View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 13, 2012
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order: Pust; Johnson: Willmus; McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 6:04 pm.
Closed Executive Session – Bonds Potential Litigation
In accordance with State Statute, Chapter 13.d., Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would move to Closed Executive Session to discuss an attorney/client privilege matter regarding potential litigation regarding the recent bond issue.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, moved recessing the regular meeting and moving into Closed Executive Session at 6:04 pm.
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Mayor Roe convened the city council in closed executive session at approximately 6:05 pm. In addition to the city council members, others present during the closed session were City Attorney Mark Gaughan, Attorney Scott Knudson of Briggs and Morgan (the City’s bond counsel), City Manager Bill Malinen, and Finance Director Chris Miller.
Ayes: Pust, Johnson, Willmus, McGehee, Roe
Mayor Roe reconvened the meeting in regular session at 6:40 pm.
Mayor Roe thanked the audience for their patience; welcomed those present; and noted for the roll, that all Councilmembers remained present, along with City Attorney Mark Gaughan.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Adopt Meeting Notes as Meeting Minutes from June 26, 2012 joint School Board/ Council meeting.
Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Items 7.e and 7.i respectively entitled, “Authorize City Manager to Act on Behalf of the City in Signing the Petition to Vacate Public Roadway Interest in the ‘disposal area’ of the Twin Lakes 2nd Addition Plat;” and “Award Bid for Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements Project.”
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, the agenda as amended.
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe reminded Roseville residents of the Municipal Primary Election on Tuesday, August 14, 2012; and announced a Special Meeting of the City Council at 12:00 Noon on Friday, August 17, 2012 to canvass the Municipal Election results.
Councilmember Johnson noted his recent attendance at the Central Park Foundation fundraiser, held at Central Park this year rather than the OVAL, opining that it was an excellent event and was attended by a younger segment of the community, exposing that generation to the amenities of the park. Councilmember Johnson congratulated the Foundation on the events and activities and on the success of the day.
Mayor Roe, on a note of personal privilege, apologized to Councilmember Johnson for a remark made during discussions at the July 16 council meeting. Councilmember Johnson accepted the apology.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Proclaim September 28, 2012 Golden K. Kiwanis Peanut Day
Mayor Roe read the Proclamation for Golden K. Kiwanis Peanut Day on September 28, 2012 in Roseville.
Current Golden K. President Lamar Zolinger; and Club Member Howard Rines were in attendance representing the Club and distributing peanuts in advance of this fundraiser scheduled for September 28, 2012.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming September 28, 2012 as Roseville Golden K. Kiwanis Peanut Day as a day set aside in Roseville for distribution of peanuts as a fundraising effort to support the many and varied community youth programs of the Golden K. Kiwanis Club.
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
a. Approve Minutes of July 16, 2012 Meeting
· Page 1, line 35, Public Comment (Roe)
Mayor Roe suggested that comments made by City Councilmembers regarding previous a Wal-Mart action should be moved under Section 4 entitled “Council Communications, Reports and Announcements.”
· Page 21, lines 26 and 27 (Roe)
Mayor Roe noted several typographical errors in this section related to ordinance adoption in the Brewery/Taproom Category.
· Pages 45-46, (Roe)
Mayor Roe verified with Councilmembers that various bench handouts were intended to be included as part of the record through their attachment to the minutes; with Councilmembers offering no alternative approach.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 16, 2012 meeting as amended.
b. Approve Minutes of July 23, 2012 Meeting
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2012 meeting as presented.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
66998 – 67194
b. Approve Business and Other Licenses
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:
Type of License
Ashley Johnson at Rocco Altobelli; 10 Rosedale Center, Suite 945
Heather Marnell at Body Flow Massage; 2819 Hamline Avenue N; Suite 112
Erica Pointer Kobett at Mind, Body & Soul Wellness; 2201 Lexington Avenue N; Suite 103
Min Lin Yan, Yang Sun, He Sun at Massage Therapy Land; 412 Rosedale Center
Lucia Berocay at Colleen & Company; 3092 Lexington Avenue N
Massage Therapy Land; 412 Rosedale Center
Family Dollar, Inc.; 1692 Lexington Avenue
North Suburban Youth Foundation; 3250 Rice Street
September 16, 2012; Radisson Inn; 2540 N Cleveland Avenue
c. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed and Authorize Final Payment on the County Road C Streetscape Improvements
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10996 (Attachment A) entitled “Final Contract Acceptance County Road C Streetscape Project;” accepting the work completed and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $50,640.21.
d. Set Public Hearing to Solicit Comment on the 2013 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax Levy
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, scheduling a Public Hearing for August 27, 2012 to receive public comment on the 2013 City Manager Recommended Budget.
g. Approve Contract with Ramsey County to Administer City Elections
On page two (2) of the Agreement, Councilmember Pust noted the bullet point duty that Ramsey County would be “administering campaign financial reporting and economic disclosure activities;” and noted that while Ramsey County election staff would be doing so under State law, expressed concern that those items specifically addressed under the City of Roseville’s Ordinance and specific City Clerk responsibilities for monitoring and enforcing campaign finance reporting would be followed. Councilmember Pust noted that there are certain areas for notification, monitoring and enforcement that may get lost between the City and County functions.
As an alternative, Councilmember Pust suggested addition of a new bullet under Section 4 of the Agreement as follows:
“4. City Responsibilities: The City will perform the following election-related responsibilities:… Administer Roseville Ordinance 102.015 relevant to campaign finance reporting.”
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of an agreement between Ramsey County and the City of Roseville for Election Services for 2013 – 2016 (Attachment A); and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents; amended to include an additional bullet point under Section 4 of the Agreement related to City Responsibilities as follows:
4. City Responsibilities: The City will perform the following election-related responsibilities:…
· “Administer Roseville Ordinance 102.015 relevant to campaign finance reporting.”
h. Declare Costs for Projects to be Assessed in 2012 and Ordering Preparation of Assessment Rolls
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10997 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Relating to Improvements P-ST-SW-11-02 Dale Street Reconstruction Project Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll.”
i. Authorize Joint Fuel Purchase for City Fleet
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of participation in joint purchase of fleet fuel for 2013 as part of the State of Minnesota contract.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
e. Authorize City Manager to Act on Behalf of the City in Signing the Petition to Vacate Public Roadway Interest in the “disposal area” of the Twin Lakes 2nd Addition Plat
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 13, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the drawings included in the packet uninformative and questioned why this was coming up now and hadn’t been handled earlier with other Wal-Mart approvals. Councilmember McGehee further requested a clarified location of where exactly this vacated area was on a map.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Planner Thomas Paschke displayed a more detailed map providing additional clarification, consisting of a vacation sketch for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on this former easement held by the City; vacated land holding no interest by the City, and this process to formally vacate the land as part of recording of the Final Plat. Mr. Paschke advised that, because the City of Roseville is an adjoining property owner, it was required to sign on to the petition vacating interest in both properties.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the City Manager to act on behalf of the City in signing the petition to vacate public roadway interest in the “disposal area” of the Twin Lakes 2nd Addition Plat.
f. Adopt Meeting Notes as Meeting Minutes from June 26, 2012 Joint School Board/Council Meeting
Councilmember Willmus advised that when he had originally presented this request, his intent was for actual meeting minutes of the joint meeting; and anticipated that a DVD would be provided to the City for transcription purposes. Councilmember Willmus noted that the notes included in the meeting packet for approval were actually listings from the flip charts during those joint discussions; but he would prefer something more in-depth similar to City Council meeting minutes.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she was still awaiting a copy of the DVD for her review, as she was unable to attend that joint meeting.
Mayor Roe apologized for this omission, and advised a DVD would be provided at staff’s earliest convenience.
Councilmember Johnson supported Councilmember Willmus’ request.
Mayor Roe suggested action be tabled until those more detailed meeting minutes could be provided for City Council approval.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING any action on meeting minutes from the June 26, 2012 Joint School Board/City Council meeting until they are provided in the requested format.
i. Award Bid for Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements Project
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated August 13, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee questioned where this pond would be located, and whether it would include runoff from the Corpus Christi property.
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that this particular pond would be located directly west of the Skillman Avenue cul-de-sac intercepting draining currently going into those back yards of the northern row of homes, and causing the damage. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was still working with Corpus Christi on their adjacent drainage issues, and while this project would improve overall drainage in the area, it did not include the Corpus Christi property, with some of the required easement negotiations still pending.
Public Works Director Schwartz highlighted staff’s recommendation that the low bid not be awarded, since staff’s review found that it didn’t conform with all city specifications; thus staff’s recommendation to award the bid to the second lowest bidder, G. F. Jedlicki, Inc.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, rejection of the lowest bid from Valley Paving, Inc, and adopt Resolution No. 10998 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Skillman Avenue Drainage Improvements Project;” in the amount of $82,211.00 to G. F. Jedlicki, Inc.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:12 pm and reconvened at approximately 7:20 pm.
12. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Receive CTV Presentation – Franchise Status
Mayor Roe introduced CTV and North Suburban Cable Commission Executive Director Ms. Coralie Wilson.
Ms. Wilson reviewed the two (2) processes under Federal Law for franchise agreement renewals: one (1) involving informal negotiations, currently underway; and the other a more formal administrative legal process, which could be invoked by either the cable operators (e.g. Comcast) or the commission (on behalf of the member cities) during the renewal process.
Ms. Wilson advised that the Commission had hired two (2) consultants over the last year to compile information in case such a formal administrative process was indicated during negotiations: an Infrastructure Audit and a Needs Ascertainment Study. Ms. Wilson advised that executive summaries of both of those studies were now available on the CTV website.
Ms. Wilson noted that during the Audit, over three hundred (300) code violations were found throughout the ten (10) member cities; including technical issues on the Roseville Channel. Ms. Wilson noted that a letter had been sent to Comcast to determine their intent in correcting these violations, to which Comcast had responded last week, including their admission that their personal audit had found another two hundred (200) code violations as they reviewed each site. Ms. Wilson advised that Comcast was currently in the process of resolving those violations.
Ms. Wilson advised that during the Needs Ascertainment Study, addressing future needs of the system, respondents expressed their concerns about the system’s technical capability and quality, indicating that high-definition production was needed as part of the long-term equipment replacement. As part of the fee audit, Ms. Wilson reviewed some issues regarding how Comcast accounted for their advertising revenue and how that revenue was allocated for subscribers taking “double” and “triple” play; with Comcast unable to provide formulas for those allocations, creating an impasse of the parties.
In conclusion, Ms. Wilson noted that CTV had just celebrated their first anniversary in their new facility; and the new space was working out well, and invited Councilmembers and the public to tour the facility. Ms. Wilson highlighted their youth media program and collaborative programming for youth with the Roseville branch of the Ramsey County Library.
As part of diversifying funding sources, Ms. Wilson advised that a Strategic Planning Study Group had been created, of which Mayor Roe was a part. Ms. Wilson noted several awards won by CTV again this year; and their preparation for annual election coverage.
Mayor Roe pointed out that City Manager Malinen was also serving on the Franchise Renewal Advisory Group, and that the franchise expiration was in October or November of 2013.
Ms. Wilson noted that the existing franchise could be extended if negotiations were not finalized by then; and further noted that it was quite typical that they were not completed on time. Ms. Wilson, noting that the current franchise was very good, opined that extending that franchise agreement would not be a bad thing for member cities.
Discussion included current Roseville equipment versus what was needed to enhance production and broadcast and affiliated costs for funding the public education/government (PEG) access fee, currently at $3.49 per month per subscriber and the need to avoid overburdening subscribers while sustaining operations. Ms. Wilson noted the related work in diversifying funding sources and not simply relying on cable franchise fees to address those future equipment and operating needs.
Further discussion included documents available on the CTV website and those not yet available for public dissemination during the negotiation process; percentage of gross revenues of Comcast accounting for the franchise fee cable allotment for regulatory activities and individual member city’s communications related activities; and changes in the ownership and operations of the cable company over the years. Ms. Wilson reviewed some of the options to ensure that the cable operation is supported for basic funding, while at the same time protecting subscribers from significant increases.
Additional discussion included the Commission’s representation of member cities and the City Council representation of its citizenry; recent surveys and needs ascertainment including various focus groups throughout the ten (10) member cities to consider the overall communication needs of those communities; ability for member cities to deny a franchise if the provider seemed unresponsive during negotiations; and regular meetings among the ten (10) member cities to ensure the commission is meeting their needs and adequately negotiating on their behalf with Comcast.
Discussion ensued regarding identifying code violations and assurances that Comcast would be monitored to ensure they made necessary corrections to address those violations; the commission performing a follow-up audit in the near future to ensure corrections are made and to address how such violations are handled in the future; coordination with the City’s code enforcement staff in ensuring compliance.
Member Willmus noted the complaints he fields from residents not having cable and their confusion and/or inability to obtain the Universal Access Service required of Comcast to provide. Councilmember Willmus noted a frequent complaint is in their interaction with Comcast personnel apparently unwilling to cooperate in them receiving this cable access.
Ms. Wilson stated for Councilmembers and residents that, if they experienced such a problem, to contact her directly and she would intercede for them. Ms. Wilson noted that, unless she was aware of the problem, she could not make sure it was fixed.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Wilson advised that she could review numbers of those not currently receiving Universal Access Service as determined during their recent survey, and would provide the information to City Manager Malinen to forward to the City Council.
Further discussion included how the City could validate the amount of money or services the City was receiving as part of the franchise fee; and how to ensure the provider was being forthcoming rather than evasive. Ms. Wilson noted that as part of last year’s audit, the auditor used had previously worked for Comcast in their compliance audit area and was familiar with their internal operations. Ms. Wilson noted that discrepancies were found, and noted this provided a challenge for cities and the commission in determining how often a franchise fee audit was done, since they were expensive to perform.
Councilmember Johnson personally encouraged the commission, from a business standpoint and with the City as a customer, to continue frequent audits. Councilmember Johnson noted that, when he hears about books not being able to withstand formal review, it may be time to look for alternatives and not support that particular firm. Councilmember Johnson opined that it behooved a firm to keep their books accurate and accessible.
Ms. Wilson advised that the commission is hoping to perform more frequent audits to ensure compliance; and even though they are expensive, they should be part of the commission’s due diligence; and done at a minimum of every 2-3 years.
Mayor Roe, in conclusion, noted that the commission had two (2) functions: the regulatory function, and community/media/television access channel, funded by the “PEG” fees, requiring strategic planning and alternative funding development to preserve that service among the ten (10) communities.
Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Wilson for her update; and asked that, if citizens are interest in more information or clarification, they contact Ms. Wilson at the commission.
b. Joint Meeting with Human Rights Commission (HRC)
Members of the Commission present included: Chair Gary Grefenberg; Vice Chair David Singleton; and Commissioners Jill Brisbois; Kristin Doneen; Wayne Groff; Kaying Thao and Youth Commissioners: Joan Dao; Marie Siliciano.
Chair Grefenberg reviewed the RCA dated August 13, 2012, detailing the current activities of the HRC, its accomplishments since their last report to the City Council; their work plan for the remainder o the year; and their discussion points and questions of the City Council for tonight’s meeting.
Chair Grefenberg noted that the Civic Engagement Task Force was finalizing their report to the City Council, anticipated for presentation later this fall. One of the areas found by the Task Force was the lack of representation or involvement in community activism by the 32% population of renters in Roseville.
Youth Commissioner Dao reported on youth activities, importance of issues for upcoming elections in Roseville, and the upcoming voter referendum issues.
While Councilmember Willmus recognized the various accomplishments of the HRC, he noted that one under-represented group in the community was receiving significant attention, but questioned what the HRC was doing to expand and foster relationships among other under-represented or marginalized groups in the community (e.g. Karen community and ELL families in the School District).
Member Thao noted that those groups had been on the HRC’s list for a long time; however, she noted how time consuming the constitutional amendments had been for the group’s time and energy; not allowing time to revisit other “wish list” items.
Member Groff noted that there was not as much work done to-date with these groups as he would like, and while he had achieved nice interaction with Karen representatives on a personal level, specifically from his work with them as a former resident and HRC Commissioner in Falcon Heights, it took time to build those relationships over a period of three (3) to five (5) years, and was in the Roseville HRC’s plans.
Chair Grefenberg admitted that the HRC realized that they hadn’t done enough; however, he noted that the HRC had limited staff support, as well as limited personal time and energy to accomplish everything. Chair Grefenberg noted that, once elections were over, their focus could be adjusted to those other areas brought forward.
Member Doneen noted that, while the HRC may have program parameters, part of the civic engagement process was to encourage participation among the community and encourage conversations without the support or prompting of the HRC as an organization.
Mayor Roe noted that the youth commissioners were taking a step in the right direction, and provided a great starting point.
Councilmember McGehee suggested interest groups partnering with leaders of these ethnic groups with the City through hosting celebrations to celebrate and showcase their diversity. Councilmember McGehee opined that the HRC could serve as the initial contact to find leaders, with the City then participating and/or facilitating such celebrations and making funding and resources available to them.
Councilmember Willmus noted that this topic was briefly touched upon at the joint School District No. 623/City Council meeting.
Member Thao noted that this had been spoken of previously, but had yet to happen.
Chair Grefenberg noted the need for the HRC to prioritize its focus points; and spoke in support of the HRC laying the groundwork with organization being up to the City or HRA. As an example, Chair Grefenberg suggested that the City Council or HRC hold a regular meeting at another site (e.g. Sienna Green Apartments) to encourage more interaction and involvement. As part of that consideration, Chair Grefenberg noted that Vice Chair Singleton had begun the process of reviewing the HRC’s by-laws and requirements of the body in compliance with City Ordinance, as well as addressing open meeting laws.
Vice Chair Singleton noted that the current HRC by-laws, without revision since 1985, were found to be vague; and not in line with the current and increased charge by the City Council to the HRC. Vice Chair Singleton noted that, due to the Commission’s work load, it had been operating under a committee structure, with the full HRC referring other matters to committees for advice and review, and serving as an executive committee, as a standing or operations committee. Vice Chair Singleton advised that a final draft of the revised by-laws would be ready for review by the full HRC at their September monthly meeting, and then forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
Chair Grefenberg advised that, once the HRC reviews this draft of the by-laws they would want to meet with City staff and receive input from the City Council, since they didn’t want to do a lot of additional work if the City Council would radically revise them; and opined that through working with the City Manager, the HRC should get a better sense of where they were in agreement, and further fine-tuning was needed or revisions to the City Ordinance, originally written in 1968 and last revised in 1975; and needing to address the duties of the Civic Engagement Task Force.
Chair Grefenberg advised that the HRC had been approached by outside groups suggesting that the City was not responsive enough, specifically a recent incident with the City’s Police Department and its SWAT Team. Chair Grefenberg opined that it would be helpful to the HRC to get guidance from the City Council on its role and to get some sense on specific issues. In the Police Department issue, Chair Grefenberg advised that the HRC waited until the regular processes had been followed; however, he was aware that there were some lingering concerns in the community that should be addressed without the HRC becoming an overseer of the Police Department. Chair Grefenberg opined that this had been a problem in the past, and questioned the preference of the City Council in whether the HRC should provide a forum for citizens of if they should go through the City Council process.
Member Thao noted that, from her understanding, the SWAT Team issue involved someone with special needs, not just the police process itself; and suggested a need to address how to handle mental health issues in those circumstances.
Councilmember Pust concurred that this was exactly the issue. Councilmember Pust expressed her appreciation for the work the HRC had done to-date; and expressed her advocacy to think about diversity broadly, including abilities and disabilities across the entire age demographic. Councilmember Pust clarified that this was in no way a reflection on the Police Department doing things differently; however, she noted that they admitted and were pursuing more training in similar situations. Councilmember Pust opined that it would be an appropriate role for the HRC to be involved in such a process if they were aware of resources; and offered her personal partnership to the HRC in such future endeavors.
Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to partner with any and all City departments where they could make connections; noting that the City’s Fire and Police Departments are already doing a lot of outreach that may be available for the HRC to tie into. Mayor Roe noted that HRC facilitating relationship-building among various interest groups was a great idea; and if adding cultural events and activities to the annual Rosefest festivities was possible, the more connections the better for everyone.
In noting different abilities, Councilmember McGehee opined that all are not noticeable.
Councilmember Johnson opined that the parameters and responsibilities alluded to by Councilmember Pust were good. Councilmember Johnson noted that the Police Department had already made adjustments on how to handle similar situations in the future; and only if the HRC observed that those adjustments were not happening would it be their role to step in.
Vice Chair Singleton noted that issues with the Police Department and the HRC had occurred several years ago, and opined that the HRC currently had a good rapport with all City departments and staff.
Councilmember Johnson concurred, noting that different leadership styles were currently in place.
In addressing Chair Grefenberg’s concerns with the lack of staff support available, Councilmember Willmus questioned the number of subgroups currently operating under the HRC umbrella.
Chair Grefenberg advised that there were currently four (4) standing committees of three (3) or fewer members (plus staff) of the HRC to avoid conflicts with the Open Meeting Law; and if additional members were involved, the HRC posted the meeting. Standing committees included: Program Planning Committee; Advisory Committee with students and others interested in minority issues; Outreach Committee with other communities; and the Civic Engagement Task Force. Chair Grefenberg noted that, the current meeting schedule of the Civic Engagement Task Force in the evening, even though staff support was not available, had allowed younger families to participate in that process.
Councilmember Willmus questioned if those individual subcommittees needed to remain focused on one area, or if their functions could merge in the future. Councilmember Willmus further questioned if Chair Grefenberg saw the Civic Engagement Task force sunsetting as most task forces did, or if he was it as an ongoing Advisory Commission moving forward.
With regard to the task force, Chair Grefenberg noted that the HRC had outlined some issues needing more attention moving forward, especially in the marginalized and minority communities; and advised that the draft report coming forward in the near future recommended an ongoing role for those Civic Engagement efforts, while not addressing what form it may take, whether a separate Commission or a subcommittee of the HRC. Chair Grefenberg noted that the Task force had consumed a fair amount of time, but expressed his appreciation of the creative contributions and civic activists already in place, as well as involvement of new people throughout the community in this dynamic group. Chair Grefenberg noted that there was significant interest from those citizens in continuing to play a role; however, without more staff support he wasn’t sure that was possible.
Councilmember Willmus suggested that a potential benefit of streamlining subcommittees would be the availability of more staff support.
Member Doneen opined that once the by-laws were completed, there would be more time to focus on the role of the Civic Engagement Task Force and how it could be structured. However, Member Doneen opined that the other three (3) subcommittees were really separate functions and she didn’t seem them being successful if merged.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus and whether some of those items could be handled by the full HRC, Chair Grefenberg opined that they could be. Chair Grefenberg opined that there was considerable autonomy in the past with various groups, but now things were being funneled back for group decisions rather than advocating for one special issue; with staff having made it very clear that all major decisions were made by the full HRC, with logistical details done at the subcommittee level and those recommendations brought to the full HRC for decision-making.
Regarding completion of the final Civic Engagement Task Force report, Councilmember Johnson – noting his short tenure remaining on the City Council – asked that the report be provided with sufficient time for the sitting City Council to digest it and allow another meeting with the Task Force before year-end in order to provide guidance and spur on a great conversation. Councilmember Johnson expressed his interest in seeing this endeavor through, while on a realistic timeframe.
Chair Grefenberg distributed a bench handout, providing a draft of the Civic Engagement Task Force’s final recommendations, approved by the HRC at their meeting last week; and anticipating submission of the formal document to the City Council by September 1, 2012, if not before.
Mayor Roe reviewed a reasonable time-frame for presentation to the City Council by mid-September, allowing for City Council review and input.
Councilmember Johnson noted that the City Council would need to address any budgetary issues with the 2013 budget now in process as well.
Chair Grefenberg, with respect to budgetary needs, opined that having someone available to take meeting minutes again would be of great benefit to the HRC, whether at their meetings or for any public hearings they may hold to provide an accurate record. Various options were discussed for meeting minutes, staff liaison availability, administrative functions for room reservations and other functions currently being addressed by the HRC Chair.
Mayor Roe noted the need for the HRC to make the City Council aware of their needs in order for them to take those needs into consideration with staffing and budgeting decisions currently in process.
Councilmember McGehee asked that the HRC and staff provide additional information on daytime volunteer issues, site licensing for recording software for subgroup meetings as well as the HRC.
Councilmember Willmus asked that the HRC consider rescheduling their annual student essay reception to allow City Councilmembers to attend, perhaps as a pre-meeting reception.
Chair Grefenberg noted that the HRC’s youth commissioners had developed a list of potential topics to submit to the State League of Human Rights, with one chosen for next year’s essay topic.
Mayor Roe congratulated the youth commissioners, and thanked them for raising awareness of the work of the Roseville HRC.
Chair Grefenberg noted that the terms of the current youth commissioners ended at the end of the month; and asked that the City Council consider their reappointment. Chair Grefenberg noted that there were three (3) youth commissioners, but that the third commissioner was leaving for college and would no longer be able to serve; but expressed the HRC’s preference to only advertise one (1) vacancy, not all three (3) to allow the current youth commissioners to continue their work with the HRC.
Mayor Roe noted that a youth commissioner could serve until age 21; and suggested that the HRC reach out to the Mounds View School District as well.
Mayor Roe thanked HRC Commissioners for their attendance and update.
c. Receive 2013 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax Levy
City Manager Malinen provided a brief overview of the City’s biennial budget in conjunction with the performance management program, and strategic planning processes, as detailed in the RCA dated August 13, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee clarified her calculations that the proposed 2013 Budget represented a 14.8% increase over the 2012 budget, excluding the HRC anticipated budget increase of between $7,000 and $8,000; and if added together, would be an increased tax burden for taxpayers, in addition to the second year of fees as well. Councilmember McGehee opined that this would be an increase of $15.69 per month for an average home valued at $190,000, or $188 annually, in addition to the projected HRA levy of 2.3%, or a $206.00 increase over the current tax
Finance Director Chris Miller stated that Councilmember McGehee’s calculations were consistent with his projections as well.
Councilmember Johnson, specifically addressing General Fund increases, noted there were also increases in the programs and maintenance for the Parks and Recreation Department, with those three (3) alone representing a 10.1% increase.
Mayor Roe clarified that the General Fund increases included at least $285,000 programmed in the 2012/2013 budget, with the other $213,000 difference detailed on page two (2) of the RCA. Mayor Roe noted that the Parks and Recreation Program increases were those previously approved.
Councilmember Willmus clarified that the net number for the HRA, in relation to previous years, was $400,000.
City Manager Malinen addressed the RCA, lines 44-48, where the total adjustments for the 2013 Property Tax-Supported Program Budget were $201,720, bringing the combined total to $557,641, representing an increase of 4.6% over the 2012 Budget, with a corresponding increase in the tax levy and $20,000 from reserves. On page 3 of the RCA, Mr. Malinen referred Councilmembers to the related breakdown and comparisons to 2012, and corresponding to those comments on page 2.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller addressed the debt service for the current bond issue, and those proposed in the future, with an anticipated additional cost to taxpayers of $2.50 per month, or $52.00 annually.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller further addressed structural deficits in the City’s asset funding mechanisms still to be addressed, including funding gaps for facilities, informational systems, streets, pathways, parking lots, and park improvements not addressed through the bond issues.
Councilmember McGehee opined that, with remaining capital improvements yet to address, this was a fairly hefty recommended budget and increased tax burden on citizens.
Mayor Roe asked that future budget documents include information fund by fund, similar to program schedules provided at the end of 2011, and as itemized on page 3 of this RCA; and allowing for that information to be part of the discussion going forward. Mayor Roe further suggested that the 2012/2013 budget schedules be provided as ongoing attachments to avoid additional copying costs at each meeting.
Councilmember Willmus asked that these documents, and those referenced, by put online for the public to make the linkage, not only as a dedicated page on the website, but to include that material as part of the public agenda packets online.
Mayor Roe asked that the 2013 column be split to provide an “approved” and “current recommended” category.
City Manager Malinen duly noted these requests.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:00 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:05 pm.
14. Public Hearings
a. Pour Decisions Liquor On-Sale and Off-Sale Licenses
Finance Director Chris Miller briefly noted the purpose of the public hearing for an On-Sale and Sunday Brewer Taproom License and an Off-Sale Brewery License for Pour Decisions Brewery and their operation at 1744 Terrace Drive.
Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:07 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against.
15. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Pour Decisions Liquor ON-Sale and Off-Sale Licenses
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Pour Decision Brewery’s request for an On-Sale and Sunday Brewer Taproom License and Off-Sale Brewery Liquor License; located at 1744 Terrace Drive.
Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus opined that this issue and request had been well-represented and provided for great conversations; and could see no overwhelming reason not to move this forward, opining that it could prove beneficial for the Roseville business community.
b. Award Bids – Fire Station
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill and representatives of the Project Planning Team presented the four sections for City Council review and approval related to the Fire Station Project and award of remaining bid contracts, as detailed in the RCA dated August 13, 2012.
The presentation included costs for the Fire Station as designed; unanticipated project costs due to the Fire Station portion of bond litigation and attorney fees ($194,236); additional project delay costs due to the litigation, including professional services, supplies and material costs, architectural and construction management team costs, heating and enclosure for late-start construction, and rebidding the earthwork contract (estimated at $425,072 depending on the upcoming winter weather conditions). Also included in the presentation and discussion were the options for geothermal costs, including:
· Option #1 – full distance piping using 8” pipe with stubs for future connections to the utility garage and city hall: $393,600
· Option #2 – full distance piping using 4” pipe and eliminate all stubs and 8” piping for future use: savings $94,000
Chief O’Neill noted that project costs with geothermal would total $9,013,908, with additional funding needed estimated to be $1,013.908. Chief O’Neill noted that, without the geothermal component, the total project cost was estimated at $8,620,308.
Discussion included clarifying the potential net savings for geothermal in relationship to savings on other bid packages; restructuring of bid package #2; anticipated geothermal payback timeframe of fifty (50) years, with a $21,000 annual savings through use of geothermal; and projected life of the building at fifty (50) plus years.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she had specifically asked for efficiency numbers related to more effective use of excess heat at the skating center the last time the team was here; and had yet to receive that information.
In response, City Manager Malinen provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, detailing that information as requested by Councilmember McGehee relative to the OVAL and a summary of actual gas/electricity usage and $10,000 annual savings in utility costs from use of geothermal. City Manager Malinen referenced page 2 and conditions, noting that the south entry was added after the 2007 number, which was a fairly sizable addition using additional heat and electricity and not in the initial 2007 projections. City Manager Malinen further noted that prior to geothermal, the City was not realizing much in ice rental revenue due to the function of ice quality; however, now it was better than before and generating $20,000 more in revenue.
Councilmember McGehee noted that, since more heat was not being generated than could be used, if the existing system was hooked up to the Fire Station, what improved efficiencies were projected by experts for the system already installed.
The project team was unable to respond to that question without further research.
Councilmember McGehee noted that in 2008, $3 million of taxpayer dollars had been spent to begin the Master Plan process for the City campus (e.g. utility building, public works, fire station, city hall, skating center) for them all to be included on the geothermal system. To-date, Councilmember McGehee noted that only the skating center had been brought into the system; and opined that since the system was too large to realize additional efficiencies and savings, connecting to other buildings would improve those efficiencies if properly done. Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the Fire Station was put on the system to further balance the load to achieve those efficiencies, it would seem that expectations could be for improved efficiency of the original geothermal investment. Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration that she was unable to obtain a clear answer to whether or not this was accurate.
Further discussion included projected additional savings at the Skating Center if the system was expanded (estimated at $21,000 annually); potential added efficiencies gathered from the OVAL and potential reduction in the payback period as well; and recognizing that the return on investment would be broader through savings for other facilities beyond that of the Fire Station.
Councilmember McGehee opined that, even though a piecemeal approach to make connections, the City Council should look at the original $3 million investment and Master Plan to connect all buildings to avoid short-sightedly jeopardizing that $3 million investment. Councilmember McGehee further opined that the information provided to-date did not provide that detail to her satisfaction.
At the request of Mayor Roe, the Project Team confirmed that the $8 million cost, without geothermal, did not include the debt service on the bonds. Mayor Roe observed that those costs were already outside the budget; but should be included in the litigation and bond cost category, not construction costs.
At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief O’Neill addressed the variables from the original project to the delayed project and implications and additional costs for the architectural and management teams and their retainers for their services, including rebidding portions of the work.
Councilmember Pust expressed her concern with how the geothermal issue was presented, specifically the total project cost with and without geothermal and the additional funding needed if geothermal was considered. Councilmember Pust opined that it seemed short-sighted to not to include the geothermal portion; and further opined that the extra bond, litigation and project costs should be directly related to the events surrounding that bond process, not how the project was built. Councilmember Pust opined that this was not a cost overrun, and was not fair to consider it as such, with the Project Team bringing the project in at budget. Councilmember Pust expressed her personal disappointment that there was not an on/off clause included in the contracts when originally drafted.
At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember Pust opined that if the bond costs were attributed as she detailed, and with a twenty (20) year payback, a geothermal investment in the environment was well worth the cost.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Pust’s rationale; and after repeated Living Smarter discussions, could see no reason not to go ahead with proper certification and the geothermal component.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the alleged delay costs were the fault of the City’s management and the City Council majority. When the project was begun, Councilmember McGehee opined that the Fire Station portion could have proceeded without referendum in accordance with State Statute, and prompting no legal action, since it was allowed and citizens would have been very happy with that approach and no delays experienced. However, for some reason she was unable to understand, the Parks and Recreation portion and Fire Station were tied together, with the Parks portion addressed under a different statute and a Parks bond requiring a referendum, putting the City in its current situation, through bundling the bond issues under the City’s Port Authority and attempting their passage without referendum and to the great consternation of many Roseville citizens, and resulting in many of these additional costs. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that those additional costs shouldn’t belong to the Fire Station design, but the responsibility for those delays belonged to the City Council majority and management of the City. Councilmember McGehee opined, in today’s bond market, the same bonds – bank qualified – would cost only an additional $50,000, but in hindsight, it was the choice made and possibly the wrong one. However, Councilmember McGehee reiterated that those additional costs did not have to do with the Fire Station project. Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation in receiving the efficiency figures in order to better understand the geothermal system to maximize efficiencies already made on behalf of Roseville citizens.
Councilmember Willmus opined that the geothermal addition at $394,000 with a twenty (20) year payback made sense and should result in greater efficiencies at the OVAL and overall.
Councilmember Pust, noting the $393,600 of the $8 million, represented an increase of 4.129% and seemed like a smart investment.
Councilmember Johnson noted that a typical contingency is 10% and this was well within that.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Fire Station Project as detailed in the RCA dated August 13, 2012; authorizing award of construction contracts as listed for all areas of the project construction; and including approval of the additional funding of $1,013,908 for project delay costs and geothermal option #1 for a total project cost of $9,013,908.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to where additional funds would come from City Manager Malinen advised that bond issue adjustments could be made or use of reserve funds; with staff charged with reviewing options and making recommendations to the City Council in the near future.
c. Designate Representative to Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Mayor Roe briefly summarized the RCA dated August 13, 2012, noting that Councilmember Pust would be stepping down as her role as Councilmember was nearing an end; and Councilmember Willmus was unable to fulfill that role.
Mayor Roe advised that City Manager Malinen had been asked to represent the City and had gladly agreed to represent the City.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, City Manager Malinen designated to represent the City for the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon of Suburban Ramsey County.
Councilmember Pust thanked City Manager Malinen for stepping up, and recognized his son’s service and that of his family.
Councilmember Pust invited the public to attend a deployment on Saturday, August 25, 2012 at the Inver Community College; and noted an opportunity for volunteer assistance to a Roseville family for rides to the VA hospital. Councilmember Pust asked that volunteers contact City Malinen.
13. a. Consider Classification and Compensation Study
Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon summarized the RCA dated August 13, 2012.
City Manager Malinen concurred with Ms. Bacon’s report; opining that the study was warranted, since during his tenure many situations arose where the restructuring of departments and consolidation of positions had not allowed for internal comparisons and equities. City Manager Malinen sought City Council support in moving forward to get the City back on the plane they were on shortly after the 2002 study and its subsequent implementation. City Manager Malinen noted, as addressed by Ms. Bacon, that the 2012 budget did not include funding for this $150,000; however, he noted that sufficient funds were available to initiate the compensation study, and future budgets could be amended accordingly to accommodate the cost, beginning in 2013.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen noted that the 2012 funding could come forward as a budget amendment, similar to other amendments throughout the year; and anticipated funding it in part through currently vacant positions.
Councilmember Pust asked that Finance Director Miller provide cost savings from vacant positions at his earliest convenience; anticipating that some of those savings could be applied to the geothermal costs.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of proceeding with the Compensation Study, since the last study was done ten (10) years ago, and given the time required to implement the study; opining that the City Council owed it to its employees.
At the request of Councilmember Johnson as to whether this would be handled through a best value contract, per City Policy, Ms. Bacon questioned the validity of such an extensive process, since this was such a minimal dollar amount, and whether the City would realize the best value from such a process. Ms. Bacon noted that the last study cost $15,000 and that included a complete overhaul, which this would not require; and questioned the need to consider a full $30,000 expenditure.
Mayor Roe opined that it was up to staff’s discretion to implement a proper evaluation of this type of service evaluation, per City Policy.
City Manager Malinen opined that, if it was more prudent, since the cost and effort are fairly significant for the best overall value for professional services, he wasn’t sure if this warranted that level.
Mayor Roe recommended that the City’s Policy be followed.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she felt confident that the lower dollar amount would be applicable; and was comfortable with the traditional professional services process.
Mayor Roe clarified that the requested action was to authorize the City to go out for RFP’s.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing Ms. Bacon and staff to seek Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) and bring back bids for the study for City Council consideration.
Mayor Roe asked that the City Manager report on staff’s recommendations for whether to follow the best value process in accordance with City Policy.
b. Discuss Resident Survey and Approve Survey Company / Vendor
Communications Specialist Tim Pratt briefly reviewed the RCA dated August 13, 2012; and provided supplemental information through a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, of the strengths and weaknesses of the three (3) survey firms. Mr. Pratt noted that this was not originally planned this early; however, it had been expedited at this time to feed into the budget process.
Therefore, Mr. Pratt advised that staff had proceeded with a Request for Proposals (RFP) from twelve (12) vendors, with responses received from three (3) vendors, and interviews held earlier today by an Interview Team of Finance Director Miller, and Communications Specialists Carolyn Curti and Mr. Pratt. Mr. Pratt advised that the Team had been in consensus that the Cobalt RFP was the strongest, and recommended that vendor.
Councilmember Pust noted that the Cobalt firm did the City’s 2011 survey, a pre-packaged survey that could be changed, but mostly standardized questions; and questioned if that was why their bid was so much less than the other two (2).
Mr. Pratt opined that this was a mischaracterization of the Cobalt survey format, with a approximately ¼ of the survey standardized for comparisons with a set of nation-wide questions; and the remaining ¾ specific to the City of Roseville’s services, programs and related questions.
Councilmember Pust disputed that her statement was a mischaracterization.
Mr. Pratt noted that the Cobalt survey was a mail survey, with the other two (2) being phone surveys.
At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Pratt clarified that Cobalt was based in Lansing, MI.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not in favor of mail surveys, and was in favor of phone surveys; and when she reviewed the surveys attached to the RFP, she found one phone survey useful and the other essentially worthless for strategic planning purposes. Councilmember McGehee further opined that, in this market, she found it odd that only three (3) firms responded to the RFP. In her personal contact with one (1) potential vendor, Councilmember McGehee found that when the vendor was sent a link for the RFP, they were unable to do so; a similar experience she had found as well.
Noting the time, Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:02 pm.
Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee.
Nays: Johnson; Roe.