View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
requested removal of Item 8.j from the Consent Agenda for separate
consideration and discussion. Without objection, Mayor Roe moved this to
Business Discussion Item 15.a.
requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate
requested removal of Items8.c, 8.g, and 8.k from the Consent Agenda for
McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
On behalf of the
City Council and community of Roseville, Mayor Roe thanked sponsors of this
year's holiday lights for the annual OVALumination.
announced the second annual Roseville Business Exchange scheduled later this
week providing an opportunity for area business representatives to network and
share with Councilmembers, Department Heads and City staff.
announced the upcoming American Red Cross Blood Drive on December 21, 2015 from
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Lexington Avenue Fire Station. Appointments are
available through www.redcross.org.
Donations and Communications
7. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
November 16, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the November 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 17, Line 19 (Laliberte)
"three" to "some"
Page 18, Line 35 (McGehee)
correction from "tock" to "stock"
Page 23, Line 3 (McGehee)
read: "response time be for a cardiac even[t] "[tin] [if] Roseville
[EMT's were] [while it was] responding elsewhere.
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated November 30, 2015.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
Approve Business Licenses
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
Consider Update to Information Technology (IT) Shared Service
Agreement with the North Suburban Access Corporation
moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A)
with the North Suburban Access Corporation for the purposes of providing IT
Approve the Repurchase of 2690 Oxford Street N, Unit 224 by Anthony
A. Aden from Ramsey County
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11273 (Attachment B)
entitled, "Resolution Approving the Repurchase of 2690 Oxford Street, Unit 224 by Mr. Anthony A. Aden from Ramsey County;"
Approve the Decertification of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
District No. 13
purposes, when setting up TIF Districts, Councilmember McGehee expressed her
interest in knowing going forward the amount of tax coming to the City before
the District was created and actual amount when decertified. While it's nice for the value to increase, Councilmember McGehee noted that didn't always mean a transfer of actual cash dollars to the City, and that information should be something known.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City Council received an analysis from staff on each district's projection at the time of approval; but agreed with Councilmember McGehee that it would be good to circle back as she suggested. Mayor Roe noted that the estimates provided were typically conservative.
McGehee responded that it depended on what kinds of projects were included in a
District and whether any properties may be coming off the tax rolls.
clarified that when a TIF District is decertified, the City does not receive
more money, but rather that property increases its share of the City tax bill
relative to the rest of the city.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11274 (Attachment B)
entitled, "A Resolution Relating to the Termination of Tax Increment District No. 13 and Directing Decertification Thereof by the County Auditor."
Request by Zawadski Homes and Adele Kaufman for Approval of a Minor
Subdivision to Consolidate and Recombine the Properties Addressed as 375 and
365 S Owasso Boulevard
Willmus congratulated Mr. Zawadski and property owner Ms. Kaufman on this
improvement to her property.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the consolidation, per Roseville City Code
Section 1104.04C and the recombination per Roseville City Code Section 1104.04B
for properties addressed as 365 and 375 S Owasso Boulevard to consolidate lots
or portions thereof of Lots 7, 8 and 7, Block 1, Lake Owasso Villas into Parcel
"A:" and to allow the lot line of Lot 6, Block 1, Lake Owasso Villas to shift north creating a 75-foot-wide residential parcel of land; based on the comments and findings, and conditions as outlined in the staff report dated November 30, 2015.
Accept Roseville Police Foundation Donations
thanked the Foundation for their donations, opining that this latest donation
of the park patrol vehicle shed would serve that area near Villa Park well.
Given the activeness
of this Foundation, Councilmember Laliberte requested more regular updates of
their activity, particularly for knowledge by the City Council before funded
projects are introduced to the general public so they could field questions and
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the Roseville Police Department to accept
donations from the Roseville Police Foundation as outlined in the RCA.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as
detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated November 30, 2015.
McGehee advised that she requested removal of both this item and Consent Item g
for the same reason. Councilmember McGehee reiterated previous requests she
had made for a full discussion of cost benefits between the current paid on-call
program of fifty firefighters and that proposed for between 18-24 full time firefighters.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the amount requested between these two items
was approximately $128,000 more than if the City had its own full-time fire staff
at the expected level of between 20-24 employees. As these things go forward,
Councilmember McGehee noted the City could be paying twice this amount for
turnout gear or equipment, and while she wants firefighters to have the most
up-to-date quality in turnout gear and equipment, as well as training, the cost
difference for fifty versus twenty-four employees is significant along with
their pension component. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee again requested a
more thorough analysis.
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated October 31, 2015.
Approve City Council 2016 Meeting Calendar
Etten referenced several date conflicts with annual school events on scheduled
meeting dates as presented, with one of those three easy to correct.
Councilmember Etten proposed a change in the October 2016 meeting schedule in
place of the proposed October 17 Work Session; changing the meeting dates to
October 3, 10 and 24 instead.
it wasn't unusual for a councilmember to miss an occasional meeting based on date conflicts, Councilmember Willmus suggested leaving the proposed schedule as listed; and closer to the dates of conflict, making a decision if and when a meeting should be changed.
Laliberte noted that there was no Work Session scheduled in May, with City
Manager Trudgeon apologizing for that omission, and noting the May 15, 2015
meeting was intended as a Work Session. Councilmember Laliberte further noted
that she anticipated the November 28, 2016 meeting would most likely serve as
the public hearing for the 2017 budget and levy adoption at the subsequent
meeting on December 5, 2016. Councilmember Laliberte noted that for the last
two years, the City's public hearing and Ramsey County's hearing were scheduled on the same night, and asked if staff would check if those conflicts were also possible in 2016 and if so, if an alternate date could be chosen, perhaps by holding the public hearing on December 5 and adding an additional meeting on December 12, 2016.
Roe suggested that could be a discussion item going forward.
Willmus reiterated his suggestion to approve the calendar as presented, and adjust
the schedules depending on agenda items and conflicts at that time.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus, even though she stated her
willingness to change the October 2016 meeting schedule as suggested by
Councilmember Etten. However, if that change was made, Councilmember McGehee
noted it would mean the City Council would be meeting for five weeks in a row
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2016 meeting calendar as presented, but
designating the May 16, 2016 meeting as a Work Session.
moved to amend the motion to move the October 17 meeting to October 3, 2016.
Mayor ruled the motion to amend failed due to lack of a second.
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.
Approve Fire Department & Regions Hospital Medical Direction
and Oversight Contract Agreement
McGehee noted her comments had previously been stated with former Consent Item
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Fire Department entering into a
contract extension with Regions Hospital (Attachment A) for medical oversight
and education through December 31, 2018; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager
to execute the documents.
Approve Hillcrest Animal Hospital Service Agreement
McGehee questioned if there were no veterinarian clinics in Roseville that
would provide this service, opining there were several veterinarian clinics
closer and more convenient to Roseville.
a pet owner and hopefully speaking for a majority of pet owners, Councilmember McGehee
expressed her objection to contract clause 1.b related to euthanizing animals
if unable to be impounded without serious risk; and clause 1.d disposal/sale of
animals at the sole discretion of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, opining that
clause needed to be altered.
Roe asked staff to directly discuss how such animals are identified specific to
this proposed contract language and how previous contract language had dealt
with these issues.
Chief Rick Mathwig and Lt. Lorne Rosand
Rosand reported that the Brighton Veterinary Clinic, and most clinics, are getting
out of the business of housing animals as it was found to be burdensome to
provide that service to municipalities. Lt. Rosand further reported that the Police
Department had searched for over a month for a clinic in the neighborhood to no
avail, and found the closest clinic providing this service to be Hillcrest.
Lt. Rosand advised that staff had met with the Veterinarian, and found the
facility to be well-run and the doctor to be receptive to meeting the needs of
the Roseville community. Lt. Rosand apologized on behalf of the doctor who was
unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a schedule conflict. However, Lt. Rosand referenced a letter from the Veterinarian addressing concerns related to euthanizing pets and other concerns brought forward tonight, and offered to read it at the direction of Mayor Roe.
Roe questioned the contract language related to pets becoming the property of
Mathwig clarified that this language had existed for almost thirty years and
had been included in the previous Brighton Veterinary Clinic contract; and advised
that this proposed contract was similar to language of previous contracts.
McGehee responded that it didn't matter, as she had been unaware of that language.
the request of Mayor Roe as to past experience on the number of animals this
five-day redemption period affected on an annual basis, Chief Mathwig advised
that the personnel keeping that information at Brighton Veterinary Clinic
wasn't in today to provide that information when requested by the Police Department.
Willmus noted the need for a contract in place by January 1, 2016, and
suggested delaying action for a week to allow staff to gather information as
requested; and to discuss possible alternatives with the clinic beyond selling
or euthanizing animals, such as turning them over to an animal shelter.
Rosand noted that the veterinarian at Hillcrest also addressed that in her
letter; with Mayor Roe directing staff to read it into the record.
Rosand read the letter from Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet at Hillcrest, advising that animals
were only euthanized if severely injured, sick, feral, or aggressive; and noted
that the rate of euthanasia was including those was less than 10% and qualified
Hillcrest as a "no kill" shelter. However, Dr. Bothelett advised that the made a conscious decision not to advertise their clinic under those terms, as it indicated no killing, and they chose not to give that impression; but clarified that she didn't become a veterinarian to kill animals, and provided two websites to advertise available animals to get them into proper homes.
McGehee stated that she understood their policy and recognized they couldn't house animals indefinitely, but reiterated her objection to having contract language stating the clinic could sell an animal unless they could put them into foster care or in another home, and suggested contract language that animals should be given to the humane society or another shelter if they've exhausted their own facilities.
Etten expressed his curiosity in contacting Brighton Veterinary Clinic to
determine their history of animals not being picked up and whether it had
proven problematic, since he anticipated most pet owners would be making calls
looking for their pets. If not, Councilmember Etten opined it wasn't something to worry about other than the clinic itself, especially since the available clinics willing to provide this service was limited; it behooved the city to provide some give and take in contract language.
moved, Willmus seconded, TABLING consideration of approval of the 2016
Hillcrest Animal Control Service Agreement (Attachment A) to the next meeting
subsequent to receipt of additional information in response to the questions
raised during tonight's discussion.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Request by City of Roseville for Approval of Certain Minor,
Clarifying Text Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of
Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request for addressing minor
errors, omissions, or vague passages in current text based on practical usage,
as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.
McGehee questioned RCA Exhibit A (page 2) related to existing design standards
for exterior storage buildings, questioning the need to revise that language as
she found it a nice addition to city code.
Paschke responded that the city had supported sheds in the past similar in appearance
to those sold by Lowe's or Menard's, with the city preferring only larger accessory structures to be similar in exterior materials to that of the home or principal structure versus pre-fabricated or something put over a weekend without prior knowledge of the city. Mr. Paschke advised that this prompted reverting to previous code language and interpretation.
to private swimming pools (page 2), Councilmember McGehee questioned the
rationale in 6' versus 5' separation of pools from the principal structure and whether such a minimal difference created an issue.
Roe suggested the rationale may be to make that separation between accessory
and principal structures at 5' was for consistency purposes with setback references.
Paschke concurred with Mayor Roe's statement.
moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1487 (RCA Exhibit B)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Text of Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of Roseville City Code."
moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1487S (RCA Exhibit
C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Text of Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of Roseville City Code."
Roll Call (Super
Consider Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City
Code, Chapter 901 Building Code: including Sections 901.01 (Adoption of
Building Code), 901.06 (Permits), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)\
Coordinator Don Munson briefly summarized the requested text amendments to city
code as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015. Mr. Munson noted most of
these were basically housekeeping items to bring city code into compliance with
Minnesota State Statutes as updated, and eliminate duplications; but
represented no changes in fees collected for types of permits.
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1488 (Attachment A) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Sections 901.01 (Adoption of Building Code), 901.06 (Permits, Inspections and Fees), 901.08 (State Surcharge), and 901.11 (Construction Deposits)."
moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No.1488S (Attachment
B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Sections 901.01 (Adoption of Building Code), 901.06 (Permits, Inspections and Fees), 901.08 (State Surcharge), and 901.11 (Construction Deposits)."
Call (Super Majority)
Consider Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City
Code, Chapter 905 (Swimming Pools), including Section s905.01 (Permit
Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)
Coordinator Don Munson briefly summarized the requested text amendments to city
code as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015. Mr. Munson again noted,
as with the previous item, most of these were basically housekeeping items to eliminate
duplicate and/or contradictory language but represented no changes in fees
collected for permits. Mr. Munson referenced the zoning ordinance section
related to private swimming pools, and other areas addressed in zoning code
versus this particular chapter.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Munson addressed rationale in
changing fence height requirement around pools, as part of zoning ordinance
changes in 2010 adopting national standards, including fence height from old
city code again in line with national standards.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson clarified when pool filters/equipment
is located inside a home it wasn't subject to the 50' property line as the concern was with noise of that equipment located outside.
McGehee noted the need for additional education for residents in appropriate
emptying of private pools (Section 905.03.H, page 2) with Mr. Munson advising
he would discuss additional information and communication efforts with the
City's Communication Department.
Roe referenced stormwater codes within the parameters of the Public Works
Department, and sought clarification from Mr. Munson on the distance of 50' for multi-family pools versus 30' for single-family pools for location of the pump from the nearest property line.
Munson advised that new standards had been included in the zoning ordinance
section for private pools at single-family homes; but clarified that there were
no changes at this time for multi-family pools, with the same standards still
applicable and no indication any updates are needed at this time.
the request of Councilmember Willmus related to removing the restriction for
private pools on single-family properties, Mr. Munson advised that while the section
was removed from this text, it was now addressed in the zoning ordinance, and
stated accessory mechanicals for private pools needed to be at least 30' from the residential structure and adjacent lots.
forward, Councilmember Willmus suggested staff look at that language about
location of pool mechanicals, noting that as with new technologies for central
air conditioner compressors, this equipment for private pools was also now
operating much quieter than past equipment.
Roe noted this may make existing mechanicals legal, non-conforming.
Laliberte questioned the fence height from 4' to 5', and stated that whether it was a national standard or not, she preferred a higher height based on safety concerns for neighborhood children near private pools.
Munson responded that this height, proposed at 4' as the national standard, was now addressed in Section 1011.12.D of City Zoning Code, and conflicting language proposed for removal from this section of code.
the City Council wanted to look at that further, Mayor Roe suggested having
that portion return to the City Council at a later date.
Willmus asked if that height was tied to building code standards and whether
the city would be superseding state building code.
Munson responded that the state regulates fence height, currently at 5', for private pools.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte on fence height, preferring 5' around a public pool.
Roe suggested considering this proposed ordinance as presented; and if further
changes are preferred, to provide direction to staff as a separate motion.
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1489 (Attachment A) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Swimming Pools: Sections 905.01 (Permit Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)."
moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1489S (Attachment
B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Swimming Pools: Sections 905.01 (Permit Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)."
moved, McGehee seconded, directing staff to revisit the height of pool fencing
in zoning code language.
Laliberte seconded, amending the original (Laliberte) motion to further direct
staff to seek an amendment for mechanical equipment to equal that of setbacks
for non-multi-family pools.
objection, makers of the original motion were amenable to this amendment and
the motion was revised accordingly to incorporate both staff directives.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Munson advised that the 4' height was put into the city zoning code in 2010; and stated he would need to research the number of pools built since that time, but noted staff typically only received 1 to 2 pool permits annually.
Public Hearing to Consider Pawn America License Renewal
Planner Paschke briefly summarized this requested license renewal for the
currency exchange license for Pawn America for calendar year 2016; and as detailed
in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. for the
purpose of hearing public comment on considering Pawn America's renewal of their license to operate currency exchange businesses in Roseville for the 2016 calendar year, with no one appearing for or against.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota LLC, 1715 N Rice
Street, Roseville, MN to renew their license to operate currency exchange
businesses in Roseville for the 2016 calendar year.
Public Hearing to Consider Easement Vacation for Farrington
Engineer Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized this request vacating an easement
at 311 County Road B, as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.
noted in the report, Mayor Roe noted subsequent action for platting of the Final
Plat would come before the City Council at which time the new easement would
be dedicated including Outlot A, clarifying that Outlot A is not part of tonight's action.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer clarified that the current
easement was a ditch, and the plan was for Outlot A to be graded to create a
basin. Councilmember McGehee noted this was a heavily-treed lot, and staff needed to
take that into consideration in working with the property owner that Outlot A
should not be clear-cut when digging for this basin.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. with no one
appearing for or against.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11275 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Vacation of an Easement located on Lot Seven (7), Michael's Rearrangement of Lots 9 to 16 Inclusive of Mackubin & Inglehart Addition of Outlots to St. Paul, except the East 240 Feet of the South 200 Feet and Subject State Highway 36;" vacating a sewer easement running west to east on the parcel at 311 County Road B; vacation subject to City Council approval of the final plat.
Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Creating the Economic
Development Authority (EDA), and Approval of Transfer of Housing & Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) Powers to the EDA
Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewed the process undertaken by
the City Council to create an EDA and absorb much of the HRA functions, assets
and obligations as legally permissible, including holding a public hearing in
accordance with Minnesota State Statute 429.093. Mr. Bilotta noted these
details were laid out in the RCA dated November 30, 2015, and addressed in the
draft enabling resolution creating the EDA (Attachment A).
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the standard
provisions and basic text for the resolution and as laid out in State Statute.
not having drafted the proposed resolution, City Attorney Gaughan concurred
with Mr. Bilotta that the language was typical boiler plate in accordance with
State Statute and he didn't see any problems in adopting it as proposed.
McGehee referenced areas of concern for her or areas she was seeking safeguards
with draft resolution language related to issuance of bonds (Section 4.03),
expenditure of public funds in wooing developers (Section 4.06), and noted that
language should be revised from "Mayor" and "City Administrator" to "City Manager" and "City Council" (Section 6.02).
Roe clarified that Section 6.02 applied to city officials as appropriate and
only related to them executing documents, not taking action on behalf of the
the remainder of the proposed text in the draft resolution, Mayor Roe stated he
found its terminology to run parallel with State Statute; with City Attorney
Gaughan concurring. Therefore, Mayor Roe questioned the necessity of memorializing
things in the resolution that were already clearly covered in detail in State
Statute. Mayor Roe noted that once the EDA is adopted, the City Council has
EDA authority, and advised he had not come prepared to parse all those individual
items in tonight's discussion. Mayor Roe suggested caution in going forward in
changing language that may prove contradictory to State Statute.
Roe called to order the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the
purpose of hearing public comment on the City's creation of an EDA.
comment was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, via email dated November 2, 2015 from Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue,
generally in opposition to creation of an EDA.
McCormick, 2850 Wheeler Street
McCormick expressed her appreciation for the seriousness the City Council was
taking with this and decisions made by elected officials. Ms. McCormick stated
she hadn't realized the actual EDA creation would also be done at this meeting, and therefore apologized for being unprepared beyond several procedural questions as she had personally compared the draft resolution so State Statute.
the resolution appeared to be mostly boiler plate and involved setting up the
structure of the EDA, Ms. McCormick sought reassurance that all meetings of the
EDA would be public and recorded and public comment heard, as that was not
specifically stated in the draft language.
McCormick also expressed concern because the EDA would be comprised of City
Councilmembers, there may be a potential conflict set up under removals; but
considering the language was boiler plate, she wasn't sure much could be done. Ms. McCormick referenced Section 1.3 of the draft resolution stating vacancies; and suggested discussion or consideration if that could be dealt with in EDA by-laws for citizen members to be added to the EDA Board.
Section 1.05, Ms. McCormick expressed curiosity as to salaries for the EDA
since statutorily commissioners and the City Manager serving as Executive Director
of the EDA would receive pay, and wondered if similar remuneration as that
given the HRA's Executive Director would apply to the City Manager as well. While assuming that was not the case, Ms. McCormick noted it was included in draft resolution language; and if intended, questioned if the usual conflict of interest disclosures would be filed.
Section 5 (Limitations of Power), Ms. McCormick noted that, while this language
is taken from State Statute, the first two provisions of Statute were not included
specifically in the resolution language but questioned why those two were
omitted, opining she would feel better if included in resolution enabling resolution
Easterling, 1850 County Road C-2 W
his reading of the announcement about creation of an EDA in the Roseville
Review, Mr. Easterling expressed concern with combining powers of the City
Council and EDA that it served to create a very powerful Roseville City Council.
Mr. Easterling stated that he preferred and supported having qualified commissioners
filling that role through an application, interview and appointment process,
and then working with the City Council, and hopefully allowing for representation
from all different parts of Roseville. Mr. Easterling opined that granting this
much power to the City Council would not prove for the betterment of the
community, questioning if it was a wise decision to do so at this time, when
this would allow the City Council greater authority for land acquisition and
property clean-up, and in turn potentially increase taxes to accomplish those
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:20 p.m. with no one else appearing
for or against.
In response to
questioned raised during public comment, Mayor Roe addressed them, with
assistance from City Attorney Gaughan.
meetings being open to the public, Mayor Roe advised that as the EDA is a
public body, it would be subject to all Open Meeting Laws similar to that of
the City Council and its advisory commissions, even though not explicitly
stated in the resolution, it would be subject to those statutory requirements.
regarding conflict of interest laws, Mayor Roe clarified that they related to
all public officials, including EDA members, and the same application would
apply whether or not included in resolution language.
citizen members serving on the EDA, Mayor Roe deferred to the full Council to
address that language following his comments.
removal of an EDA Commissioner addressed in Sections 1.04, Mayor Roe stated he
had a question about the proposed resolution language and whether it
contradicted itself in addressing service as an elected councilmember and service
as an EDA Commissioner, suggesting additional discussion on that by the full
body as well.
salaries for EDA Commissioners, Mayor Roe stated his expectation would be that
there would be no salary beyond that currently received by serving as a
Councilmember, and if the Council considered that needed to be enshrined in the
resolution, language could be amended accordingly.
concern expressed that the first two statutory provisions had been deleted from
draft resolution language, Mayor Roe deferred to City Attorney Gaughan for
Gaughan stated that those two provisions specifically referenced City Council
approval, and since the drafter of resolution language knew the EDA would be
comprised solely of City Council members, may have found it duplicative and
inefficient, and thereby omitting those duplicative references.
Laliberte questioned, if the EDA was changed in the future to consist of or
include citizen members, would it be better to have that language included.
Gaughan noted this was not a legal question for him to address; but advised if
the City Council amended that membership at a future date, presumably they
would amend that language and other applicable content of this enabling resolution
at that time as well.
Sections 4.03 and 4.05 of the draft resolution, Councilmember Etten noted the
issuance of bonds and development strategies or other specific actions of the
EDA would be approved or authorized by the City Council in accordance with
advised that, with the discussion occurring over the weekend on NextDoor.com,
it was important to note that there was a misconception that this proposed body
was all-encompassing. Councilmember Willmus noted that with the structure and
make-up of the HRA, while they came to the City Council for approval of their
annual levy, elected officials had no role in setting up the HRA budget.
According to their HRA by-laws and State Statute, Councilmember Willmus advised
that, if the HRA had decided to pursue a bond issue, they could have done so.
Under that guise, Councilmember Willmus asked if the public wanted to have a
group of mayor-appointed officials vested with that level of authority or
power. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference and opined it
was more appropriate for elected officials, elected by the general populace, to
have that power, and ability for voters to change the make-up of that body
every two years. Councilmember Willmus stated, as a Roseville resident, he
found that more attractive by rolling those HRA powers into an EDA and
comprised of elected versus appointed officials, giving the power back to voters
of Roseville where it should be. Councilmember Willmus stated that had
prompted his initial effort to pursue an EDA versus an HRA. Councilmember
Willmus apologized for any misperceptions or misinformation, or perception of
intent that may be out there, but wanted to clarify the process for the public
further addressed some of the issues raised tonight. Councilmember McGehee
noted that the City Council has always had the power to bond, and creation of
an EDA had nothing to do in attempting to create more power. Councilmember
McGehee noted that one of the current powers of the City Council was their Port
Authority powers that could be used for bonding without any recourse by
Roseville residents, a technique that the City Council majority had already
chosen to use. Councilmember McGehee stated that both an EDA and HRA provide
much more citizen input and referendum approval for bonding; and agreed with
Councilmember Willmus in having this power vested in an elected versus
appointed body provided citizens with more opportunity to provide input rather
than not allowing them to do so. Councilmember McGehee noted that when the HRA
levied monies, they could spend it any way they chose to do so without
oversight by the City Council (e.g. acquisition of buildings and/or property),
even though they had done an excellent job in her opinion.
whether or not the City Manager, serving as the EDA's Executive Director, would receive monetary compensation to do so, City Manager Trudgeon stated the answer was "no," and clarified that was not the intent of this action in any way.
suggested, for assurances and clarity, if the City Council chose to do so,
language clearly stating "no compensation" could be added to the draft resolution text.
Laliberte, with consensus of her colleagues, spoke in support of memorializing
that intent in the resolution for members of the City Council as well as for
the Executive Director.
ensued, along with consultation by City Attorney Gaughan, in text changes to
the draft resolution and in which specific sections additional or clarifying
text should occur. That discussion addressed limitations of power and compensation
clarified; consistency in signing off documents by the Mayor and City Manager,
and how that would occur under the EDA role; Open Meeting Law stipulations in
accordance with current City Council Rules of Procedure for broadcast and
recording of meetings; correcting "City Administrator" to "City Manager;" City
Council and Campaign Finance reporting requirements and Conflict of Interest provisions; and EDA Act language for potential removal of an EDA Board member and how that related to City Council election.
Gaughan advised that this discussion had occurred with staff during amendment
of the HRA by-laws, and remained applicable if not for this body for a
different body in the future, to memorialize State EDA Act, even though it may
appear nonsensical to include it since the EDA and City Council would be one in
discussion ensued regarding parallel status of Rules of Order to define a
quorum and simple majority rule; processes in place to address certain misconduct
issues for Councilmembers and/or EDA Commissioners; whether or not the City
could require more stringent requirements than State Statute indicated; references
to and contained within the City's Uniform Commission Code as applicable; and subsequent establishment of Rules of Procedure for the EDA to follow as a body and to address specifics, but if the EDA intended to subsequently adopt by-laws, that would be the appropriate place to address that provision.
Gaughan suggested inserting (Section 2. Officers and Meetings) a reference to
the EDA Board adopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as included in the Uniform Commission Code as adopted.
advised that staff intended to bring draft by-laws to the body in January of
At the request
of Mr. Bilotta, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that "compensation" didn't infer "expense reimbursement," nor was reimbursement synonymous with compensation.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11276 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Enabling the Creation of an Economic Development Authority in the City of Roseville, MN;" amended as follows:
Section 1.02 (lines 11-13)
language to state: "EDA Board Members shall not receive compensation in addition to any approved City Council or Mayoral Salary and shall
comply with all reporting requirements under the City's Ethics Code."
ADD New Section 2.05
"All meetings of the EDA shall comply with State Open Meeting Laws and requirements for broadcast and recording as contained in the City Council's Rules of Procedure."
Section 3.01(lines 16-17)
to read: "The City Manager shall be designated as Executive Director of the EDA, and shall not receive any compensation for such."
Section 6.02 (Line 40)
to read: "City Manager" rather than "City Administrator"
action, Mr. Bilotta noted that the EDA would have the full powers of the HRA as
the primary body, and under the three-step process outlined in the RCA.
As part of that
follow-up of programs put in place by the HRA, Councilmember Laliberte asked
when that information would come forward for decisions on which programs to
continue, eliminate or revise, since there was no City Council Work Session
scheduled until March of 2016.
advised that the actual movement of those programs would occur in bulk from the
HRA to the EDA, partly having occurred with the previous action, and part
occurring at an organizational meeting of the City Council and EDA in January
of 2016. Mr. Bilotta advised that the first quarter review would be part of
the City Council's Policy Priority Planning (PPP) process and how the new EDA would look.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11277 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Relating to the Roseville Economic Development Authority; Transferring Certain Projects and Programs to that Authority; and Approving Certain Organizational Matters."
Public Hearing to Solicit Comment on the 2016 Budget and Tax Levy
Roe reviewed the 2016 budget and levy process to-date, as detailed in the RCA
dated November 30, 2015; and invited Finance Director Chris Miller to present
that information was provided with the RCA and entitled, "Proposed 2016 Budget, Tax Levy & Utility Rates"
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:20 p.m. with no one
appearing for or against.
Roe announced action adopting the final 2016 budget and levy was anticipated to
occur at the next City Council meeting, December 7, 2015.
Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the 2016 Utility Rates
briefly addressed proposed 2016 utility rates during his previous presentation,
Finance Director Miller highlighted each utility as detailed in the RCA dated
November 30, 2015, and provided a history of aggregate usage, apparent consumer
behavior, and data gleaned from the Finance Accounting System (beginning on
page 6 of the RCA). Should the City Council choose to do so, Mr. Miller noted
that a draft resolution adopting proposed utility rates was included in
tonight's meeting materials, Attachment A to the RCA.
Finance Director Miller's presentation, Mayor Roe apologized for inadvertently omitting an opportunity for councilmember feedback about the previous presentation, and advised comment would be received on both these items now, including any councilmember feedback to staff on remaining questions or additional information they needed for next week's discussion, specific to each item.
the presentation, Councilmember McGehee noted the base fees, that she
considered a tax, when taken in their aggregate came to approximately
$100/quarter or $400 annually; with the remaining rate structure representing
purchase of a product. Under that scenario, Councilmember McGehee questioned
if other communities called these base fees a tax, including them in the tax
portion of their levy and recorded consumption separately. Councilmember
McGehee opined she found this a cleaner concept without worrying about the
consumption of the average homeowner if there was such a person, but with that
consumption under control of the consumer, while the base fee or hook-up fee is
not under their control. By definition, Councilmember McGehee suggested that
moving that $400 would allow residents to deduct a significant amount of their
utility fee as a tax and make more sense in what residents were actually purchasing,
especially since capacity and infrastructure costs had gone up considerably.
Director Miller stated he didn't know too much about the specifics whether other cities took what was traditionally funded as water/sewer fees and billed them to property taxes. However, Mr. Miller opined he felt the reverse had been true due to levy limits imposed on cities by the State and how they could manage to continue funding on the tax levy side versus funding out of non-levy dollars. Mr. Miller noted this was a policy discussion for the City Council at their discretion, with previous discussion having occurred to some extent in previous years. Mr. Miller cautioned there would be other consequences in taking such an action; and noted this rate structure had been adopted and in place since 2009.
McGehee sought clarification on the tax levy comparison slide in Finance
Director Miller's presentation as it related to the city-specific portion of the tax rate applied to a property tax bill. Councilmember McGehee questioned why on slide 4, comparisons were made to peer cities with a population greater than 10,000 and in subsequent comparisons that changed to peer cities with populations greater than 50,000, opining that seemed to be a better comparison from her perspective.
Director Miller offered to chart similar comparisons for that same peer group,
but advised it wouldn't look much different than that displayed now. However, Mr. Miller advised that the disparity may prove larger for first-ring suburbs that didn't have a similar tax base to that of Roseville.
Discussion and Additional Information Requests/Questions Needed from Staff for the
Laliberte reiterated past comments she had provided to staff:
What ramifications it would have on the 2016 budget if the Reception
Desk position went from paid staff to a volunteer, reallocating that employee
to different tasks in the Administration/Finance Department.
Whether any changes would occur in the proposed Forester position
through use of an outside consultant to develop products for the City.
With cost of living adjustment (COLA) projections, assurance that the formula
set up last year remained in-tact and not changed just one year later; and
whether or not that formula remained true-to-form.
to the Forester position, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the position would
remain status quo, with the half-time position funded by the Parks & Recreation
Fund. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Community Development Department would utilize
the outside consultant for tree preservation and development projects on an
as-needed basis, but otherwise there would be no changes moving forward into
Laliberte noted that last year the intent was to add a Forester position
full-time to get away from the three different silo separations for tree services.
Manager Trudgeon responded that there were distinct duties in each of the three
areas going beyond simply answering resident questions on tree issues in their
private yards and/or rights-of-way, and oversight of the Emerald Ash Borer
(EAB) issue. Mr. Trudgeon sought clarification if Councilmember Laliberte was
suggesting the city go to all contracting for these services.
Laliberte responded that she was suggesting consideration of that as an option.
McGehee opined that, with the current outside contract service in place, they
could also supervise the EAB program; with many other opportunities available
for residents to learn about trees on their private property, such as those provided
by the extension service.
the proposed scenario for the Community Development Department using an outside
consultant and the part-time Forester funded through Parks & Recreation,
Councilmember Laliberte asked what happened if and when the Public Works
Department needed those services.
Manager Trudgeon responded that the Public Works Department would continue to
work with the City's part-time Forester as they had historically done to-date.
Laliberte noted that the original intent, from her recollection, was that
having one in-house Forester, everyone would be on the same page rather than
what is apparently being proposed now, questioning when the City Council had
approved that shift.
Manager Trudgeon reiterated that only the Community Development Department
would be using the outside consultant services, and had been provided in the
that was the case, Councilmember Etten questioned what value the Parks &
Recreation and Public Works Departments were getting from that arrangement. If
services were all provided by contract, Councilmember Etten opined that would
not serve to make things more unified, suggesting that the outside consultant
could use everyone or anyone on their staff, providing an even less unified
effort. Councilmember Etten further opined that the work completed for a new
tree preservation, removal and restoration ordinance should serve to unify
those efforts with unified definitions available among departments.
to contract negotiations with various union groups, Councilmember Etten asked
staff to provide updated information as much as legally possible and how that
affected 2016 budget items.
to the recycling utility, Councilmember Willmus asked staff when the contract
came up for renewal.
Works Director Marc Culver advised that the current contract with Eureka
Recycling expired at the end of 2016; and staff planned to release a Request
for Proposals (RFP) in early- to mid-2016.
Laliberte questioned the status of organics being mandated by Ramsey County in
2016, yet with nothing heard to-date as to what that meant; and questioned if
the City of Roseville would be held to something in 2016 that wasn't in its current contract, or if it would be part of what was included in the new RFP.
Culver clarified that was a mandate Ramsey County was holding itself to, establishing
organic recycling through their own sites and attempting to expand those
efforts. Mr. Culver advised that there was nothing which the City of Roseville
would be responsible for in 2016; but noted organic collection would be included
as an option for the contract starting in 2017. Mr. Culver noted that this
would be reliant in part on what the City of St. Paul did with organics.
to the new Volunteer Coordinator established last year, Councilmember Laliberte
asked staff to provide a one-year check-in and include any new volunteer
opportunities beyond those in Parks & Recreation addressing the overall organization.
Mayor Roe seeking to clarify if Councilmember Laliberte wanted that information
as part of the budget discussion for next week or at a later date, Councilmember
Laliberte stated she preferred it not so much later that it didn't happen.
Roe questioned if she foresaw budget impacts with the position; with
Councilmember Laliberte responding that was part of her questioning on ramifications
with the Receptionist position being a volunteer versus a paid employee.
Roe expressed concern in expectations for deliverables from staff with only 2-3
days to create an agenda packet for the December 7, 2015 meeting; and whether
that allowed sufficient time to fairly evaluate the Volunteer Coordinator
position and impacts for the organization and broader community.
Director Miller sought clarification from Councilmember Laliberte as to whether
her intent in reallocating the Receptionist position to a volunteer position
was related to the Intern position context and moving that Receptionist back to
Administration Department functions. Mr. Miller sought further clarification
as to whether Councilmember Laliberte was seeking a report as to why that may
or may not work or what was envisioned for that position.
Laliberte responded affirmatively, noting her intent to provide another person
in their department performing that work; and the budget impact if more
volunteers were put in some of those positions, as one suggestion.
Manager Trudgeon stated that, if that position was retained and moved back to
the Finance Department, there would be no dollar impact, but there may be some
reduction in the budget if the Intern position is not approved.
Roe suggested a potential time-spent analysis intended for an Intern position.
Director Miller noted that could be considered, or a hybrid of the two addressing
an operational need for 20 hours per week; and advised that information could
be provided for the City Council by next week. Mr. Miller stated that, the
short answer was that staff had explored several options, but one challenge was
getting consistent volunteers committed to a schedule while providing them with
something meaningful to do (e.g. project-oriented versus day-to-day volunteer positions).
Mr. Miller advised that Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien was struggling to
fit that niche.
Willmus asked staff to provide something about proposed compensation for a paid
McGehee cautioned that the Reception Desk served as the face of the City of
Roseville; and didn't think it should be provided by an Intern or volunteer
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:53 p.m.,
and reconvened at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve/Deny Pawn America License Renewal
Approve/Deny Farrington Estates Easement Vacation
Approve/Deny Creation of Economic Development Authority (EDA)
Advisory Commission Review for 2016
Roe introduced this discussion subsequent to the City Council's joint meeting in October with its advisory Human Rights Commission (HRC) directing staff to schedule a more comprehensive review of all advisory commissions, currently before the City Council, and as a result of the Uniform Commission Code adopted earlier this year. While initially scheduled to address the three vacancies on the HRC not yet filled, Mayor Roe noted that this discussion could include roles and responsibilities of each standing council advisory commission and potential shifts. Mayor Roe noted this discussion was also in conjunction with the related topic of the newly-created advisory Community Engagement Commission (CEC) and broader commission discussions and thoughts.
to the HRC, Councilmember Etten expressed his personal interest in returning
that advisory commission to its full force. Councilmember Etten recognized the
positive activities and robust work currently being undertaken by the HRC even
with their limited membership available, and their return to a strong regular
versus sporadic meeting schedule. Councilmember Etten stated he thought the
HRC should return to full strength to allow them to operate more effectively.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining she was impressed with their
presentations and their well-attended and well-led efforts when appearing
before the City Council at those joint meetings. Councilmember McGehee further
opined that this was proving to be a successful advisory commission and a good
addition to Roseville, and a necessity for the community the size of Roseville.
Councilmember Willmus noted one thing touched upon during previous discussion
was the charge within the function and duties of the HRC, including their
programming aspect. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had spoken with the
current Chair of the HRC, noting their real focus over the last few years had
become presentations or gatherings versus the programming and advisory role,
which is currently the role the HRC is charged with by the City Council. Councilmember
Willmus questioned if the same understanding was in place with what is actually
occurring and what was actually on the ledger; seeking to call attention to
that disconnect in their charge and expectations of the City Council on their advisory
a broader perspective, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in looking
at all advisory commissions and staffing those commissions including questions
such as: Do we have too many? Are existing commissions being properly utilized?; Are tweaks needed to improve efficiencies of existing commissions?; Is it necessary for all commissions to meet monthly or would the city be better served by a quarterly or semi-annual meeting schedule for some commissions (e.g. Ethics and HRC)?.
to the HRC, Mayor Roe opined they had a distinct role, and suggested perhaps
the City Council needed to do more to clarify that distinction and define the
focus of the HRC and CEC in their respective roles. Mayor Roe stated he
continued to support the City Council's expectations as outlined in the CEC's enabling ordinance. Regarding the HRC enabling ordinance, Mayor Roe suggested an immediate review before the next round of appointments, to reconsider its scope, duties and functions. Mayor Roe opined that he found some listed in the ordinance to be unclear or some overlapping with those of the CEC (e.g. assisting the State Human Rights Commission in implementing the Human Rights Act) questioning whether that was even a viable expectation of the City Council. As an initial starting point, Mayor Roe suggested charging the HRC to provide feedback to the City Council on their suggestions to improve language of that ordinance when they return to full membership. As part of that, Mayor Roe stated he would be open to considering meeting frequency or simply establishing a base minimum number of meetings through ordinance language or other City Council action. Mayor Roe stated that he was more concerned in dictating a specific number of meetings as a City Council, especially in defining roles and responsibilities; and suggested that language may be added to other advisory commissions as well related to a minimum standard number of meetings, allowing them to meet more as they felt appropriate.
McGehee stated she liked the idea of minimum meetings and specific policies to
determine that frequency. Councilmember McGehee used the Police Civil Service
and Ethics Commissions as examples. Councilmember McGehee agreed with seeking
input from the HRC. In terms of advisory versus performance, Councilmember
McGehee noted there were differences depending on their general function in the
community and whether or not it was applicable for them to advise the City
Council or perform certain duties or functions as appropriate. Councilmember
McGehee opined that some of that failure to clarify that was a failing on the
part of the City Council in being more specific.
Etten agreed with the comments of Councilmember McGehee.
Laliberte expressed her concern in setting a minimum versus monthly or
quarterly meeting schedule was in a lack of consistency for the benefit of the
public on specific areas of importance or interest to them. Councilmember
Laliberte questioned how the community could be expected to engage with advisory
commissions if they were meeting randomly, and suggested some base or
consistent time requirement.
Roe noted that another piece of the discussion was the Uniform Commission Code
and requirements included requiring commissions to establish a meeting schedule
for each year. Mayor Roe opined that this put some onus on those commissions
to provide that consistent public information.
Roe suggested consideration by the City Council as to whether or not to fill
the HRC vacancies as part of the January 2016 application process.
moved, Etten seconded, filling the three vacancies to the HRC.
Manager Trudgeon clarified the motion, whether to fill those three vacancies
now or in April 2016 with the next round of appointments.
consensus, the City Council confirmed that the intent was to fill the positions
on the HRC for appointment in April of 2016.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to charge the HRC to begin a review of
their current ordinance and role, and provide a recommendation to the City
Council at their earliest convenience.
Laliberte sought information on how many advisory commissions staff could
sufficiently or realistically support.
Willmus suggested starting with defining the charge and scope for the HRC and
CEC and how to clarify their specific roles, as well as how they functioned
related to a meeting schedule.
Trudgeon advised that staff could better help advisory commissions if not
Willmus asked staff to provide their recommendation, with concurrence by Mayor
Roe, for meeting frequency of various commissions, and any other ideas or
desires they wished to share with the City Council at this time.
Roe advised that since he'd been serving on the City Council in 2007, only one ethics complaint had been received and subsequently withdrawn, or at least with no formal action being taken. Therefore, Mayor Roe stated he had mixed emotions in appointing citizens to serve when not receiving complaints or no changes are indicated to the Ethics Code. Mayor Roe opined that staff could perform the training without a commission, but noted the process was in place in code that the Ethics Commission review complaints as they were received and help consider those complaints and their resolution. Mayor Roe stated he had given consideration to recommending demoting the Ethics Commission from a standing committee to an ad hoc committee, staffed by one member from each commission if and when a complaint or issue needed addressing based on the Ethics Code. Mayor Roe noted that direction could be provided to them at that time to seek their input and would serve as the reality of how the Ethics Commission could function and what serving residents actually received from their service on that Commission.
Laliberte stated that her observations from the last two joint meetings with
the Ethics Commission was a sense of frustration from them; and no charge to do
anything other than enact monthly ethics tips and annual training put on by
staff and the City Attorney. Councilmember Laliberte stated she shared Mayor
Roe's concern in appointing people who in turn become disappointed or frustrated by a lack of meaningful work.
the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe clarified that his comments in no way intended
to suggest he was advocating getting rid of the Ethics Commission or not have a
complaint process in place, but simply rethinking how it operated.
Willmus noted that, using Mayor Roe's idea for members serving from standing commissions, they would still review complaints as currently done by the standing Ethics Commission.
Roe concurred, noting complaints would be received from the City Manager or
City Attorney as applicable to pass on to the ultimate decision-maker, still
the City Council.
Etten asked if Mayor Roe still envisioned the Ethics Commission meeting
annually to discuss their responsibilities as an educational piece as they
understand their role in this situation or how they still functioned within the
Roe stated that wasn't a bad idea; and that would provide some orientation, unless that information was provided to commissions ahead of time to determine commissioner interest in volunteering for that role. Mayor Roe stated it would need defining what that role was if such a process was undertaken, such as a one-time meeting to get to the basics or mechanics of that role.
Laliberte stated she envisioned it as something added to the Uniform Commission
Code for annual appointment by each commission to appoint one person to serve
in that capacity.
Roe suggested amending the Ethics Commission Code language to address
establishment and membership and potential term, but deferred comment on that
to staff or the City Attorney as to whether or not the Uniform Commission Code
was the appropriate place.
McGehee stated her agreement with the orientation idea and Councilmember
Laliberte's idea whereby each commission packet would define a process with members coming from those various commissions to provide that function, along with a straightforward statement of how the City handled ethics complaints and the process for doing so. Councilmember McGehee opined that an additional benefit would be familiarizing one additional person on each commission with ethics issues and the process involved.
Roe agreed that was a good point.
Willmus stated he was intrigued by the idea and could find no reservations at
Roe suggested the next step would be to direct staff to return with proposed
Manager Trudgeon duly noted that directive, requesting additional thought on
staff's part in how to translate that intent to code.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to review code language and recommend a
process related to the concept of a standing Ethics Committee as outlined.
Roe noted his long-time goal of getting more residents involved in public
safety policy, which served as the biggest part of the City's public face and staffing. Mayor Roe noted previous discussions related to establishment of a Public Safety Commission, for which he remained an advocate, but without coming to fruition.
his personal perspective, Mayor Roe suggested a good way for that to evolve
would be from the existing Police Civil Service Commission and continuing their
role with the Police Department staffing as a subcommittee. Mayor Roe clearly
advised that he was in no way speaking to any role for them in public review of
police officer complaints. In conjunction with the Fire Department's conversion from its current structure to paid on-call structure, Mayor Roe opined that having a public safety commission role may have proven helpful during that process, as well as in considering staffing levels of the Police Department and recent discussion for community service officers, and even back as far as the fire station study and other issues involving public safety. Mayor Roe stated that he continued to view that as a missing part of the process, even in dealing with traffic safety aspects and issues with city streets such as speed concerns.
Roe also suggested a role in the Public Works function and other departments,
including nuisance code (junk and debris in yards) and general public safety
and welfare issues for residents of and visitors to Roseville.
light of that, Mayor Roe distributed his initial concept to initiate discussion
via that he had prepared and entitled, "Chapter 203 Public Safety Commission (11/15 - Roe draft) replacing existing Chapter 203 Police Civil Service Commission,
on her preliminary review, Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't agree with this serving as another Commission, since those functions listed were all task force jobs. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had already gone overboard with commissions, and a task force could just as well advise them on traffic on residential streets, to look at full-time paid on-call firefighter staffing, or any number of things without having another standing commission. Councilmember McGehee stated there was a segment of Roseville's population having a considerable amount of interest and skills to share related to a specific interest or expertise that would be willing to share if not required to sign-up for three years of meetings, but only for short-term task forces for project-specific issues.
Willmus expressed his willingness to look at the possibility, stating his
support would hinge on the focus of such a commission's charge, or scope of their duties. Councilmember Willmus recognized that Mayor Roe had long had something like this in the back of his mind and frequently brought it forward for discussion. Councilmember Willmus stated he would not say "no" at this point, and would like to further explore it and define the scope, charge and duties.
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus' comments, stating she was open to look at it and talk it through. Councilmember Laliberte further stated that she liked the idea of task forces, but if ideas within the scope and duties and function of such a commission could be clearly defined, she stated her preference to appoint a commission versus constantly putting out the call for another task force. Councilmember Laliberte noted one caution, stating that she thought the Police Civil Service Commission was subject to State Statute, and sought to make sure combining it with other duties would not be a conflict. If a commission could be structured in such a way to mandate statute and other advisory work, Councilmember Laliberte stated she would be interested in looking at it.
Etten stated he was open to entertaining discussion for revising the Police
Civil Service Commission, using the Variance Board to the Planning Commission
as a model or example of how that might work. Councilmember Etten opined that
sometimes a task force could work, but questioned if it took so long cycle
their creation that it may slow down the actual discussion needed in a timely
manner. Councilmember Etten agreed with Mayor Roe and expressed his lack of
any interest in creating a civilian review board, and stated he would not
consider entering that area at all, but expressed his interest in considering a
standing Public Safety Commission.
Laliberte suggested taking a broad look at staffing for such a commission and
if put in place how it would change the Ethics function; and sought staff input
on how that may play out and if they were supportive of the idea, with ideas
for organization and other issues as part of their feedback.
Roe noted this touched on a minimum of two departments, and if the City Council
was interested in a review, clarified that it was not his intent that it be up
and running for April 1, 2016 appointments, but noted further discussion at
City Council Work Sessions would be required if the City Council chose to
pursue the possibility. As staff considers his initial proposal as presented
in this bench handout, Mayor Roe asked staff to also review it for further
discussion and dissemination later in 2016.
objection, the preliminary document drafted by Mayor Roe was provided to staff
and City Councilmembers for their comment.
McGehee opined that the City didn't have a good track record to-date in managing its commissions already in place; and expressed concern with other areas this might stumble into, suggesting considerable caution in considering such a commission. Mayor
Roe stated he was supportive about using caution, but asked for feedback from
individual Councilmembers and staff for further consideration in 2016.
Engagement Commission (CEC)
McGehee questioned if the City Council was going to look at its charge to or
possibly reigning in the CEC or refocusing them more in line with what was
originally intended when that charge was laid out. Absent that review, Councilmember
McGehee opined there seemed to be a problem.
Willmus asked Councilmember McGehee for more specifics on the problems she
perceived to have with the CEC.
McGehee opined that the CEC problem was that many things historically done by
the HRC as they finished getting their website up and running, had now spread
out into other areas for the CEC beyond getting citizens involved in civic government
and was engaging them in things other commissions were already doing.
on his observation of their recent meetings, Councilmember Willmus opined their
focus of late was regarding neighborhood associations, and therefore, he didn't know if he could share the same concern as Councilmember McGehee that there was an issue with neighborhood associations and the HRC in that regard.
that may be true, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City Council's charge was to have the CEC aggressively form neighborhood associations.
Willmus questioned if that was what the CEC was doing, opining that from his
observation they were looking into that and crafting recommendations to bring
to the City Council, as had been discussed at the last joint meeting with them.
Roe agreed that had been discussed the last few times the CEC had met with the
City Council. Mayor Roe opined that from his perspective he saw the challenge
for the CEC was not with their scope, duties or functions or that they were
wrong but there was an expectation issue. Mayor Roe opined that the challenge
appeared to be members wanting to be more involved in engaging residents versus
advising the City Council on processes and policies, even though that message
had been relayed repeatedly. Mayor Roe questioned if there was more the City
Council needed to do or how that directive may look. However, Mayor Roe opined
that the CEC's review of neighborhood associations was exactly what they
reported they were working on and the City Council gave them the go ahead to do so. Mayor Roe advised that he was not aware of the CEC aggressively seeking to form neighborhood associations, but stated his expectation anticipated their return to the City Council with their recommendations.
Laliberte stated, at this point, she thought the CEC was finding its way as a
new CEC; and noted the City Council's original intent was clearly defined in the CEC's charge in their enabling ordinance. While considering that status, Councilmember Laliberte did not that the one thing the City Council had specifically asked the CEC to work on was the comprehensive plan update process and to bring specific recommendations back for that process, a very important piece for them
to provide advice on. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was looking forward to the CEC completing some of their preliminary work and address that important issue. From her observation of the CEC meetings to-date, Councilmember Laliberte noted some conversations about planning or hosting some events to make recommendation to the City Council on how they should be done; and advised that was an area of concern that there may be some overlap occurring between the HRC and commission, with planning events or programs part of the same group or an off-shoot and not yet taking place. Councilmember Laliberte noted the importance to check-in and make sure those efforts were not being duplicated.
Roe agreed that made sense.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte and specific assignments, such as
the process of engagement or the comprehensive plan update process as something
the City Council could use help with, noting that was a big topic coming up in
the very near future, with many options of how best to do handle the process.
Councilmember McGehee stated the need to be clear that the City Council
expected a periodic check-in for at least those two very specific charged when
first enabling the CEC. While agreeing with Councilmember Laliberte that the
CEC is still finding its way, Councilmember McGehee stated the City Council
needed to mark the pathway more clearly to facilitate their efforts.
Roe agreed that was well-stated by Councilmember McGehee, and noted the CEC had
also been charged with observing the SE Roseville process and how to engage
people in that. Mayor Roe suggested perhaps an early 2016 joint meeting and
presentation by the CEC of their respective work plan was needed to provide
McGehee noted part of the human rights is the diverse community piece, not just
Roe opined that the difference was human rights not looking specifically to
engage people in city activities, but viewing the broader community.
Roe reiterated the next step to schedule a joint meeting early in 2016.
Etten suggested sitting down with the HRC and review their charge and that of
the CEC as part of the anticipated recommendations from the HRC as previously
noted, and before meeting with the CEC to allow the City Council to have that
discussion among themselves to find clarity and ideas without crisscrossing
that process and ramifications to each commission.
be fair to the CEC, Mayor Roe suggested asking the CEC to also review their
scope or function, as previously directed to the HRC, to allow the City Council
to take that into consideration during their discussions as well.
Laliberte agreed to have both the HRC and CEC review their respective enabling
ordinances, sooner rather than later, and to plan on more frequent check-ins
with the CEC rather than only once or twice annually.
objection, Mayor Roe asked staff to include the CEC along with the HRC
directive in charging them to look at their scope and functions and to provide
their feedback to the City Council.
Manager Trudgeon duly noted that revised directive.
part of this broader review, Councilmember Willmus asked that City Manager
Trudgeon also consult with commission staff liaisons as assigned and provide
feedback on whether those positions were good fits, and a sense from staff on
their level of commitment. Councilmember Willmus opined that aspect could have
great impact on the success of an advisory commission.
Consider Purchase of Transit Shelters
comment was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, via email dated November 25, 2015 from Roger Hess, Jr., 1911 Rice
Street, generally in opposition to expend taxpayer dollars of any amount over
$1.00 each for purchase of the bus shelters.
Works Director Marc Culver initiated discussion of the current transit shelter
franchise expiration at the end of 2015; and provided a presentation to detail
those aspects, and substantially included in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.
by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC), by unanimous
vote at their November 24, 2015 meeting, recommended to the City Council that
the City not purchase the shelters; that they authorize staff to examine
the potential removal and related costs of the concrete pads at a future date;
that staff be authorized to consult with the firm(s) having the bus bench
franchise for their interest in movement or replacement of those benches near
or on those pads; and that staff be directed to make site-specific recommendations
on those sites they feel should be maintained as concrete slabs or natural
Willmus concurred with the recommendation of the PWETC.
Laliberte questioned if staff was aware of any advertising revenue the City had
received to-date in 2015.
Culver advised he had no report available at this time, but projections were
that those advertising revenues would only be about half of those received in
Roe noted that almost every shelter location with this franchisee also had a
bench already located there; and questioned why the bench company would want a
concrete pad located there.
Culver advised that, with a site-by-site review, there may be some with large
pads that would provide more space.
Etten agreed that the City didn't need to buy all of the shelters; but suggested considering those more heavily used based on ridership on the map provided in the meeting packet. However, Councilmember Etten questioned the purchase price of $1,000 when the franchisee would be required to pay the full cost for their removal, suggesting they may be just as amenable to simply avoiding the removal costs. Councilmember Etten suggested retaining four existing shelters: on the west side of Roseville at County Road B-2 and Cleveland Avenue bordering I-35W, representing 20 and 19 riders respectively on the map. Also, Councilmember Etten suggested retaining the shelter next to Har Mar Mall at County Road B, showing 76 riders; and the shelter to the east at Hamline Avenue by the Ramsey County Library. Councilmember Etten noted they each had a fair number of riders, and since the City continued to encourage use of public transit, it would prove more pleasant and of benefit for riders during winter months.
Willmus expressed concern that this wasn't a function of Roseville city government and questioned how the Public Works Department would logistically manage them and the cost and staff resources to do so. Councilmember Willmus questioned if those resources were even available, and as discussed at the PWETC meeting, he continued to stand fast by their recommendation that the city not pursue this venture.
Roe noted several existing shelters on Larpenteur Avenue, as part of that
street improvement that were owned by the City of Roseville, and asked if the
City sold advertising at those shelters.
unable to provide their specific cost at this time, Mr. Culver advised that the
city paid for maintenance of those shelters was paid to a third party
contractor for snow removal, with city staff providing small-scale trash removal.
However, Mr. Culver reported the experienced ongoing issues in getting the
contractor to respond to snow removal creating the need for city staff to
provide back-up, creating additional cost to the city for that back-up service.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining that she saw this as a partial
function of city government to provide safe shelter in areas where ridership
warranted it as noted. Councilmember McGehee suggested the City Council keep
in mind that as multi-family housing increased in Roseville and ridership
continued to be encouraged citywide, without a bench and/or shelter in place,
those riders were forced to stand on an icy pad or out in the elements, serving
to discourage the goal for their use of public transport. In her observation
of families using public transport, Councilmember McGehee opined it seemed to
her a type of amenity the city should provide; and if there was a way to find a
third party contractor to manage, maintain and collect advertising revenue, she
suggested the shelters be retained, perhaps through a public/private partnership.
Etten stated his dismay that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
didn't provide snow service and trash pick-up, opining this fell into a safety issue for the City of Roseville and how it could positively support use of public transportation, trying to offset the cost through advertising revenue. While it may serve a small number, Councilmember Etten opined that it did provide a public service; and opined he saw no reason a reliable third party contractor wouldn't be interested in pursuing maintenance and offsetting that with a portion of the advertising revenue. However, Councilmember Etten stated he did
not propose to accept OutFront Media's suggested purchase price at $1,000 each, since the City would be saving them considerable money if they were forced to remove them. Councilmember Etten expressed his agreement with the comments in Mr. Roger Hess' email.
approximately 10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, extending the
meeting curfew to conclusion of discussion of this item.
to winter maintenance of the shelters, Mr. Culver clarified that the way they
were laid out in the rights-of-way and opened to the roadway, after a county or
city snowplow threw hard packed frozen snow into the shelter, it wasn't an easy task to clean them out of that snow, which was part of the issue with follow-up by the current contractor and lack of interest in providing this maintenance service. Mr. Culver noted it could be difficult to clear the shelters, frequently requiring a front-end loader that could in turn create damage to the shelter.
discussion ensued regarding transfer by OutFront Media to Intersection Media;
current three shelters owned by the city and maintained by the third-party
contractor; and cost of glass panels at approximately $700 each; cost of trash
removal and cleaning out leaves in the fall.
Willmus asked the approximate annual cost per shelter for the City to maintain
these shelters if it pursued Councilmember Etten's suggestion to retain four.
more specifics available, since the cost for existing shelter maintenance was
wrapped into costs for other show removal areas provided by the third-party
contractor, Mr. Culver estimated the cost at approximately $1,000 to $2,000 annually
per shelter based on the contractor's annual rate, varying with snow fall frequency and weight. At this time, Mr. Culver noted that the franchisee took on that risk offset by advertising revenue, but not currently available to the city in determining that potential risk. If more shelters were obtained, Mr. Culver estimated the cost may be less annually, as a better rate could be spread among that number.
moved, Laliberte seconded, that the city NOT purchase the twenty transit
shelters, terminating the franchise terms and stipulating the franchisee's removal of the shelters; and at a future meeting consider the PWETC's recommendation related to existing pads and benches.
Laliberte suggested the need, whether or not the shelters go away, what to do
with what's left behind, expressing concern that there not be a tripping or other safety hazard with what was left.
Roe noted the need to provide staff with some guidance moving forward,
specifically clarifying the motion to leave the pads in place.
Willmus stated he wasn't opposed to leaving he pads in place, based on the overall context of the PWETC's discussion and subsequent recommendation. Councilmember Willmus further stated that by leaving the pads, it also afforded an attractive option to facilitate a future franchisee that may choose to locate there.
Etten stated he wouldn't support the motion, opining it created a loss of service for many Roseville residents. However, Councilmember Etten stated he liked leaving the pads in place for whatever reason in the future.
Laliberte agreed that a pad would be better than standing on wet grass, as well
as additional cost to landscape and finish off the areas.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten that this would be an unfortunate loss
of service to some members of the community and not forward thinking by the
city in pursuing more mass transit.
Roe admitted he was torn with this decision, and agreed with leaving the pads
in place so the city could decide in the future its priority for providing more
shelters. Mayor Roe stated he would support the motion due to unknown costs in
retaining the shelters, in addition to the city not incurring any costs in
their removal through termination of the franchise.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver advised that the franchisee's insurance runs out today, he anticipated they would remove the shelters as quickly as possible.
restated per discussion
moved, Laliberte seconded, that the city NOT purchase the twenty transit
shelters, terminating the franchise terms and stipulating the franchisee's removal of the shelters; with concrete pads to remain in place directing the franchisee to sheer off the anchor bolts at each shelter location at the time of removal subject to staff's inspection and approval; and at a future meeting consider the PWETC's recommendation related to existing pads and benches.
Laliberte and Roe.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Adopt 2016 City Council Priority Plan
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon distributed upcoming preliminary agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:13 p.m.