Acceptance of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Inflow and
Infiltration Grant Funds
Councilmember McGehee pointed out the significant amount of
grants processed through the Public Works Department for several upcoming
projects, and thanked them for their efforts on behalf of the community.
Mayor Roe noted receipt of this specific grant as a result
of the City’s annual membership in the Metro Cities organization.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11051(Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Accepting Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration/Inflow Grant and
Designating an Authorized Representative for the Project;” in accordance with
Contract No. SG2013-024 (Attachment A); with funding awarded in the amount of
$433,136 to the City of Roseville for improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer
infrastructure to reduce inflow/infiltration; and designating the Public Works
Director as authorized representative for the project.
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Acceptance of Board of Water and Soil Resources FY 2013 Competitive Grant
Program Grant Funds
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, acceptance of Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) FY2013 Competitive Grants Program Grant Funds
in the amount of $359,100, for improvements to Evergreen Park as detailed in
Grant Agreement CWF13-163 (Attachment A); and designating the Public Works Director
as authorized representative for the project.
Teamsters 2013 – 15 Contract Terms
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a
brief review of the contract provisions, as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated February 11, 2013.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if a three (3) year, 2%
cost of living adjustment (COLA) would provide parity for all employees not in
a bargaining unit. Councilmember McGehee noted that that results remained
pending from the compensation study, and questioned why those results,
originally anticipated in December of 2012, had not yet been seen. In terms of
a general parity policy, Councilmember McGehee questioned if a three (3) year
contract was appropriate.
City Manager Malinen advised that this bargaining unit, this
one the Police Sergeant’s unit with five (5) employees as at 100% of the market
now. For 2013, Mr. Malinen noted that the budget allowed for all employees to
receive a 2% increase, providing parity with the first year of the contract;
and COLA was trending at 2% for 2014 in the marketplace as well. Mr. Malinen
noted that only difference was with the third year.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred that locking into a contract
for three (3) years at 2%, while not yet having determined what all employees
will be receiving during those three years, didn’t seem prudent.
City Manager Malinen cautioned that this unit has
arbitration rights and associated costs for such mediation, and if that should
occur, those negotiations will be focused externally versus internally in
regard to equity. Mr. Malinen advised that arbitrators typically lean toward
bargaining units versus municipalities; and noted that an advantage of the
third year to the City also provided a known budget amount moving forward.
Regarding the compensation study, Mr. Malinen advised that
Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon was in communication with Springsted, and
the study was expected within the next month; and advised that unfortunately
the study had been delayed some, as well as deferred for a new City Council coming
Mayor Roe noted that staff’s recommendation appeared to get
the three years locked in to avoid risks associated through arbitration.
After those further details were provided by City Manager
Malinen, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to
avoid risking arbitration; however, she didn’t want the City Council to be
forced by five employees in a bargaining unit to be bound at 2% for three years
for all employees.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed
terms and conditions for the 2013 – 2015 collective bargaining agreement with
the Teamsters as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
February 11, 2013; and directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents
for executive, subject to City Attorney approval as to legal form.
i. Establish Sale Date for 2013 Refunding Bonds
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a
brief summary of the request, as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2012.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director
Miller advised that the City of Roseville structures all of its bond issues
with an early call feature; and anticipated a cost for refinancing these bonds
at approximately $6,500.00. Mr. Miller noted that the savings projections by
staff were based on the City’s Triple-A bond rating and bond issues among other
cities at this time. However, Mr. Miller advised that until March 11, 2013,
staff wouldn’t know how accurate those projections had been, depending on
today’s market across the nation and the market over that next 30-day period.
Mr. Miller clarified that the impact on the City’s tax levy would not take
effect until 2015, at which time the City Council could decide how to apply
that savings, whether to reduce the levy or apply it elsewhere.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that the City
was not obligated to accept any of the offers made, and could choose to reject
all bids and reassess whether or not it made sense to rebid or wait. Mr.
Miller noted that the City’s portfolio was not earning significant interest at
this time, and right now it was to the City’s advantage not to pay off this
bond issue at this time other than for philosophical reasons in paying off debt
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11052
(Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated
Sale of $4,145,000 General Obligation Municipal Building Refunding Bonds,
Series 2013A;” scheduling the sale date for issuance for March 11, 2013.
Smarter Home and Garden Fair
Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey announced Roseville’s
upcoming 17th Annual Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair on
Saturday, February 16, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Fairview
Community Center at 1910 West County Road B. Ms. Kelsey recognized event
sponsors, and revised expanded workshop offerings planned this year.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Kelsey provided a brief
description of universal design, providing home adaptations for aging-in-place
(e.g. grab bars, ramps) and noted that a grant program would be offered to
assist with those universal design projects as well. Ms. Kelsey noted the
differences in universal design for newly constructed versus existing homes,
and the needs to accommodate people at all states of their life as applicable.
Discussion included how the twenty-five (25) homeowners were
selected for universal design grants; with Ms. Kelsey advising that it would be
on a first come, first served opportunity through contact with the firm; and
while one (1) homeowner had expressed interest through preliminary advertising,
the intent was to kick-off the program at the Home & Garden Fair.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that next year’s fair
provide an opportunity for radon test kits.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Kelsey
advised that sponsors provided $750 each, and in addition to the marketing
opportunities at the Fair, also received direct links to the Living Smarter website,
and first opportunity to do workshops. Ms. Kelsey noted that over half of the
sponsors didn’t even do workshops, but continued their sponsorship based on
their commitment to the community and ability to provide marketing materials at
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmembers would be available at
the Welcoming Table; and Ms. Kelsey noted that HRA Board Members would also be
available to serve and engage with the community, with computer hook-ups for
the Green Remodeling website and a multitude of other web pages.
b. Parks and
Recreation Renewal Program
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke presented
ongoing evolution of the Renewal program, focusing on the public engagement
strategy, implementation schedule, and park improvement meeting schedule, all
detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013.
Public Engagement Strategy
Mr. Brokke noted the intent for this to remain an
interactive process, with many larger projects requiring additional design, and
community input sought to inform, consult and collaborate. Mr. Brokke noted
that the southwest area of the community had been identified as an area needing
more efforts to garner further information. Mr. Brokke noted that the meetings
would be formatted to provide consistent information throughout the various
projects and would be done based on a prototype of the Lexington Park meeting
scheduled for tomorrow night. Mr. Brokke noted that the Renewal Program
budgets had been defined, along with specific projects for each neighborhood,
with neighborhood engagement sought throughout the implementation process.
Mr. Brokke reviewed the process, with initial meetings
followed by findings from those meetings, and then development of plans and
specifications as applicable. Mr. Brokke noted that the Parks and Recreation
Commission would also be reviewing all projects over the next several months,
and this would provide another opportunity for the public to attend those
Park Improvement Meeting Schedule
Mr. Brokke noted that the Best Value Procurement process was
being used, and continued to work well for future requests for proposals
(RFP’s). Mr. Brokke reviewed the RFP process in seeking proposals for
playground vendors, as an example, as well as a Natural Resource Lead Consultant,
and coordination with the City Attorney and Arizona State University to develop
those RFP’s. Mr. Brokke noted that regular updates to the City Council were
planned to seek input and approvals as appropriate.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Brokke
clarified that the receipt of only two responses to the Natural Resources
Consultant RFP was due to it being a relatively small contract compared to
some; but noted the other ways that natural resources people would be involved
along the way. Mr. Brokke advised that the proposals were still in process and
being sorted, and he had not seen either yet, so he was unable to comment
further; and would not know if either or both were acceptable.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Brokke provided
the various ways outreach was being done through list serves to neighborhoods,
and other strategies as outlined to alert neighborhoods to the process.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke
reviewed the general 500 foot minimum notice area for neighborhoods, with some
flexibility based on specific surrounding areas; with the intent to attract and
involve as many park users as possible.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke
reviewed approvals by the City Council for any expenditures over $5,000.00; in
addition to other projects where City Council input was appropriate (e.g.
buildings, shelters), including the ongoing updates planned. Mr. Brokke noted
that the typical process would involve the neighborhoods, then the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and then the City Council for final approval. Mr.
Brokke noted that the Best Value Procurement process was new to all; and used
the playground vendor RFP process as an example of how the neighborhood,
system, constellation, and sector information as all provided to vendors
Mr. Brokke encouraged Councilmembers to attend any of the
scheduled meetings to observe; and discussion ensued as to how to keep the City
Council informed, with a minimum overview or summary of the process so they
remained aware of the feedback coming forward.
Mayor Roe suggested a one page, executive summary of the
meetings, at which time the City Council could follow-up with any further
questions or information needed.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that it would be important
for the City Council to be aware of positive or negative comments from specific
neighborhoods, as well as any new ideas coming forward.
Mayor Roe suggested a summary similar to that provided to
the Parks Master Plan Steering Committee to continue the communication and
connection with the community; and further suggested a dedicated area on the
City website where the public could gather additional information.
Councilmember Etten noted that there was already such a
link; with Mr. Brokke adding that as projects are initiated, additional
information, including that presented tonight, would be added to the website,
along with photos, progress reports, and meeting scheduled for individual
parks, as currently set up by the City’s Communications Department.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Brokke, the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and all those involved in this process; and expressed his
anticipation of more updates as the process became more involved.
Adopting the 2014-2015 Budget Calendar
Finance Director Chris Miller noted that the City Council
and public had been introduced to the calendar process during the first
biennial budget process in 2012/2013; and provided a tentative schedule as
detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013, with a description of each of
those discussion topics.
On Page 4, Mr. Miller advised that the City Council was
asked to adopt the 2014/2015 Budget Calendar by resolution to demonstrate to citizens
and other interested parties that the City Council and staff were committed to
a transparent process; and communicate with residents when there would be
opportunities for them to participate in the process. As additional
information related to the budget, Mr. Miller referenced Attachment D,
outlining the City’s Performance Management Program, for the first year of the
budget process and some of the steps in the budget cycle.
Councilmember Willmus advised that, while not having any
issues with the calendar or process, he was wondering how new Councilmembers
felt about this direction or another process. In seeking their perspective,
Councilmember Willmus advised that he struggled with last year’s process, and
questioned if the City had received a benefit from the biennial approach or if
it just needed further refinement.
While not having a problem in having a calendar,
Councilmember McGehee noted that it was already far off the mark, with survey
results scheduled for January, and not yet in process; as well as goal setting
or review not completed. Councilmember McGehee advised that she had seen
limited value in a biennial process, especially in items 1-4. While supporting
the intent for transparency, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in a
different process, including even more opportunities for public contribution,
completing a survey, and performing strategic planning, as well as refining the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) work, and other policies.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen clarified
page 7 of Attachment B specific to goal setting, with the process for goal
setting in Year One followed by development of strategic plans by department
heads and adoption by the City Council as an organization-wide strategic plan.
Mr. Malinen advised that this would continue, with the stage set in 2013 for
the upcoming 2014/2015 biennial budget cycle, which were not immediately part
of the budget, but if and how to fund those new initiatives, with the next
phase more about that process and setting priorities.
Mayor Roe noted that the program priority exercise was for
the purpose of adjusting priorities as needed to guide funding choices for the
next biennium budget.
City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that discussion would
also include how those priorities tied into the Imagine Roseville 2025
visioning process, and new initiatives, and how to fund higher ranked
initiatives. Mr. Malinen advised that in the strategic plan, new initiatives
were linked with a program; and at the next City Council meeting, several hours
had been devoted to answer questions on the Performance Measurement Program
process in work session format, with minor business items scheduled at this
At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Manager Malinen
reviewed the rationale in moving to a biennial versus annual budget process to
allow for more emphasis on long-range vision policies translated into
actionable strategies, with each thought out and researched well in advance by
department heads, and freeing up some staff time from a traditional and
historical annual budget cycle.
Councilmember Etten stated that he struggled with the
biennial budget concept, with a previous City Council setting goals and
strategic plans for a new City Council. Councilmember Etten opined that it
made more sense to him that a strategic plan be set now for the upcoming two
Councilmember Willmus stated that he struggled with the
language being used, since statutorily the City Council was obligated to set an
annual budget; even though the first year’s budget was set with strong guidance
for year two in the biennial process. However, Councilmember Willmus suggested
that the City Council needed to be cognizant that things change and some
flexibility was needed, and expressed concern that those ideas could get lost
in a two year process.
Mayor Roe stated, from his perspective, there was
considerable flexibility available for year Two and revisions were made
accordingly. Mayor Roe advised that he was in agreement with the timing of
strategic planning; however, he noted that the argument worked both ways, with
existing City Councils setting budgets for odd years with new City
Councilmembers coming in, and that this would always be an issue. Mayor Roe
suggested that it may make more sense to look at strategic planning for the
first year of a newly-elected City Council; however, a counter-argument could
be that the new City Council may not be as up to speed, and want a year to
discuss strategic planning as they developed their budget expertise. Mayor Roe
concurred with the need for flexibility in the second year; however, he opined
that it made the City Council remain committed to better long-range planning,
as evidenced in development of a CIP that looked beyond five years. Mayor Roe
opined that it made sense to look at budgeting for a longer term, and a two
year perspective served that purpose, as well as freeing up time for strategic
As a big supporter of strategic planning, Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of that planning in the first year for a new City
Council, as they brought a fresh perspective with additional insight from the
community based on their campaigning. Councilmember McGehee stated that she
didn’t like the formulaic strategic planning she observed last year, and preferred
a broad discussion allowing for participation and more City Council and staff
input. With survey results and a new City Council, Councilmember McGehee
opined that all 160 programs did not need review with many services or programs
obvious and not needing to come into question.
Mayor Roe noted the need to continue ranking all services
and programs without taking considerable staff time, but needing to remain in
context with overall strategic planning to determine if and when the course
needed adjusting without starting over again. Mayor Roe opined that the goal
was to see where you wanted to be and continually adjust to get to that course,
providing an approach for future decision-making, and taking into account
previous strategic plans even if previous City Councils came up with that plan.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the plan had not been
presented in such a way that it provided much flexibility, and reiterated her
support of fresh ideas and a positive look at things, recognizing that
adjustments can be made.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of an established
calendar to provide information for the public’s reaction and participation.
However, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she struggled with a biennial
budget, while recognizing the practicalities and staff time savings; and
suggested perhaps considering the second year as more of a forecast versus a
budget, and establishing a timeframe for that forecasting. Councilmember
Laliberte concurred with Councilmember McGehee for the need to base budgets and
forecasts on resident priorities, not internal staff recommendations, while
allowing that brainstorming informally and checking that against an established
If the biennial approach is used, Mayor Roe opined that the
City appeared to be a year off in its timing; with strategic planning done this
year, but still allowing budget adoption in 2013 for 2014, and applying the
calendar accordingly. Mayor Roe opined that this was a good starting point,
with a consistent process throughout the process allowing for reaction by the
public, staff and City Council. Mayor Roe suggested that the process should
evolve, not start over, and grow from this with more strategic planning plugged
in this year for the 2015/2016 budget cycle.
City Manager Malinen opined that a changing City Council may
not make much difference, with the process developed to align with the state
biennial cycle. As everyone prepared for the February 25, 2013 discussion,
City Manager Malinen suggested that as strategic plans were reviewed, the body
had not yet gotten to the stage of understanding what may or may not work and
what refinements would be of value. Mr. Malinen suggested that those strategic
plans be looked at initially as if the process and calendar were proceeding as
recommended, and then see if it couldn’t be continued rather than changing back
Councilmember McGehee spoken in support of Councilmember
Laliberte’s suggested for an annual budget the first year and a forecast or
guesstimate for the second year. To call it a biennial budget, Councilmember
McGehee opined that predictions for year two were way off; but a forecast would
be more accurate.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager
Malinen advised that staff intended to submit similar strategic planning
materials to those presented last year.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council didn’t
need to receive mission statements of each department in that strategic
planning form; one of her objections with its formality. Councilmember McGehee
opined that only each department’s financial plan was needed, where they’re
going and those things being continued. Councilmember McGehee opined that
there was a lot of rigidity in the second version, while she had found the
first year materials great.
Mayor Roe noted that this was due to it being year one for
strategic planning, providing one year of refinement with flexibility.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was no need to
shift the strategic plan and calendar, of which she had copies, and she was
happy to take the work of previous City Councils and move forward without
transitioning into a new process. However, Councilmember Laliberte recommended
that if an entire year was needed to do year one of the budget, and then create
a forecast for year two, that the first quarter of that second year be used to
tweak it and then be done with it.
City Manager Malinen advised that Councilmember Laliberte’s
comments were accurate in what the process was intended to accomplish and its
timeframe to do so.
Mayor Roe reviewed the first biennial budget process,
regardless of the terminology used, and the timeframe for accomplishing it and
refinements allowed due to that flexibility. In his review of other
municipality budgets, Mayor Roe noted that they appeared to be moving in this
direction as well to provide for long-range planning a more simplified process.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to which process to follow, a
biennial or annual budget cycle, Councilmembers expressed their preferences.
Councilmember McGehee concurred that, since a calendar was
necessary and in the absence of any other, the proposed budget calendar could
be used. However, Councilmember McGehee reserved her right to complain about
parts of it along the way, specifically that the survey had not been completed
even though it was supposed to be a part of the process; along with some other
things she may choose to remove, alter, or change along the way.
Mayor Roe suggested that the calendar be acted on at the
February 25, 2013 meeting.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, given her newness to the
entire process; while speaking in support of the idea of the calendar.
Council Representative to the Advisory Group for the Corridor Development
Initiative for 2325 Dale Street/Fire Station Site
Community Development Director/HRA Executive Director
Patrick Trudgeon summarized the RCA dated February 11, 2013, specific to the
purchase of properties at 2325 Dale Street and the current fire station site.
Mr. Trudgeon noted the current participates assembled as an advisory group to
the Corridor Development Initiative (CDI) process, including Mr. Trudgeon,
Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey; Fred O’Neill, a son of the former
property owner, principle of King of Kings school; neighbor adjacent to the
fire station Ken Hartman, the HRA Board, and this request for a City Council
representative to serve as well. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the first meeting
was scheduled for February 20, 2013.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the
Local Initiative Support Corporation (LSIC) was a non-profit grass roots
organization providing planning efforts for neighborhoods and communities, and
had oversight of the CDI program.
As a resident in the neighborhood and having received
considerable feedback from area residents already, Councilmember Etten
expressed his interest in being involved in this HRA advisory body.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest as well.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of
Councilmembers Etten and McGehee to serve as City Council representatives for
the advisory group of the CDI process.
Councilmember Willmus recognized the need to provide public
notice for the meetings for informational purposes in the neighborhood as well
as to meet statutory requirements.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:58 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:04 pm.
a. Discuss Twin Lakes Development
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and City
Planner Thomas Paschke sought initial individual Councilmember input on how to
proceed with and regulate development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and
as detailed in the RCA dated February 11, 2013.
Some of the questions asked by Mr. Trudgeon included
recognizing the expiration of the AUAR per City Council policy previously
adopted; how to focus development within the context of existing regulatory
framework and interpretation of those documents; what role the City should have
in fostering development, either letting the market decide or providing for a
specific area use plan for each parcel, or a balance of the two; and how to
develop a straightforward plan of what is desired for development in the Twin
Lakes area to provide clear direction for developers and staff.
Mayor Roe referenced previous discussions held at the
September 18, 2012, noting that those meeting minutes and RCA had been added to
the electronic packet materials on Friday, but may not have reached everyone.
Councilmember Willmus noted that over the last thirty (30)
years, this area had been studied, focus-grouped, and guided by numerous
documents specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, some no longer guiding
development. Councilmember Willmus expressed his reluctance to continue down
that road unless a discussion ensued at the City Council level regarding
acquisition of those properties, allowing for a broader discussion of how it
was going to be used. Councilmember Willmus advised that one part of the
discussion favored by him would be how Community Mixed Use and Community
Business Zoning Districts had been defined and potential implications for other
areas of the community with similar zoning designations.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus’
initial remarks in the terms of range; however, she further supported the
community’s interest in a broader tax base. Councilmember McGehee opined that
most of the community did not consider Wal-Mart a Community Mixed Use unless it
was an urban model with housing above it; however, now that it was here, it set
a tenor and brought issues for the rest of the area. Councilmember McGehee
opined that it was appropriate for the City Council to formulate a broad plan
for the rest of the properties, and while not seeking to generate a
small-scale, low-end Rosedale, she saw it developing as such with the zoning
done to-date. Councilmember McGehee opined that she never saw that as a goal
for Twin lakes, nor would it serve to enhance the City’s tax base in any way.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she had never been a fan of the regulating
map; and still didn’t think it fit with a Wal-Mart development. If the City
pursued a hands-off model, Councilmember McGehee suggested it go to the
marketplace and state what the City needed, what it would like in the
community, and then put the Planned Unit Development (PUD) tool back into the
Zoning Code and let the marketplace come forward with its interesting ideas
instead of rigid, top down management, and let the development community be
proactive versus reactive to that broad outline. Councilmember McGehee further
opined that consideration needed to be given to development of the City’s tax
base, and environmental standards that could be enhanced through use of a PUD
process, especially around Langton Lake, shared parking ramps by buildings to
allow more green space. If the City did not acquire the parcels, Councilmember
McGehee noted the need for compliance with Environment Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements regarding
permeable surfaces, trails, pathways, and park buffers, in addition to regular business
hours, minimal traffic generation, housing, and community mixed use in
consideration of the surrounding area as well. Councilmember McGehee stated
that this was what she was hearing in the community; and opined that she had
been the most intimately involved in the process over the last thirty years.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the Twin Lakes area had been planned to death
from the top down during that time, and she would like to try the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan process model or that of an Arizona State University
model with a broad request for proposals to help the City’s tax base and
At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of a broad marketing approach through an RFP for what
the City is looking for (e.g. green space, innovative and interesting buildings
and ideas), rather than something it didn’t want and within those parameters.
Councilmember Etten sought clarification as to whether this
would require one overall contractor, opining that the concept was great, but
without the City owning the parcels, it couldn’t determine parcel by parcel
demand and compliance.
City Planner Thomas Paschke responded that he doubted there
would be any response to an RFP by the City if it didn’t own the land.
Councilmember McGehee clarified that her intended RFP would
be broad, and if parcels wanted to join together they could do so, but it would
be extremely valuable to have such a tool, including for the Dale Street
project as well.
Councilmember Willmus suggested that the crux of
Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion was to reinstitute the PUD process, to which
Councilmember McGehee concurred as her intent.
As a counter argument to the PUD process, Mayor Roe
suggested that it would allow for a “Wild West” approach, with no rules; and
suggested it would be more appropriate to see if there was support for the PUD,
with the notion of updating the Zoning Code, which had then been developed and
adopted two years ago for the purpose of creating general guiding parameters
alluded to by Councilmember McGehee. Mayor Roe noted that the previous result
before redoing the Zoning Code was that there were so many PUDs that it made
the Zoning Code obsolete.
Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the Zoning Code was also
revised to be consistent with the newly updated Comprehensive Plan; and opined
that if the City were to reinstitute PUD’s it would scare developers.
Councilmember Willmus questioned staff as to whether the
goals of Councilmember McGehee were not accomplished through design standards
and use compatibilities.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was clear what the City did not
want, which should provide for a fairly straight forward and quick discussion.
However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need for further definition of what was mean by
“retail,” what was acceptable and what wasn’t, and then let the market dictate
Mayor Roe suggested, and Mr. Trudgeon confirmed, that this
could be accomplished through the permitted uses table.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember Willmus’
observation that this could be accomplished through creation of a new zoning
designation. Councilmember Willmus suggested that a unique designation could
be used for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, without implications for similar
zoning designations in the broader community (e.g. Har Mar Mall).
Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be good to have a unique
designation for Twin Lakes, with consistency in the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code to clarify that distinction, steering clear of the Community Mixed
Use (CMU) and Community Business (CB) zoning designations, and being specific
to Twin Lakes.
Mayor Roe opined that the CMU was a good starting point,
with more refinement for approved uses beyond “big box” retail, defining the
things being sought by the City without telling people what use to put on which
Councilmember Willmus concurred, noting that to do so would
end the City back up back in a courtroom.
Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that the City had
learned through the court process the importance of being highly specific and
not leave things vague to accommodate whatever develops and no recourse.
Councilmember McGehee encouraged individual Councilmembers to review zoning
codes in other cities, most of which include PUD’s; opining that the City of
Roseville was unique in not having the PUD tool. Councilmember McGehee
referenced her conversations with land use attorneys, and their opinions that
it was an important tool to have available. Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of shared parking opportunities in Twin Lakes and the Dale Street
project, as well as those community desires for environmental concerns, natural
spaces, paths, and not supporting an urban environment.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred that the PUD discussion was an
important one and that PUD’s should be on the table. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
the City’s previous zoning code was so antiquated, the reset button had been
hit, with citizens complaining that they couldn’t live up to the code.
Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the code had been fixed to allow more
flexibility, and suggested that there may be a place for the PUD tool in a
situation not currently existing. However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while he
could recommend a PUD tool specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area with
specific parameters and how to deviate, he could not recommend a broad PUD for
the entire community. Mr. Trudgeon advised that his rationale was based on the
points addressed for providing some control through use of PUD’s with the City
Council versus staff spending time on those points. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
one option to accomplish that goal would be through site plan reviews at the
City Council level. Mr. Trudgeon noted the significant importance of the Twin
Lakes Area to the community, and the need for a special process and permitted
uses through a hands-on approach, but not necessary for the broader community.
Councilmember McGehee advised that this was her intent to
provide a better vision for that area.
Mayor Roe suggested it may be best to focus on how to get
what the community wanted versus what it didn’t want.
In discussing the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area,
Councilmember Laliberte suggested the discussion be specific to that area as a
separate zoning entity, perhaps through providing stop gaps such as site plan
review to avoid the “Wild West” concept. However, in her community door
knocking campaign, Councilmember Laliberte observed that she heard that
Roseville had become a community where it was difficult to get things done; and
her perception was that this was at the City Council level in not working well
with staff. Councilmember Laliberte stated that, while it’s good to identify
things not wanted and proactively solicit ideas and suggestions for land use in
Twin Lakes, it was important to recognize that the City did not own the land.
While proactive in attracting business to that area, Councilmember Laliberte
opined that they couldn’t invite interest in a property and then slap it down
in the end. Now that Wal-Mart is here, Councilmember Laliberte opined that
there would be interest in the area, and like it or not, what gets to the
forefront in developers needed to avoid a patchwork quilt of development and
for the City Council to take a more proactive stance and make sure staff had
the freedom to proceed as directed by this body as a whole.
Mayor Roe concurred with the points made by Councilmember
Laliberte, noting that this was what the HRA was currently pursuing through its
economic development efforts in the community. By having a framework in place
through site plan review and PUD tools, Mayor Roe opined that it could make for
a better process overall.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if this was the direction of the
body, staff could work on ideas for a specific site plan review process and
permitted uses for further discussion in the immediate future. Mr. Trudgeon
noted that there are development interests out there right now, and timing was
everything; with staff anxious to get working on it and recommending code
revisions to allow continued discussion.
Mayor Roe noted that it was important to involve the
Planning Commission in the process, as the City’s stewards of City Code.
Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that they
didn’t want to get too far into the process until they were sure of the City
Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for this
discussion for the bigger picture to avoid overwhelming people with specific,
while addressing things that correlated with tree preservation or new
vegetation versus parking lots and terminals, shared parking, and other ways to
soften and preserve positive characteristics for that area. Councilmember
Etten sought additional clarification on how to address park dedication fees or
land or sharing green space when there may be different property owners
involved or sharing a particular development project.
Mr. Trudgeon noted the difficulty in coordinating some of
those issues; however, he noted that staff always encouraged sharing
amenities. Mr. Trudgeon noted the uniqueness of the Twin Lakes Area, and the
Langton Lake asset; and anticipated the need for ongoing tweaking as
development formulated. Mr. Trudgeon suggested one way to address the preferred
green space while recognizing that it is an urban area would be by paying close
attention to the edges with higher density in the middle.
As the Parks and Recreation Commission got into the Wal-Mart
development review, Councilmember Etten noted the problems found since the City
didn’t own the rest of the land around it.
Mr. Paschke noted the tie in and purpose of the regulating
map and previous AUAR correlation to the Twin Lakes Area and staff’s advocacy
for preserving areas with existing trees and to address various environmental
In considering tools available to the City, Mayor Roe
referenced a recent discussion at the Regional Council of Mayors related to the
City using funding sources, such as tax increment financing, to build a shared
parking ramp in order to achieve its objectives; with that being the City’s
role as facilitator.
Further discussion included ongoing discussions with land
owners in the Twin Lakes Area and the City’s goals and objectives; broader Twin
Lakes Area parameters to the east and west of the area; whether to pursue
regulating plans for other areas as contemplated in the revised zoning
ordinance; and property owners versus developers.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the Wal-Mart negotiations
were not handled properly by the City; and in her familiarity with the
neighborhoods and Twin Lakes Parkway, she continued to be an opponent of
bringing the Parkway all the way through to allow park access, with no need to
drag traffic through residential areas from the highway, opining that Lincoln
Drive could not handle it and the plan needed to be rethought.
While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s interesting
perspective, Mayor Roe noted that traffic studies indicated just the opposite,
with no plan to route traffic into residential neighborhoods.
Councilmember McGehee stood firm in her opinion that it
would do so, and her disagreement with those traffic studies.
City Zoning Code Updates
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the various
updates observed by staff that may need revision, based on their day-to-day use
of the revised Zoning Code, and as detailed in the RCA dated February 11,
2013. Mr. Paschke advised that some were fundamental and others simply
typographical corrections needed overall; and sought any additional areas of
which the City Council may be aware for revision or discussion.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted that a
lot of details may come up as the process moved forward; however, he asked that
the City Council advise staff now if there were things that were not worth
staff time and that should not be pursued, as well as other areas of which
staff was not aware but needed to know about. Mr. Trudgeon advised that not
all things would be able to be accomplished this year, and some may not require
a detailed discussion, but sought broad questions or comments at this time
before the processes were initiated.
Design/Performance Standards (page 1, line 24)
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of allowing metal corrugated
material, opining that it could be quite attractive.
Page 2, line 33-36
Discussion included architectural requirements for a finish
over concrete block.
Page 2, lines 46-49
Discussion included the need to limit the height of an
Use (page 3)
Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference to prohibit
check cashing operations.
Mayor Roe noted that this may be a licensing versus land use
Mr. Paschke offered to research this further, however, he
clarified that “check cashing” was a special term use defined by the State of
MN, and the City only served as a pass-through conduit for those businesses to
obtain their licenses.
Page 3, line 93
Discussion included current code lack of recognition of some
repair service businesses and the need to address them.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation to staff
for this helpful information; with staff advising that the City Council could
remain updated through following the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing
Page 2, line 58
Councilmember Etten noted his discussions with businesses
(e.g. Rice Street corridor) who feel they are unable to advertise without being
penalized, when businesses across the street may do so. Councilmember Etten
noted that their perception is that this is unreasonable, and suggested
revising sign regulations for temporary signs, such as buying an annual license
packet that would allow a certain number of days allowed, and their
notification by e-mail to the City Inspector of those dates for check-off to
ensure their compliance, while not being onerous for small businesses.
As the “Sign Czar,” Mr. Paschke advised that each
municipality had different zoning and sign requirements; and historically,
Roseville has stated their preference to be a leader rather than a follower of
its neighboring communities, and therefore, has had a tendency to have minimal
signs allowed and a more restrictive code. However, in the updated zoning
code, Mr. Paschke noted that the process now allows for more flexibility for
businesses and various options available to them. Mr. Paschke advised that he
continually fielded concerns about limited times for signs, type or style of
signs, some conducive to reuse while others are not. Also in his role as “Sign
Inspector,” Mr. Paschke advised that he also was charged with monitoring and
enforcement of signs, with little time to do so. Mr. Paschke opined that the
sign codes now in place are moving in the right direction to provide people
with an understanding of what is or is not allowed, and had been based on
listening to those concerns previously expressed; and now opening up more
opportunities to them.
At the request of Councilmember Etten regarding how to
communicate those revisions to businesses, Mr. Paschke advised that those
vendors creating signs for businesses are fully aware of current code, and
needed to relay that information to their clients. In his continuous
discussions with businesses about signage, Mr. Paschke noted he pursues that
educational outreach; and suggested another option may be to provide a letter
to each business.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that more proactive communication,
since they probably didn’t search city codes consistently; and with the extra
flexibility provided with revised codes, this needed to be communicated to
business owners. Councilmember Etten advised that he had also addressed the
HRA about how to communicate with businesses long-term and allow them to be
part of the process and allow them to pursue their opportunities.
Mr. Trudgeon opined that it should be a very interesting
discussion, and may open a Pandora’s Box; however, he noted the more outreach
the City could provide to inform people who to contact and where to obtain
information, the better for everyone in the long-run.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of any tools to help
businesses function better in the community.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of an annual sign
permit option for businesses. Councilmember McGehee further supported the need
to reasonably accommodate and differentiate Christmas tree sales as a seasonal
option for permanent businesses versus transient seasonal sales in a parking
lot. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of metal roofs, but not siding.
Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus asked staff to address
the requirement that garage doors have a five foot (5’) set back from the front
door of the house.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that such a variance was scheduled at the
March Variance Board meeting; and provided the rationale for that setback
requirement and design standard that garages not dominate a house, but that the
front door or porch dominate it. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff had had limited
success in the education process regarding this requirement to-date.
Councilmember McGehee opined that a house is a house, and
further opined that 80% of them in the community have the garage forward of the
house, and she didn’t see anything offensive about it, but that it was simply a
matter of taste.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with the height restrictions
Mr. Paschke clarified that there were existing industrial
silos in the community, so they couldn’t be excluded, but the heights could be
Page 2, lines 62-24
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke reviewed
the rationale in Community Business and Regional Business zoning districts for
placement of certain amenities, including drive-throughs not allowed adjacent
to public streets, with trash enclosures and dumpsters allowable. Mr. Paschke
advised that staff was working with design issues and how they were located on
properties when not just on one public street. While offering challenges, Mr.
Paschke advised that an attempt was being made to re-craft language to allow
for greater flexibility in meeting code requirements.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised
that “junk” or undesirable trees had been recommended and brought to staff’s
attention by the City Forester.
Page 2, lines 73-74
Discussion included clarification of impervious surface
options, current zoning code not specifying residential stormwater permits;
existing lots and homes versus new lots and construction and how to accommodate
each, as well as addressing pre-existing conditions.
Page 3, line 90
Councilmember McGehee sought definition of “benign” outdoor
storage, with Mr. Trudgeon suggesting this was based on passive versus actively
used storage; and Mr. Paschke noting that this code restriction was intended to
be far-reaching to differentiate between which have more impact or needed
screening versus those that didn’t, and in consideration of adjacent property
uses as well.
Mayor Roe suggested discussion on setback versus height,
based on past discussions related to impacts to adjacent properties, such as
staggering the height of taller buildings for less impact to adjacent
single-family residential buildings.
Further discussion included height limitations in various
zoning designations; and whether there was or should be any height restriction
in the Twin Lakes Area; the need to provide no height restriction for high-end
uses such as office uses; height restrictions in business use areas close to
residential properties or not needed in areas surrounded by other
commercial/industrial uses or near highways/roads; and possible area west of
Rosedale that may be suitable for staggering heights or removing height
restrictions in Regional Business districts, unless accommodated through a
Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember
McGehee regarding garage setbacks; and suggested it was only appropriate for a
new development, suggesting a ratio would be more appropriate to serve the
aesthetic value if spoken to at all.
Mr. Paschke noted the infill development most prevalent in
Roseville made a distinction from communities or areas having larger parcels of
land available for development and new construction. Mr. Paschke advised that
the rationale for that code requirement and design standard was as a result of
the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning discussion and that of
the updated Comprehensive Plan moving forward. Mr. Paschke noted there may be
flexibility without a step-back garage.
Mayor Roe noted a significant number of Roseville properties
with detached garages behind homes, and provided an example of a
newly-constructed home on County Road B east of Lexington/Oxford that doesn’t
fit, and supported the need for some flexibility without the garage
representing a significant percent of the front of the home.
Willmus concurred, allowing for some flexibility, such as
for a porch.
Mr. Paschke assured Councilmembers that staff would look at
other exterior enhancements as well, and other tools to broaden that design
Mayor Roe opined that he personally didn’t think homes with
a dominant garage were attractive; and that the rationale for the garage
setback was to make the community more consistent with neighborhood context.
Councilmember McGehee noted that Roseville was already 99%
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there were
restrictions available to limit the number of massage therapy establishment
licenses through zoning code uses, similar to the limit on liquor licenses.
Mr. Paschke advised that they only required a business license,
so from a zoning perspective, there was no limit.
Mayor Roe suggested that, as discussions ensue regarding the
zoning code, another look at the limit on liquor licenses may also be in order.
Discussion on Water and Sewer Rates
Water Consumption Data from 2000 – 2012 was provided as a
bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director
Miller advised that no news had been received from the City of St. Paul as of
today regarding their 2014 rates.
Mayor Roe noted the additional information provided by staff
for background to further discussion of the public policy issues raised at the
At the request of Councilmember Willmus regarding previous
questions raised by Councilmember McGehee (Attachment A) related to the senior
discount, reference was made to page 4, line 86 of the RCA dated February 11,
Councilmember McGehee referenced page 4, lines 124-125 of
the RCA regarding senior discounts being currently available for 22% of all
Finance Director Miller confirmed for Mayor Roe that no one
at this time is receiving the poverty-based version of that discount, and only
one property had received it over the last few years; indicating that since
added, it was not popularly used.
With this information now available, Councilmember McGehee
opined that more people over age 65 would be applying, since they may not have
been aware of its existence in the past. Councilmember McGehee also noted an
example where a home now owned by a younger family but previously owned by
seniors still continued to receive the senior discount when now qualified to do
so, but nor realizing the rate differential. Councilmember McGehee advised
that she and Finance Director Miller had also found a few mistakes with small
businesses and small meter sizes.
Councilmember McGehee opined that it did not appear that the
conservation rate had served any purpose; and noted that her research found
that the City of Shoreview’s tiered rate had not accomplished much either.
Councilmember McGehee suggested other methods under the parameters of the DNR
document to encourage water conservation until something was found that worked.
In the nature of capital funding and enterprise funds,
Councilmember McGehee noted a disconnect in the City’s infrastructure seen as a
capital investment that was depreciated over time, yet paid for by fees rather
than part of the tax levy or deductible as part of property taxes.
Councilmember McGehee suggested bonding for those base water fees similar to
that of the park renewal system across the city rather than putting the expense
on park system users. Given the age of the infrastructure, Councilmember
McGehee opined that it wasn’t particularly fair or reasonable to pay for this
capital improvement with fees; and referenced various options she had outlined
that could also reduce fees by voluntary consumption reduction.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of eliminating the
senior discount program.
Mayor Roe noted that this could create an increase for
senior water use from $32 to $45/quarter.
Councilmember Willmus suggested further defining how
individuals qualify for the discount; and while it may be appropriate to have
some type of discount, how it was offered needed to be tightened up.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of looking at eliminating the
senior discount, while cautioning that he anticipated considerable feedback
from seniors in the community about the issue.
Councilmember Etten questioned the feasibility of a means
test that would be practical for staff to perform; with Finance Director Miller
suggesting the easiest application would be through federal means testing by
applicants providing a copy of their income tax returns. However, Mr. Miller
did not see many qualifying under that type of means test.
Mayor Roe noted that the poverty rate is not staff verified,
only an honor system.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred with eliminating the
senior discount as it is now known; and if those seniors qualified on a
means-tested basis, they could continue to receive the discount. However, with
the current system, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there didn’t appear to
be a sufficient balance right now for other residents having to carry that burden.
Councilmember Etten noted that other users may not be
getting a fair rate when they may actually qualify.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of removing the
consumption rate and questioned where that mandate had originated; opining that
if you have more people in your house, a flat rate meant you paid more, and if
fewer people, you paid less.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of means-testing versus
a senior discount to better serve the community without overly taxing staff,
and opined that it seemed to be a reasonable approach.
Mayor Roe noted that people receiving deferment of their
property taxes, as tested by Ramsey County, may be another testing option;
however he noted that not everyone who pays property taxes also pays water
Finance Director Miller advised that he would further
research the threshold for Ramsey County versus the federal poverty threshold.
Regarding why the CIP Task Force went in the direction they
did, Mayor Roe advised was due to their thorough review of base rates, levies,
bonding. Through bonding done consistently over twenty (20) years, Mayor Roe advised
that the interest would be incurred annually; while pay-as-you-go could be
matched to rates on an annual basis, and would be easier for rate payers. Regarding
putting the infrastructure costs on the tax levy versus fees paid, Mayor Roe
advised that not everyone using water (e.g. non-profits such as schools and
churches) paid property taxes and that didn’t seem to be fair to the overall
city taxpayer. As it is now set up, Mayor Roe noted that everyone receiving
water service paid a base rate, and the usage rate based on the City’s rate
received from the City of St. Paul; with higher users not subsidizing
infrastructure costs. Mayor Roe noted that it didn’t wear out pipes faster to
use more water, and that there was no more wear and tear from one to the other
such as streets and roads; and therefore it didn’t make sense to him to shift
those infrastructure costs from base rates to usage fees, or to make them part
of the tax levy. Mayor Roe suggested that the City of Roseville’s model may
become the model for other cities in the future.
City Manager Malinen, from a CIP perspective, noted that
were zero dollars in the Water Fund due to the result of past reliance on
variable usage to generate monies; and when consumption went down and the City
didn’t get the money it expected, but still had repairs and maintenance of the
system, the Fund couldn’t accommodate it. City Manager Malinen noted that,
with the base rate as it now is, those fixed costs area addressed annually and
was making the Fund stable. City Manager Malinen suggested that the current
plan not be undone until there was some history to determine if it was working
as indicated by the CIP Task Force.
Councilmember McGehee agreed that the system had been
mismanaged for thirty (30) years. Regarding the automatic read meters (ARM)
and ability to view water usage at any time, Councilmember McGehee opined that
there was no need to defer installation of those new meters; and suggested
borrowing internally from the Storm Water Fund Reserve to have those automatic
meters installed throughout the city immediately rather than systematically
installing them in phases over the next four (4) years.
City Manager Malinen advised that if that schedule was
accelerated, it may need to be contracted out; and asked that the City Council
consult with Public Works Director Duane Schwartz about related issues in
expediting that installation.
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that of the
$1.6 million projected for this installation, approximately $300,000 would be
for contractual help to finish the program over that period.
Finance Director Miller added that if the expedited
installation was done, it did not mean that the ARM system would be completed
in-house at City Hall, since modification to billing customer accounts was
required and the Finance Department was not equipped to process that now versus
phased over four (4) years, requiring additional money for overtime to
facilitate that additional workload.
With Mr. Schwartz advising that the current phased-in
project was for 2,000 installations annually, Mr. Miller advised hat to
accelerate that to 8,000 installations in one year, would require significant overtime
to accomplish, and require his reworking of the Finance Department Work Plan.
Mayor Roe noted that there would also be the additional
interest for any internal loan.
Regarding a single tier usage rate, Mayor Roe requested more
information from staff on options/requirements to accomplish this year or next
Mr. Miller advised that, with a single-tiered usage rate, if
that was the consensus, there would be a few things required (e.g. monthly
Since rates were now set, Mayor Roe asked that staff provide
that information to the City Council later this year.
Councilmember Laliberte sought assurance, received from
Mayor Roe and staff, that the City Council would revisit this issue after
hearing from the City of St. Paul on rates.
d. Discuss Uniform
City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the RCA; seeking
guidance from the City Council as outlined in lines 61 – 66; at which time
staff could bring back a singular ordinance applicable to all commissions; and
then subsequent specific-centric codes with their charges.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the uniform
ordinance; and asked that additional thoughts and comments be addressed to the
Advisory Commission Subcommittee for their review and ultimate recommendation
to the full body.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the uniform code; and
suggested a more in-depth discussion about the removal provision than possible
tonight. Mayor Roe suggested additional feedback and discussion from
individual advisory commissions regarding their charge. Regarding lines 36-38
(Attachment A, Section 201.01) regarding establishing additional commissions by
resolution; Mayor Roe spoke in support of revising the ordinance itself if the
intent was for addition of a standing advisory committee; with other
subcommittees or groups done beyond that ordinance structure. Mayor Roe noted
that he had a number of suggestions for ordinance structure and organization
and would follow-through with staff off-line. Mayor Roe noted that subsequent
discussions would be taken up by the subcommittee and their recommendations
brought back to the full body.
City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that this overall
ordinance was intended to create a foundation, with specific charges and other
aspects more committee-oriented.
Mayor Roe noted that some language revisions were
necessitated by updated State Statutes (e.g. Planning Commission), while other
parts could be a two-phase process as outlined by City Manager Malinen.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference in City
Manager Malinen working with the subcommittee; and advised that he would pass
his thoughts on to the subcommittee as applicable. Councilmember Willmus spoke
in support of retaining the removal with/without cause based on past issues,
and expressed his strong interest in keeping that provision in place to
expedite the process when a legitimate situation comes forward.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised
that he anticipated the subcommittee and City Manager to collect their
information and if necessary, present them in two different presentations one
on the uniform structure portion of the proposed ordinance and a second on the
detailed ordinances for each commission.
Conducting a Resident Survey
A Survey Question Comparison between Shoreview questions and
the Cobalt document was provided as a bench handout.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager briefly summarized
materials provided and proposals received from the RFP process, as detailed and
provided as attachments to the RCA dated February 11, 2013.
Discussion included the last Decision Resources survey done
in Roseville in 1998; lack of response by Decision Resources to the City’s RFP
and the cost 2.5 times higher than Cobalt or the National Citizens Survey; ease
of use and information among various surveys; whether or not the City had used
the information provided in the last Cobalt survey to its best advantage to
make effective use of that available data; ability to add questions to any of
the survey options; preference for a smaller survey and larger cross-section of
citizens; effective of and between phone versus mailed surveys; and local
survey firms versus nation-wide firms that were not necessarily amenable to Midwestern
Councilmembers Laliberte, Willmus and McGehee expressed
their preference for the less complicated survey of Decision Resources.
Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee spoke in support of phone
surveys versus mail surveys.
Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to contact Decision
Resources to determine their rationale in not responding to the City’s RFP.
Mayor Roe noted comments he’d heard over the last six (6)
years that Roseville didn’t want to compare itself to peers; while at the same
time hearing the opposite, providing little consistency.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in comparisons
with communities immediately adjacent to Roseville (e.g. New Brighton,
Councilmember McGehee noted that the City was comparing
itself with itself to how it was doing with its own residents, not comparing
strategic plans of other communities.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, moving to extend the City
Council curfew to 10:05 pm to complete this discussion.
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
City Manager Malinen advised that his continued advocacy for
Cobalt was based on the fact that the City had not done a survey for a number
of years, and since having done the most recent survey with Cobalt, it would be
an advantage to gauge the effectiveness of that survey with an updated one and
determine if the City was being responsive to the public by providing that
comparison from two years ago versus comparing to neighbors and their level of
satisfaction. City Manager Malinen admitted that he didn’t see the information
available in the second part of the Cobalt survey and the City had not fully
utilized the depth of that information, specifically that related to
satisfaction and budgetary information. Mr. Malinen noted that previous replies
provided citizen priorities and that were applied to the budget process,
including those priorities of the City Council and staff. From a staff
perspective, Mr. Malinen opined that this provided more significant data.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred with City Manager
Malinen’s comments regarding consistency in making the documents useful
measurement tools. However, while not supporting switching firms,
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her interest in a simpler survey provided to
a broader scope of citizen beyond the 5% of residents randomly selected for and
then even fewer responding to the previous survey.
Mayor Roe noted that this was a challenge in surveying;
making them statistically valid without everyone surveyed. Mayor Roe opined
that the response rate, from his perspective, had been great; and offered his
trust in the expertise of Cobalt in performing surveys.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised
that he did not have information available on the response rate for Decision
Councilmember Willmus advised that he was also seeking
consistency; however, from his perspective the Decision Resources survey was
easier to use.
Councilmember McGehee concurred that consistency was needed;
but not with a survey she thought was bad in the first place, with results that
were note useful.
Mayor Roe noted that criticism of the last Decision
Resources survey was that the information was not useful; and opined that he
had found the Cobalt information very informative, especially the budget
Councilmember Willmus asked that Decision Resources be
contacted by staff and see why they did not respond to our RFP.
Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that feedback at the next
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting
at approximately 10:07 pm.