View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2017
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present, along with various members of city staff.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
requested removal of Item 8.b from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street
addressed comments made by an individual council member to Roseville residents
on Facebook related to what Mr. Kysylyczyn believes to be false perceptions of
government-managed trash collection if the City of Roseville should institute
that practice for the purpose of directing where trash went, and taking away
the right of people to choose their own trash hauler. Mr. Kysylyczyn cited a
2007 U. S. Supreme Court ruling as evidence, provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced
the city's new trial practice of scrolling announcements before and after
Council meetings rather than taking time during the meeting to read them.
thanked Prince of Peace Lutheran Church for the opportunity for him to participate
in a recent forum they hosted to address ways residents could participate in
city and school activities.
provided a brief update on the City Council subcommittee consisting of Mayor
Roe and herself to review advisory commissions, still in process and subsequent
plans to come before the full City Council with recommendations.
Donations and Communications
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.
Approve January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 3, Line 16 (Roe)
Typographical correction: Change "...they were" to "U. S. Bank is"
Page 12, Line 12 (Roe)
Typographical correction: Delete "being of"
Page 15, Line 25 and all remaining instances (Roe)
of document to "Rules [and] Procedures" to "Rules [of] Procedure"
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve January 9, 2017 REDA Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the January 9, 2017 REDA Meeting Minutes as amended.
Correct formatting numbers of
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated January 23, 2017.
McGehee stated that the City was selling some vehicles that would help to make
up for the cost of new vehicles and equipment; an item she intended to also
address later during tonight's budget discussion.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
83940 - 84372
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in
the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items," updated
January 23, 2017.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted.
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the 2016 Heinel
Watermain Lining Project
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11391 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final
Contract Acceptance - 2016 Heinel Watermain Lining Project;" accepting work
completed, starting the one-year warranty period, and authorizing final payment
in an amount not to exceed $25,618.85
2015 Drainage Improvement Project - Phase I - Approve Final
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11392 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2015 Drainage
Improvement Project, Phase I;" accepting work completed, starting the one-year
warranty period, and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
County Road B Sidewalk - Authorization for Approval and
Authorization of Ramsey County Agreement
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11393 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Cooperative Agreement
with Ramsey County for the County Road B Sidewalk Project;" for Ramsey County
Project S.A.P. 062-625-063 (Agreement PW2017 - Attachment B)
Approve Resolutions Approving the Acquisitions of Easements
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11394 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Water
Utility Easement at 1900 County Road C West by the City of Roseville."
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No.
11395 (Attachment) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Water
Utility Easement at 2645 Fairview Avenue N by the City of Roseville."
Approve 2017 Street and Utility Preliminary Work Plan
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2017 Public
Works Preliminary Work Plan for street and utility improvements as presented.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the
RCA and related attachments, dated January 23, 2017.
Willmus stated his intent in removing this item from the consent agenda was to
separate massage therapist licenses from other licenses for consideration.
Councilmember Willmus stated that he had an issue with the nature of therapist
applications when they were so heavily redacted, making it difficult for
individual council members to know who the applicants were or having any ability
to track information on applicants. While understanding the need for redacting
information from the online docket, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference
that that information be more readily available at the city council level for
Etten seconded, approval of four massage therapist licenses as detailed in the
RCA of today's date.
agreed that in the past, she too had felt the information provided on
background checks for massage therapist licensees was insufficient to make her
comfortable; and suggested that staff research other communities to obtain best
practices in reviewing applicants.
referenced a recent memorandum from City Manager Trudgeon related to
consequences of a recent arrest related to a prior applicant, and staff's practice
to no longer proceed in issuing a license in Roseville if there were any issues
from previous licensure in another city by a Roseville massage therapist
applicant. Mayor Roe advised that with that recent change in staff's review of
applicants, the practice was in line with current city ordinance.
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Laliberte seconded, approval of massage therapy establishment,
cigarette/tobacco products, and temporary on-sale liquor licenses for terms as
noted and as detailed in the RCA of today's date, pending successful background
checks for licenses if and as applicable.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Ramsey County Sheriff Jack Serier Introduction
welcomed Ramsey County Sheriff Serier, who provided a brief presentation on
activities of the department.
reviewed recent technological updates with implementation of a new jail
management system for court and medical information for jail staff in tracking
an average of 400 pre-detention inmates typically housed at the jail facility.
also noted community outreach and connection efforts across the communities in
Ramsey County, using the "Coffee with a Cop" idea of other law enforcement
agencies, and implementation of a new "Hot Dog with a Deputy" proving very
successful. Sheriff Serier noted that this involved meeting with families in a
central location with a pop-up kitchen trailer at city and county parks, and
involving water safety, K-nine and other county officers interested in participating
and interacting with residents.
reviewed a recent staff idea to reward good behavior among longer-term inmates
and encourage their positive steps in that direction through the PRIME
(Positive Response InMate Exercise) program. Sheriff Serier advised that this
involved responsible behavior, participation by inmates in programming available
at the jail facility (e.g. anger management classes, personal leadership,
literacy classes, bridging to work, etc.) that led to privileges for inmates at
the facility. With the program initiated in 2016, Sheriff Serier reported it
had achieved great success to-date, with a list of inmates seeking involvement;
and creating a cascading effect making the facility safer for staff and inmates
reminded Roseville residents of the availability of secure drug drop boxes at
several locations for drop and destruction of unused prescription medications,
particularly opiates, no questions asked. The closest drop offs are at the
substation at Hamline and Highway 96, 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive and at the main
Ramsey County Center at 425 Grove Street in St. Paul.
recognized the Ramsey County Sheriff's Foundation for partnering with the
department in the annual Ramsey County Fright Farm last fall, with over 1,100
attendees per night at times, and funded by the Foundation and supporting
student patrol and youth outreach programs, along with some staff equipment.
Sheriff Serier reported that over $100,000 had been raised last fall, and
thanked all who attended and the volunteers involved in making the event
possible and successful.
Sheriff Serier thanked the Roseville City Council, and Police Chief Rick
Mathwig and his staff, for their partnership with the Ramsey County Sheriff's
Questions and Comments
thanked Sheriff Serier for this annual report. Given her work with the health
care industry, frequently at health fairs, Councilmember Laliberte noted that
several of those fairs held in Hennepin County provided sheriff's department
representatives staffing drug collection receptacles at those events.
Councilmember Laliberte asked Sheriff Serier if the city had a similar event,
if the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department could provide a similar option in
responded that, while he hadn't thought of that option, he would research the
possibility if possible logistically and follow-up with City Manager Trudgeon.
Etten also thanked Sheriff Serier for meeting with the City Council and
reporting to residents, and the ways their department was working with and in
Ramsey County communities. As mentioned in past years with Sheriff Serier's
predecessors, Councilmember Etten noted as an example the McCarron's Beach area
not always regularly patrolled by Ramsey County Water Patrol. On busy
weekends, Councilmember Etten asked that Ramsey County provide a positive
presence with Water Patrol periodically on site to make people aware of that
presence and remind users of the beach and water amenities to make good and
Earlier in his
career, Sheriff Serier noted that he had been in charge of Water Patrol, and
therefore was also well aware of McCarron's beach being a heavily-trafficked
beach. Sheriff Serier reported that he had just presented a citizen award for
work by an individual in helping an injured member of the community at that
beach; and advised that he would ensure it remained on the department's radar
for patrol on a regular basis. Sheriff Serier also reported that, through the
great partnership with citizens using the beach and in that area, a truncated
9-1-1 system had been developed to stay ahead of things before they evolve.
McGehee thanked Sheriff Serier for tonight's update, and sought clarification
on the jail management system and information about the CAD system launched for
dispatch and the ability for interaction and tracking of data among records
management systems and for report transferring.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Sheriff Serier reviewed his departments' coordination
with Ramsey County Public Health Department for improving addition and mental health
services available in the jail, and screening for those issues before to
prevent crisis situations not initially documented, along with providing
addiction recovery services for inmates while incarcerated.
Mayor Roe noted
his recollection in recent news reports of mental health-related calls coming
into 9-1-1 being cued into expertise right away to avoid crisis situations.
Mayor Roe asked Sheriff Serier for an update on how that was working.
reported that the director of the Ramsey County 9-1-1system, Scott Williams,
was doing an excellent job partnering with the St. Paul Police Department in
triaging crisis management calls coming into the city and identifying the best
people with the right expertise for sharing information and getting the appropriate
mental health workers or officers involved in that decision-tree to help those
in need in that first-level response situation. Sheriff Serier reported on the
strong interest in taking that further out to Ramsey County communities and patrol
services to transition from police intervention to wellness intervention on the
front end rather than having to sort it out later. Sheriff Serier admitted
that a lot had been learned in this area over the last decade, and the changing
nature of mental health as it intersects with the law enforcement process.
With the development of a great program and partnership with the City of St.
Paul, Sheriff Serier reported that the interest was now in expanding the
success of that beta test to the broader Ramsey County community.
On behalf of
the Roseville community, Mayor Roe encouraged that expansion.
records management, Mayor Roe sought clarification on the compatibility of the
CAD system; noting that the City of Roseville's records management system had
been implemented before that of Ramsey County, and asked if there was good and
consistent transferability of that information among various systems.
reported that Ramsey County's system was far behind others, and now was finally
coming up to speed and able to communicate well with other systems and under
the larger umbrella company providing that CAD software.
thanked Sheriff Serier for his attendance and updates, as well as providing the
helpful information for the City Council and community.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Business Items (Action Items)
Discuss the Revised Draft Community Engagement Plan and Adopt a
Final Community Engagement Plan for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief introduction of tonight's discussion as
detailed in the RCA of today's date; and reintroduced Ms. Lydia Major from the
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting
briefly at approximately 6:46 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:47 p.m.
to resolve technical difficulties with presentation equipment.
Major provided a brief review of the update process today, and for tonight's
discussion, specifically introduced the Community Engagement Plan (CEP) outline
as referenced in the presentation and detailed in the LHB memorandum dated
January 18, 2017. In reviewing each area of the plan, Ms. Major sought City
Council feedback going forward.
Messages - Taglines
two options presented for a tagline for this effort, "Roseville 2040-Guiding
our Future Together" or "Focus 2040," Ms. Major sought out input from council
Roe asked if any thought had been given to re-using the Imagine Roseville tag
line used in the 2005 community visioning process with Ms. Major advising that
since that tagline was still being used by the city in several areas, the
thought was to avoid confusing this project with those efforts or overlapping
in any way with those efforts.
McGehee and Willmus stated their preference for "Focus 2040."
Laliberte stated her preference for "Roseville 2040 - Guiding our Future
Together." Councilmember Laliberte opined that it included "Roseville" in the
message, and suggested "Focus 2040" could be used as the tagline, but she liked
the message sent out by the other, in working together with the community.
Etten stated that he was supportive of "Focus 2040" until hearing Councilmember
Roe agreed that he liked the use of "Roseville" in the first option, but wasn't
sure about the "guiding" and suggested "finding" instead.
Willmus suggested an alternative option of "Roseville 2040."
further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte suggested "Roseville 2040- Our
objection, the tagline "Roseville 2040 - Our Future Together" was approved.
of the Planning Commission
Major reported that the Planning Commission's role as the steering committee
for the plan update was clear, along with the intent for City Council involvement
throughout the process as outlined.
Ongoing Engagement Efforts and Potential Event Locations
discussion on details as outlined.
McGehee opined that this section appeared heavy on media and light on hard copy
communications and asked the consultant to work on that aspect. Councilmember
McGehee opined that personally she felt that at the kick-off and conclusion of
the engagement process, there should be a mailing to all Roseville households
respectively alerting them to the process and goals, and their review of the
Roe opined that from his perspective it appeared that the consultant was simply
attempting to cover all available media options, and as provided on page 4 of 9
of the LHB memorandum.
Laliberte suggested using supplement flyer in the City News for those opportunities,
since that appeared to be a highly read media source by residents.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that this may get more attention than an
envelope mailed that may end up tossed out.
on the timing of the City News editions related to this process, Mayor
Roe agreed it was the vehicle that could be used for feature articles as well.
his perspective, Councilmember Etten noted those options were covered on page 3
of 9 of the LHB memorandum.
Roe noted the options for Twitter updates, as well as suggesting Facebook pages
or groups such as "Let's Revitalize Rice Street/Larpenteur" or "You know
you're from Roseville if"
Major thanked council members for their feedback and suggestions, and recognized
the importance of mailings, along with regular updates planned for the City of
Roseville's Facebook page.
Major noted that these goals were based on feedback received from the Community
Engagement and Planning Commissions to-date.
ensued regarding how engagement metrics were measured by the consultant (e.g.
number of unique page views) on the city's website, comprehensive plan website,
and measurements of responses elsewhere, with unique views measured by entity
based on different IP addresses.
Roe thanked Ms. Major for including that metric information, stating that it
had been one of the keys in his choice of this firm as the consultant for this
process. Mayor Roe noted that it would allow the city to perceive any obvious
gaps during the process.
Major thanked Mayor Roe for acknowledging that, noting it was an important of
their process as well. Ms. Major clarified that their team didn't collect
statistically valid information at each event, but as noted in their outline,
at some events and activities they used a more human survey to judge responses.
page 5 related to under-represented demographics, Councilmember Etten opined
that seniors may be the best-represented group at many Roseville meetings and
events, and therefore didn't consider them as an "under-represented" group.
Roe opined, however, that beyond those frequenting city events and meetings,
there remained a significant number of seniors who were less engaged.
McGehee spoke in support of retaining seniors in the under-represented metric.
Willmus stated, from his perspective of under-represented populations, he
considered people of color to be the largest group needing to be engaged.
Councilmember Willmus opined that youth and the senior population were both
incredibly engaged in the community; and therefore his focus would be to get
folks of color involved.
the extent of reaching those not engaged in the community, Mayor Roe reiterated
the need to involve youth and seniors in the community to encourage their
Etten agreed that people of color are the most important under-represented
group needing engagement now.
McGehee referenced the recent Urban Land Institute meeting providing a good and
complete demographic presentation, Ms. Major agreed, noting that their team's
presence there had been intentional and advised that that information would be
incorporated as additional feedback into this process.
Proposed Process (pages 5 - 10 of the memorandum)
Laliberte expressed appreciation for the ten additional Planning Commission
meetings planed with monthly updates, input on a topical basis.
Major credited the Roseville Planning Commission with that idea and commitment.
Roe suggested a response card or other option to ask questions that could prove
self-engaging of attendees before, during and after those meetings.
Major noted these dates will remain flexible throughout the process, and suggested,
with agreement by Mayor Roe, that these meeting could use topical questions or
concentrated discussions as well.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the city's
Communications Department staff was holding a place in each upcoming City
News edition - depending on tonight's direction from the City Council - to
include information on the comprehensive plan update process.
the timing for September/October public meetings, Councilmember Willmus
suggested narrowing that timeframe after Labor Day and before MEA weekend to
facilitate those residents going south for the winter months.
Major added that reminder for the team to be aware of that suggestion closer to
scheduling that meeting.
Laliberte asked for more information on what was intended at a workshop, such
as scheduled at the Fairview Community Center; and how input was collected and
Major reported that there would be very little presentation done at the first
meeting beyond answering key questions and telling people why they're there. Ms.
Major advised that the intent was to initiate interactive participation,
through exercises people did when arriving, small group exercises, and
providing options for people to talk to each other and the consultant team.
Ms. Major advised that this was part of the important process for the Roseville
community to own the results of their planning efforts. In response to
Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Major advised that the information was gathered
from self-information boards, comment cards, notes taken by the team throughout
the room through questions and reporting back, and scanning or photographing
displays, all of which would become part of the public record posted on the
comprehensive plan website.
Etten asked about the choice of location at a school facility versus a
city-owned facility such as the Skating Center. Councilmember Etten opined
that the location may create a perception and identify who was running the
event or activity.
Major clarified that the location remained a question mark at this point; with
the need identified to allow enough meeting space and parking for the expected
attendance, as yet to be better defined.
the various options for community engagement, Mayor Roe noted the International
City Managers' Association (ICMA) engagement spectrum and that more influencing
type of engagement and expectation of those participating versus a more informative-only
approach and role for participants. Mayor Roe asked if that will be framed up
as part of overall activities and events as people arrive, including the input,
information and suggestions they provide, to let them know what their participation
means to the process and the overall plan itself.
Major responded that the intent was somewhere in the middle of those two
options, not just informing the public and taking that verbatim response, but
without using technical language, making the public aware of that landing spot.
Group Meetings on Topics
Major referenced the spreadsheet included as an addendum to their memorandum,
providing more detail on meeting availability across the board, projected times
the Economic Development topic, Councilmember Laliberte asked if additional
coordination with the Roseville Business Council and/or the two Chambers of
Commerce should be involved as well.
Roe agreed that made sense.
Ms. Major clarified that both chambers would be invited to participate, with
their existing meeting schedules taken into consideration to better coordinate
their participation. However, Ms. Major also noted that attempts were made to
cluster meetings for better concentration. Ms. Major admitted that it was a
balancing act between their availability and other considerations to provide
more intensive sessions.
confirmation by Ms. Major, Mayor Roe noted that events by invitation didn't
preclude public comment and input.
McGehee questioned the clustering of economic development, land use and
education, opining that education had its own plan without any say from the
city for those two school districts. Councilmember McGehee suggested the
diversity intercepts should be done at the Fairview Community Center during
classes. Councilmember McGehee referenced the recent economic development
overview received from the Urban Land Institute providing insight into development
in the community; and recognized the city's active involvement with both
Chambers of Commerce and the Business Council.
Roe clarified that these are targeted groups, and not intended to replace other
Roe and Councilmembers Etten and Willmus spoke in support of the list as
presented by the consultant team.
McGehee noted her concern was related to extra costs that might be incurred
beyond the original consultant proposal for services.
Major clarified that the land use aspect was not included as part of the Urban
Land Institute group and also unlike intercept boards at Fairview Community
Center. Ms. Major advised that representatives would be invited from organizations
actively involved in these issues to talk to the team in addition to and versus
receiving input from the public meetings. While the meetings would be open to
the public, Ms. Major noted that the team would be asking those representatives
with specific expertise in those specific areas to talk; and further clarified
that this would include participation by post-secondary schools beyond the two
school districts (e.g. area colleges).
Laliberte agreed that she was also comfortable with these topics and proposed
processes; stating that she saw it completely different from the recent Urban
Land Institute presentation done for the City's benefit and leaning more
heavily on housing than economic development from her perspective. While that
was good information to receive, Councilmember Laliberte noted this would
provide additional economic development information from other experts in the
field and others in the community (e.g. business owners and managers).
Councilmember Willmus agreed that the Urban Land Institute panel presentation
had proven interesting and highlighted community activities, but opined that
the make-up of the panel and their presentation was solely focused on one
aspect of the community (multi-family and senior housing). Councilmember
Willmus stated that he wouldn't want that to forego other means of input by relying
solely on that panel input, when it may mean missing other significant items
particularly in the business community.
Etten reiterated that he was comfortable with this list. Specific to the
education aspect, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the need to partner
with both the Roseville and Mounds View school districts, whether or not the
city had a controlling interest, since it still impacted the broader community.
Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten, adding the importance of post-secondary
education input as well.
Major noted the intent for four topic-based interagency meetings specific to
Housing/land use, economics, transportation/infrastructure, and water/open
Laliberte stated her support of those interactions and topics to be covered.
Etten suggested adding other agencies, including but not limited to Northeast
Youth and Family Services (NYFS) and Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM) that
were not currently on the list, but potential Roseville partners as well.
Councilmember Etten also noted other organizations, such as the Roseville
Community Resource Center housed at the Roseville Covenant Church on Hamline
Avenue, and coordinated social service work shared by several Roseville
churches at that location for families in crisis or need in the community. Councilmember
Etten suggested further research on other groups working with various diversity
neighborhood "walkabout" meetings
Roe suggested consideration of larger multi-family areas (e.g. Rosedale Estates
and/or smaller units around Lake McCarron"s) especially since one of the main
under-represented groups is apartment dwellers.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Major clarified that the intent with
the four geography-based neighborhood meetings was to initiate key input in a
timely fashion scheduled for wrap-up in April, but if they proved very successful,
this effort could be ongoing or expanded, with flexibility to discuss that further.
Willmus noted the community"s huge draw during summer"s "Discover Your Parks" series, suggesting the "meeting-in-a-box" approach may fit well with those activities.
Laliberte expressed her interest in this coming back to the City Council after
staff identified which areas of the community were being considered for this
community engagement component, allowing the City Council to weigh in on those
specifics. Having just come off door-knocking during her reelection campaign,
Councilmember Laliberte stated her interest in knowing which areas were being
Lloyd advised that the next step would be to get input from the Planning Commission
as well; at which time staff and the consultant could come back to the City
Council for that feedback as well.
McGehee opined that, as this comes together more and areas of development
and/or significant change were identified, those specific neighborhoods and
residents and businesses that will be most impacted needed to be part of the
follow-up meetings to address those specifics. Councilmember McGehee noted
from her perspective that had been a missing piece with past comprehensive plan
Major stated her wholehearted agreement that this should be done as the process
progressed, and noted the intent of allowing flexibility moving forward in
order to make this exercise successful.
an example, Councilmember McGehee noted that the northwest area of Roseville
had numerous issues with single-family homes turning into rentals, suggesting
there may be other unique issues in certain pockets of the community.
Lloyd suggested that the City Council identify some of those areas they felt
were best suited for a walkabout; with Mayor Roe agreeing to do so as a
follow-up to this meeting, directing those comments to staff so as not to miss
something if done tonight at the dais.
objection, council members agreed to provide their thoughts to staff.
Major advised that their team had found these sessions useful in the past to
engage parents and children about Roseville issues and opportunities, and here
Etten expressed his appreciation for the team working with ECFE staff to gain
this interaction and a different perspective from those younger families not
typically or otherwise interacting in the process. However, Councilmember
Etten cautioned that the perspective would vary depending on the days chosen,
with two sites in Roseville, and several operating at the Fairview Community Center.
Major advised that this idea for involving middle school students had been
brought forward by the Planning Commission.
Surveys (visioning and directions)
Major advised that these surveys were intended to parallel the first introductory
meeting, and had proven cost-effective ways to supplement other in-person
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Major advised that at this point they
had not planned for paper versions of the surveys available from City Hall, but
as collating that information may prove extremely labor-intensive, and based on
their past experience, hadn't provided for reaching a much wider audience.
However, if this is an area of concern, Ms. Major advised that the team could reconsider
it, but anticipated that using the role of intercepts and meetings-in-a-box
would reach that same audience, and actually may overlap unnecessarily.
runs (10-12 locations each)
this concept was more detailed in the spreadsheet, Ms. Major noted the intent
to plug the website and have pull-off flyers for additional information and/or
resources available on line.
Roe opined that this may be the place to obtain information beyond neighborhood
walkabouts or door-to-door canvassing in multi-family buildings.
many of these ideas, Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern that there was
no particular filter, noting her interest in input from those coming to work in
Roseville by car, bus or carpool or input from businesses located in Roseville,
Councilmember McGehee stated that frankly she didn't care that much about input
from someone simply coming to shop in Roseville. Therefore, Councilmember
McGehee stated her concern that this information may prove heavily weighted
from non-residents or non-workers in the Roseville population, and questioned
how the team intended to parse that information out. At the end of the day,
Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a Roseville resident plan.
Roe asked if people were queried as to whether or not they were a Roseville
Major advised that this question would be asked on the board; but cautioned
that if no one was staffing the intercept board, it would be hard to correlate
their answer to that with other questions. Ms. Major responded that, based on
past experience, they generally found that by nature non-residents didn't
respond much; and that this was one of the only ways to reach out to visitors
to Roseville. To some degree, Ms. Major advised that the city was interested
in visitor input and perceptions of the community. Specific to weighting
information, Ms. Major clarified that the information gathered wasn't counted
as votes, but from their perspective, simply a gathering of ideas to correlate
without any ranking. Ms. Major noted that this was a balancing act, and
required some professional judgment interpreting the data, an area of expertise
with their consulting team.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Major reviewed the concept of intercept
boards as a simplistic way of raising awareness in the community and peeking
into what people think about it, through an informal "dot" voting opportunity. Given the information gathering at malls, Councilmember Etten expressed
interest in how many people brought up traffic issues around Roseville, even if
only shopping here and not a resident. While the roads may or may not be owned
by Roseville but other jurisdictions, Councilmember Etten noted the need for
the city to be aware of those infrastructure issues.
suggested that consideration be given to intercept boards as other locations,
including but no limited to the Keystone Food Shelf, Bridging, and NYFS in
that these typically don't work well in the fall, Ms. Major clarified the intent
to implement this during the early phase (March).
Major thanked council members for the helpful suggestions.
Etten expressed his trust in staff and the consultant to use tonight's feedback
to move forward, at which point Mayor Roe entertained a motion to proceed.
provided an opportunity for public feedback at this time, with no one appearing
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of a final community engagement plan for the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update process as amended with tonight's discussion.
Receive Presentation of Feedback Received at 211 N McCarron's
(former Armory) Community Input Sessin0s and Direct Staff to Initiate a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment/Rezoning Process
Development Director Kari Collins provided a brief presentation as detailed in
the RCA and attachments based on past City Council direction to staff. Ms.
Collins noted inclusion of survey responses and comments in the packet materials,
and provided a general overview of survey results, ranking community responses
via graph for various land use preferences, including housing, institutional,
parks and recreation, and commercial uses, with responses ranked in order.
on feedback at those community sessions, and written comment and data received
to-date, Ms. Collins sought City Council direction to staff on comprehensive
plan designation. Subsequent to that direction, Ms. Collins noted additional
opportunities for feedback on zoning designations through engaging the public
at an open house, and at a public hearing at the Planning Commission level, and
then consideration by the City Council prior to a final decision being made.
However, Ms. Collins clarified that for tonight's purpose, staff was seeking
direction on comprehensive plan designation only.
Roe asked if there was anything precluding running the comprehensive plan and
zoning plan process parallel from a legal standpoint.
Collins and City Attorney Gaughan both responded that there was not any legal restriction
to their knowledge.
Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one coming
forward to speak.
moved, Laliberte seconded, initiating a comprehensive plan amendment to Low
Density Residential (LDR) and rezoning from Institutional to Low Density
Residential-1 (LDR-1) with that density not to exceed 4 units per acre.
Specific to his
maximum 4-unit per acre limitation under the LDR-1 designation, Councilmember Willmus
stated this provided the neighborhood the best protection, with the option
available for a future development to apply for another zoning designation and
comprehensive plan amendment greater than the 40 units per acre for consideration.
Laliberte stated her agreement in starting the LDR-1 and the ongoing process
allowing for further discussion.
opposed, Councilmember McGehee referenced past comments, stating her preference
to have green space automatically mapped out there, based on conversations from
those living in the N McCarron's neighborhood specific to the undevelopable
land in the corner, currently utilized and strongly desired to maintain that
green space buffer on that side of the parcel.
Etten agreed with the motion based on the stated low density use. Specific to
Councilmember McGehee's comments about retaining green space, Councilmember
Etten opined that absent the city purchasing the land and separating it out for
green space, he wasn't sure how to accomplish that.
agreed if would be difficult to designate a different zoning area as was
McGehee opined that it could be done with designated Green/Open space by making
an arbitrary line, similarly to past practice (e.g. property off Victoria
Street designated as Open Space), and able to change direction in the future.
However, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was better to reserve it as Open
Space now versus leaving it as part of the development parcel, recognizing the
significant community interest in doing so. Councilmember McGehee stated that
should be looked into as soon as possible and brought back to the City Council
Etten seconded, amendment to the original motion to guide and zone the western
portion of the property as Open Space adjacent to Elmer Street.
agreed this seemed to be of great importance to the neighborhood; and if it
could be mapped out accordingly to protect that pond before a developer comes
forward, he could support that effort based on the strong commitment heard from
Willmus stated that he would not support the amendment, opining that it created
a significant issue for planning the future use of the property and created
multiple zoning districts on one parcel, further complicating future
development. From his perspective on the Roseville School District site used
as an example, Councilmember Willmus clarified that dual zoning on that site
proved a beneficial thing, but opined that typically it created issues from a
planning perspective. Councilmember Willmus noted that this discussion could
be held when looking at park dedication and areas to look at for obtaining
corridors as the site develops, with a process in place to consider land or
fees. Councilmember Willmus stated his preference with that process versus the
City Council attempting in its infinite wisdom to draw lines within a property
to designate different zoning.
Laliberte stated that she would not support the amendment based on being
uncomfortable drawing artificial lines on property not owned by the city.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be supportive of considering park
dedication funds and/or land when applicable, but was concerned in creating a
zoned piece of land that would be difficult for a developer or property owner
park dedication comments, Mayor Roe noted that if land in lieu of cash was
considered, it would be a more appropriate way to look at the site, especially
if the land developed as single-family residential, probably resulting in a
subdivision process being implemented at that point. As a supporter of the Fairview
Avenue site, Mayor Roe stated that he was now more comfortable with that
decision for Institutional property versus development on a private site; and
therefore, was not supportive of the amendment.
McGehee stated that she would continue her efforts and not support an
alternative, especially given the fact that she had yet to see this or any
previous City Council take land in lieu of cash. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee
opined that this was the only way to protect this Open Space at the front end
of its redevelopment.
Laliberte and Roe.
stated his support of the original motion per his previous comments.
McGehee stated she would not support the original motion, feeling strongly that
the community felt the need to retain this resource, necessitating more
planning before moving forward.
Mayor Roe stated
his support for the motion and for LDR as the least intensive use for this
parcel and what residents had expressed as their preference for future
redevelopment of the site. Mayor Roe suggested that it was worth noting that
if designated as LDR and the developer seeks designation as LDR-2 rather than
LDR-1, it only required a simple majority of the City Council, not a super
majority. Mayor Roe stated his preference for land in lieu of cash, opining
that single-family residential designation provided the most flexibility for a
developer. However, Mayor Roe noted that another path open to a developer
would be the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process if that provided what the
city was looking for (e.g. preservation of open space) in consideration of other
exchanges on the site, with the City Council able to consider each on a case by
Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
stated the importance of having this record available for the Planning
Commission as any redevelopment of the site moves forward, voicing the City
Council's strong preference that the land along the west side of the parcel be
considered to complement that pond and access to it.
Mayor Roe noted
that the Park & Recreation Commission should also be aware of this Council
discussion and thanked the public for their engagement to-date, and
re-emphasized the next steps and additional public comment opportunities
including a developer open house public hearing before the Planning Commission,
and ultimate final decision by the City Council. At a minimum, Mayor Roe noted
that this process would probably be a couple months in duration.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:58 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:04 p.m.
Discussion on the 2018 Budget Process
Manager Pat Trudgeon advised that at the end of any annual budget cycle, it was
customary for him and Finance Director Miller to review the process and look
for any improvements that were obvious. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent
was to build on successes and to be aware of any shortfalls observed. Mr.
Trudgeon noted the areas identified by him and Mr. Miller as identified in the
RCA, and deferred to Mr. Miller for more detail.
Director Chris Miller noted five areas to consider addressing in the 2018
budget process, seeking feedback on staff recommendations for each category.
While the categories were separated in the RCA, discussion ensued in general regarding
the entire 2017 budget process and future processes.
City Council Discussion/Direction to Staff
Roe suggested that it made sense in accordance with staff recommendation to set
aside, identify, and acknowledge input at a number of different points during
the process and incorporate that public input into conversations.
Willmus stated that he didn't find this year's process to be that flawed,
opining he found it to work fairly well. Councilmember Willmus stated that the
budget cards from residents worked well in providing information. However,
Councilmember Willmus cautioned that he didn't want staff to develop the
expectation that as the budget process proceeded during the year, or receipt of
the City Manager recommended budget, it automatically meant that would be the ultimate
final budget. As the year progressed and more information became available
from time to time, Councilmember Willmus noted that the council would then need
to make decisions reflective of that information.
McGehee stated that she was extremely happy to see this RCA and identification
of perceived issues from staff's perspective, opining that the process was not
bad but could always be improved. Councilmember McGehee opined that the budget
process still created big surprises in December, as well as not looking out
further ahead for maintenance costs impacted by decisions made in a given year.
This remains a concern to her when the City Council and public are not apprised
of that expense and the Council has not discussed it or taken into
consideration. Councilmember McGehee noted that there used to be much more
participation from the public at the Truth-in-Taxation hearings, with a core of
citizens who used to attend. Comment cards have been received, put not really
discussed by the Council.
Etten asked if staff had a proposed timeframe based on last year's process,
specifically times it made sense to step up public input.
Director Miller advised that the timeline would be developed based on the
results of this discussion and direction from the City Council to staff, and depending
on whether or not they wanted a deliberate step in the process to pause and
reflect on citizen input or rather incorporating it on their own throughout the
process. If intended as a deliberate step in advance of the City Manager recommended
budget, Mr. Miller noted that would dictate the timeline.
Roe suggested the need to make big decisions earlier in the process than done
in the past, specifically setting a preliminary not-to-exceed levy increase to
inform the City Manager recommended budget earlier in the process. As a key
point, Mayor Roe opined that once Ramsey County Assessor information on
property values and any shifts between residential and commercial, in
addition to other legislative impacts, had been received, that may prove a good
point to obtain public input to guide the City Manager recommended budget.
Mayor Roe stated that may answer several points: allowing people to know what
was coming, and to take a step to receive public input at that point and
respond accordingly. Mayor Roe noted that the next stages in the process would
then allow for a public explanation of what was included or not included in the
budget going forward and rationale for it. Mayor Roe opined that this earlier
input on larger budget items would allow for more specific targeted information
on those decisions throughout the process.
Willmus agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe. Specific to the budget response
cards, Councilmember Willmus stated his strong interest in maintaining that
one-on-one contact with his constituents and allowing for more detailed
subsequent conversations with those taxpayers choosing to participate in that
way. Councilmember Willmus stated that one thing he found missing since the
inception of the Finance Commission was not utilizing them for review of the
City Manager recommended budget annually before presentation to the City
Council. Councilmember Willmus opined that they should be given the opportunity,
with public comment at that level as well, to weigh in beyond use of reserves,
but looking at the big picture in addition to the capital improvement program
Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she found last year's process productive;
and suggested if there were additional or specific steps, that they be incorporated
into that process versus creating additional steps. Councilmember Laliberte
also spoke in support of continuing use of the cards, and welcomed specific
conversations about issues on the cards; in addition to independent feedback
received by individual council members beyond the cards. Councilmember
Laliberte suggested it would be nice for the Finance Commission to review the
annual process and make recommendations; agreeing that more ways were needed to
plug them into the process.
Etten clarified with Mayor Roe his apparent suggestion that the not-to-exceed
levy percentage be provided before and used to inform the City Manager
recommended budget (e.g. early spring).
Roe confirmed that as his intent, allowing the City Manager to present his
recommended budget and rationale as to whether or not the city was able to meet
that levy percentage based on other considerations, providing an opportunity
early in the process for the Council as a whole and staff to work out that levy
range, and possibly avoiding end-of-year percentage changes at the dais. Mayor
Roe stated that he was responsible for part of that, when his initial and
ongoing preferred levy percentage was less than presented in the City Manager
recommended budget. Mayor Roe stated that he should have provided that
information to the City Council and City Manager earlier in the process as a
starting point and to frame subsequent conversations.
to Councilmember Willmus' comments, Councilmember Etten asked if it was his
intent for the Finance Commission to review the City Manager recommended budget
and make recommendations for inclusion or omission of specific items.
Willmus clarified that he'd like them to have input on information or documents
they'd like to look at, as well as making a recommendation on the City Manager
Manager Trudgeon clarified that for the last two years, the Finance Commission
had received a copy of the City Manager recommended budget before presentation
to the City Council, allowing them to know the impact on the bigger picture,
but not coming forward with any recommendations as result of their review.
Roe suggested asking the Finance Commission for specific feedback to the City
Council on the City Manager recommended budget based on their review.
on his understanding of comments tonight, Councilmember Etten stated the intent
was for a not-to-exceed levy number earlier in the budget from individual
Councilmembers based on their comfort level versus jumping from a higher percentage
to a lower one later in the process. Councilmember Etten agreed it would be
more fruitful to precede the City Manager recommended budget with that information.
However, Councilmember Etten questioned the timing for that clarification, and
whether it may prove arbitrary.
Roe suggested a target that related to outside influences for that number (e.g.
inflationary, property values, etc.); and stated that he wouldn't classify it
as a "not-to-exceed" levy percent, but suggesting it may prove more
intellectually honest for the council to provide guidance as to the preferred
levy increase earlier in the process.
McGehee opined that with unknowns on the cost of supplies, materials and
equipment, it was absurd to presuppose what the budget may actually be.
However, if a majority of the City Council was already sure they weren't going
to support a levy number beyond a certain threshold, it took unnecessary time
and only created additional work for staff if the Council withheld that
information until late in the budget process.
McGehee opined that she didn't think the activities undertaken and the
discussions by the City Council at the December 5, 2016 meeting regarding the
2017 budget were transparent for the public or for some individual council
members. Rather than setting a not-to-exceed levy number, Councilmember
McGehee suggested using a similar process to that used for the CIP, i.e. as
those numbers became available, along with having the City Manager and staff
look out ahead with the Community Development Department and Economic
Development Authority for anticipated development or redevelopment activities
and to anticipate future and ongoing expenses. She noted as an example that
there was also no current program in place for the annual miles of pathway
created and for their ongoing maintenance and ultimate replacement. She
asserted that there was something wrong with how the inclusion of ongoing
maintenance, or lack thereof, functioned in the City Council budget process
Roe sought to clarify that it was not his recommendation to set a not-to-exceed
levy, but only to provide staff early in the process the Council's preferred
target for any levy increase. Mayor Roe further clarified that this was only
one component of the budget process, and didn't take into account staff's
perspective and internal information. By providing this information early in
consideration of potential impact on the taxpayer, Mayor Roe opined that it
would serve as an important piece to get the information on the table early in
the process. Mayor Roe reiterated that this was not intended to be the final
number, but if insight is available to provide at that time, it could serve the
overall process, including whether or not maintenance funds were being provided
for mileage of sidewalks.
Willmus stated his wholehearted agreement with Mayor Roe's approach. However,
Councilmember Willmus noted it could cut both ways, if the City Council felt
additional employees were needed in a given area, the City Manager needed to be
aware of that earlier versus later in the process. Regarding last year's
decision-making, and specific to use of reserve fund balance and the Finance
Commission's review of those reserves, Councilmember Willmus noted the jump in
some of those reserves later in the year, with projections actually received in
the meeting materials three days before the December 5, 2016 meeting on the
final budget. Councilmember Willmus noted that this created an obvious
difference in budget carryover funds and projections; and suggested research on
ways for the city to track those annually for better information. As alluded
to by Finance Director Miller in past discussions, Councilmember Willmus noted
his suggestion for creating a fund to track that annual carryover. Also,
Councilmember Willmus clarified that the notion by some of his Council
colleagues that utilizing prior year reserves needed to be paid back in
subsequent years was not accurate. If the Finance Commission weighs in
earlier, Councilmember Willmus agreed that the City Manager and his staff would
have a better indication of where individual council members were at in setting
the next year's levy, creating a better overall budget process.
Laliberte stated that she didn't make up her mind hard and fast on any of the
final budget components before making it known to the public. While not
minding including legislative and assessment impact information in the process,
Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that neither it nor a preliminary levy figure
would create a line in the sand for her but could allow a more honest way for
the City Manager and staff to work from. On that same token, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that the City Manager and staff needed to be aware of what
council members were saying. As an example, Councilmember Laliberte stated
that it shouldn't be a big surprise to hear her same comments year after year
that the City Manager recommended budget conform to the city's cost of living adjustment
(COLA) policy. While unsure if setting a particular levy number early in the
process, Councilmember Laliberte agreed it should be part of the conversation
to share those thoughts with each other and staff.
Roe noted that the flip side of the City Council providing levy feedback to
staff was getting that input from staff on cost impacts earlier in the process,
as part of Department Head review of what those projected impacts may big and
bigger issues to consider or be aware of. Mayor Roe stated that those things
could influence him on the final levy increase, including once the external
factors and tax impacts were available along with those internal factors for
costs and budget drivers without each department. Mayor Roe suggested that
would also be a good place for Finance Commission feedback before the City
Council makes that call for staff.
as to when that legislative information becomes available (e.g. June),
Councilmember Etten noted the impact that could have on the annual budget, but
not known before July. Given the proposed timeline, with that information available
then and the previous year's annual audit received in May, Councilmember Etten
suggested it may be appropriate to receive the City Manager recommended budget,
including non-tax revenue and CPI information, coming later in the overall
budget process. Councilmember Etten noted ongoing information that would
impact the overall budget and levy, and significantly reduce or increase the
levy. While liking the current process, Councilmember Etten recognized the
need to continue looking at the budget process as openly as possible.
McGehee stated her agreement with Councilmember Etten, noting that she was
supportive of massive amounts of information being provided throughout the
process, opining that the more available and as soon as possible, the better
(e.g. anticipated or known property acquisitions or developments).
Councilmember McGehee noted the importance of the CIP to her personally; and
while it was being received somewhat earlier, she was getting the impression
that staff wanted council members to weigh in earlier, which she was happy to
do. However, Councilmember McGehee agreed with that but also noted that
council members needed as much information as they could get beyond legislative
input (e.g. property tax appeals). She opined that Council members also needed
to be honest early on in the process and as additional information became
available noting when some information may have changed the individual or
to timing and in lieu of Councilmember Etten's comments, Mayor Roe noted that
the City Council was pushing the process toward the second half of the year to
receive information but it wasn't fair to expect the City Manager recommended
budget in that same timeframe. Mayor Roe asked if there was a safety valve
somewhere in the process to push out the City Manager recommended budget,
especially since the preliminary levy wasn't due until the end of September
now, making him question if a shift was needed in receipt of that preliminary
budget information. If information was available earlier in the year, Mayor
Roe suggested that the information be provided then, but suggested the City
Council commit to a July timeframe to provide feedback to staff on the cost and
levy side, still allowing the City Manager time to develop his recommended
budget. Mayor Roe stated that under that scenario, he didn't know how or when
the Finance Commission got involved, but suggested joint information could be
provided both bodies at the same time.
Willmus stated that he wouldn't disagree, but his only concern was keeping the
Finance Commission involved throughout; and stated that he had no problem
receiving the City Manager recommended budget later in the process.
reviewing the 2016 budget process, Councilmember Etten noted receipt of the
City Manager recommended budget mid-July; a joint meeting by the City Council
and Finance Commission, followed by setting the Preliminary Budget. Given that
short timeframe, Councilmember Etten questioned how much flexibility was
available to facilitate Finance Commission and public comment opportunities.
Roe suggested directing staff to revise the schedule based on tonight's discussion
for review and approval by the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
Manager Trudgeon advised that this was good direction and had been talked about
by staff internally.
Roe stated the desire to be fair to the City Manager for providing his recommendations
specific to the budget, while allowing the public time to review and digest the
budget, acknowledging that final decisions were not made in September.
to the original message, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the budget cards
could easily be done early on in the process, since they weren't dependent on
legislative actions or cost estimates. By frontloading that component, Councilmember
Laliberte noted it allowed for more flexibility with the remaining budget
Roe agreed with that concept; along with synthesis and summary reporting on that
information; with public comment heard in work session format without specific
budget action items on that agenda.
McGehee suggested incorporating budget comments as part of comprehensive plan
update kick-off activities, perhaps with the Finance Commission available to
distribute budget comment cards with a dashboard of the 2017 budget to obtain
to forecasting operational needs, Councilmember Etten agreed that those areas
with concrete information (e.g. union contracts, insurance, etc.) be articulated
her perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated the most important component for
her was service levels or impacts to ongoing maintenance, with multi-year
budgetary impacts tied to projects or decisions in any given year. Councilmember
McGehee asked that additional information be provided on as much of a factual
basis as possible as part of the package when making budget decisions and
involving everything from projects or operations.
Etten spoke in support of staff's suggestions, allowing the public to be more
aware of budget impacts throughout the year, including laying out that
information in the City News newsletter if available.
Roe stated that he was definitely supportive of a unified budget track, and its
availability on the city's website and its status. As discussed related to
land use processes, Mayor Roe suggested that good information and budget
reports made available to the City Council be included on the budget web page
for public access at any time as well. Mayor Roe noted his preference for graphical
presentations whenever possible, changing bar graphs and categories accordingly
and beyond one pie chart, including gross numbers and percentages of budget at
any given time and how those things are related. Mayor Roe noted that there
were different ways available to present the same message depending on the
audience, but building on the dashboard information as suggested by
Councilmember McGehee. Mayor Roe opined that the city was getting closer to
what was needed, but that it still required some tweaking.
agreeing with unified budget tracking but recognizing that information remained
ever-changing, Councilmember Willmus opined that regardless of whether or not a
not-to-exceed decision and date was accomplished, he found it disingenuous to
not acknowledge for the public that there may be changes to that number.
Specific to the CIP, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council needed
to be more proactive in reviewing and prioritizing CIP needs on an ongoing
basis and be more involved in in-depth conversations at the Department Head
level and obtain their feedback along the way. Given the substantial dollars
involved that may need reallocation, Councilmember Willmus opined that was a
conversation still lacking.
Roe suggested the CIP discussion was needed earlier in the process before the
budget was set and in advance of 2018 and onward discussions and potential
shift of one need before another. Mayor Roe suggested that may involve department
by department cost impacts received earlier in the year, and how they informed
the broader CIP, without approving the formal CIP at that early stage.
Willmus stated that he would support that concept.
McGehee referenced her personal discussions with Public Works Director Marc
Culver on the 2017 Public Works Work Plan approved earlier on tonight's consent
agenda. As done with city streets, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in
a similar map for pathways showing what had been accomplished to-date and
identifying missing connections, and where the city was at in the process of
updating or replacing infrastructure, including water and sewer projects.
Councilmember McGehee noted that, according to staff, most of that information
was readily available through the asset management program, and suggested
having the availability of such a map when these discussions come up as part of
the budget process. Councilmember McGehee recognized that water main breaks
and other operational issues would obviously be needed and would possibly alter
the schedules and plans. However she spoke in favor of having more overall
maps and plans and noted the advantage of having this information available,
especially with pathways given community interest in that amenity. She further
opined that she understood that $5,000.00 should be set aside annually for
every new mile of pathways for maintenance and ultimate reconstruction. She
was not sure that was even currently in the CIP and wondered if things were
updated every time more pathways and trails were added.
addition, Mayor Roe suggested a need to identify detailed Sewer and Water CIP
assets for each budget cycle beyond the dollar amount, but actual projects,
similar to that provided for parks and recreation assets via a spreadsheet
identifying specific projects adding up to that dollar amount. Mayor Roe
suggested that become part of the annual CIP report.
McGehee expressed her personal interest in seeing more graphically on a city
map where and when one particular area was completed, allowing the city to move
forward and staying on track.
Manager Trudgeon responded that staff has that information available and
frequently reviews it internally specific to CIP needs; but recognized the City
Council's request for a broader discussion to obtain more input and
justification on a project by project basis. In addition, Mr. Trudgeon noted
inclusion of the PPP City Council priorities and operational priorities from
staff's perspective. By having those vetted out earlier in the year, Mr.
Trudgeon opined that the budget process could move forward to identify those
things doable and those not, effectively informing the collective picture and
to make an informed decision.
Discussion of City Council and Advisory Commission Rules of
Manager Trudgeon noted the redlined copy (Attachment A) of suggested changes to
the City Council Rules of Procedure, including Advisory Commissions in this
and changes recommended during the discussion included:
§ Revising language at
the top of the last page specific to formation of a task force or subcommittee
from "shall" to "may;"
§ Revising language in
that same paragraph to state "City Council majority" rather than "full City
§ Verifying that the
most recently revised Uniform Commission Ordinance clarifies that advisory
commissions need permission from the City Council to create any task forces
from the broader community to allow the City Council to retain oversight of
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of Council Rules of Procedures (Attachment B) as
amended to lines 34 and 35 of the last page.
Mayor Roe called
to attention the ability to reduce public speaker comment time to three minutes
subject to appeal of that ruling of the chair by a majority of the City Council
if longer time limits were requested.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 8:58 p.m. and convening
in Closed Executive Session, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes
Chapter 13.D and exceptions to Open Meeting Laws, for the purpose of discussing
consideration of developing an offer on properties located at 2719 Lexington
Avenue and 1145 Woodhill Drive.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe convened the City
Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 9:02 p.m.
In addition to the
Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan and Chris Miller,
Finance Director were also present.
At approximately 9:31p.m., Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and reconvening
in Open Session.
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:32 p.m.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.