Roseville MN Homepage
Search
 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

March 25, 2013

 

1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:30 pm, with Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte and Mayor Roe present at Roll Call; and Councilmembers Etten and McGehee arriving shortly after the Closed Session began.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke were also present.

Closed Executive Session

Discuss Acquisition of Property at 1984 County Road C-2 W

Mayor Roe noted that State Statutes, Section 13d.05 permits City Council meetings to be closed in order to discuss certain matters relating to prospective land purchases or sales, and that the City was considering a potential acquisition of land located at 1984 County Road C-2 West in Roseville, MN.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjourning to Closed Executive Session at approximately 5:32 pm. 

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 5:32 pm for the purpose of discussing a potential acquisition of land located at 1984 County Road C-2 West.  In addition Councilmembers in attendance, others present included Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke and City Attorney Mark Gaughan.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session at approximately 5:54 pm.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Roll Call

Mayor Roe reconvened the meeting in regular session at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  City Manager Bill Malinen and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

 

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.h entitled, “Approve Resolution Approving the State of Minnesota Agency Agreement between the Department of Transportation and the City of Roseville for Federal Participation in Right-of-Way.”

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

               Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

               Nays: None.

 

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.

 

4.         Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming “Purple Up for Military Kids,” recognizing the sacrifices made by children of military service personnel, on April 15, 2013; with additional information available through the University of MN at 612/624-8198.

 

Mayor Roe also announced an opportunity to support local military troops and their families, as part of the North Suburban Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program, scheduled for the second Monday of each month (next event scheduled on April 8, 2013, at the White Bear Lake V.F.W. on Highways 96 and 61 in White Bear Lake, with burgers and chips available for $5.00 each; as well as volunteer opportunities to serve.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

           

a.            Proclaim April 26, 2013 as Arbor Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring April 26, 2013 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, proclamation declaring April 26, 2013 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville.

 

Councilmember McGehee encouraged the City to study recommendations on how to make drainage better for trees in commercial areas to prolong their life, especially during drought years.

  

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

6.            Approve Minutes

 

a.            Approve Minutes of March 18, 2013 Meeting

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.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 18, 2013, meeting as presented.

 

Councilmember Willmus provided comment on what should and should not be included as part of final meeting minutes for future reference. 

 

Mayor Roe advised that those preferences were in line with City Council discussion and conclusions from the previous meeting; with everyone in consensus.

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

Abstentions: Willmus.

Motion carried.

 

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

Councilmember Willmus requested that, when items on the Check Register were not completed (e.g. deer management), when they became available that the data then be provided to Councilmembers.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments

$75,560.49

69376 – 69445

809,056.92

Total

$884,617.41

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

          Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location

Type of License

Alisha Wiest at Rocco Altobelli

10 Rosedale Center, Suite 945

Massage Therapist

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of $5,000

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:

 

Department

Vendor

Description

Amount

Budget / CIP

Streets

Titan Machinery

Wacker Street Drum Roller (replacement equipment off State Bid Contract, with $3,500 trade-in value from old equipment)

$11,040.74

CIP

Utilities

Dakota Supply Group

8” water meters and radio heads (meter replacements associated with the AMR system)

10,254.39

CIP

IT

CDW Government, Inc.

McAfee Anti-virus Software (technical support renewal, Roseville net cost $5,781 after reimbursement from partner cities)

36,913.40

Budget

                  

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale or surplus equipment as presented as follows:

 

Department

Item / Description

Amount

Streets

1998 Wacker Steel Drum Roller

$3,500.00

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

d.            Approve Lauderdale Recreation Agreement

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Recreation Agreement between the Cities of Lauderdale and Roseville Parks and Recreation Departments for the provision of summer recreation programs between June 17 and August 15, 2013; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.

 

                                                            Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for County Road D Reconstruction

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11059 entitled, “Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for County Road D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street (Project M-13-02: County Road D Reconstruction Project).”

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

f.             Accept 2012 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project and Authorize Final Payment

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Engineer Debra Bloom clarified that this payment was for the 2012 sewer main lining project.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11060 entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance – 2012 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;” starting the one-year warranty and authorizing final payment in the amount of $216,355.41.

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

g.            Approving “No Parking” Resolution – Larpenteur Avenue from Victoria Street N to 1260’ East of Victoria Street N

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Engineer Bloom clarified that the “No Parking” was intended to be permanent to facilitate Ramsey County’s installation of a signal at Larpenteur Avenue and Victoria Street, with adjustments needed in striping; and no room available to allow parking on that short segment.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bloom advised that she would communicate the change to Roselawn Cemetery.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11061 entitled, “Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Larpenteur Avenue from Victoria Street N to 1250’ East of Victoria Street N;” prohibiting parking on the north side of Larpenteur Avenue in these locations.

 

                                                            Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

                        Nays: None.

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

h.         Approve Resolution Approving the State of MN Agency Agreement between the Department of Transportation and the City of Roseville for Federal Participation in Right-of-Way

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen provided a brief review of the item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 25, 2013.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if, upon finalization of planning and something was done differently, would the City be required to return this money.

 

City Engineer Bloom responded that it was her understanding along with that of Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon that, this is the first step in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area planning for this year to facilitate initiating an appraisal on the land.  Once the City purchased the rights-of-way, which usually takes between 6 months and one year, Ms. Bloom advised that the City would be required to use the land for the intended purpose; and if for some reason the alignment was changed, staff would need to follow-up with MnDOT.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom confirmed that upon completion of the appraisal, staff would return to the City Council for approval to move forward, as well as to provide additional information as applicable.  Ms. Bloom advised that this first step would allow the City’s appraiser(s) to start work with current property owners. 

 

With Councilmember McGehee noting the location of a filtration pond near this site, Ms. Bloom advised that the pond itself was already located on city-owned property; and this land needed for purchase was the former PIK terminal and land on Terrace Drive needed for the Twin Lakes Parkway.  Ms. Bloom further clarified that the City already owned the Hagen parcel; and this was east of Fairview Avenue on Terrace Drive and needed for rights-of-way, turn lanes, and sidewalk.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11062 entitled, “Resolution Approving the State of Minnesota Agency Agreement for Federal Participation in Right-of-Way;” approving this agreement between the City of Roseville and the State of MN (Right-of-Way Agreement No. 03474).

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

9.            General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Adopt a Zoning Text Amendment that adds Limited Processing and Production to the Regional Business District’s Permitted Uses

A bench handout related to this and the following item and consisting of an e-mail from Councilmember Willmus dated March 21, 2013 to City Manager Malinen and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon, and thereafter forwarded to the City Council and made available for the public.

 

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the background of this item and rationale for the proposed text amendment, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 25, 2013.  Mr. Paschke noted that the updated RCA included additional information based on staff’s research and available options, as requested by the City Council at a previous meeting.  Mr. Paschke noted that options were limited; but that the definition of “Limited Processing and Production” was already a permitted use in two (2) other zoning districts, with the recommendation by staff to expand that permitted use to the Regional Business Zoning District (RB).

 

Mayor Roe referenced the RCA (page 2, lines 32-34) and proposed standards that didn’t appear to be included in the proposed text amendment.


Mr. Paschke advised that those were intended for development by staff to present to the City Council in the near future if it had majority support; and then presented for further discussion.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke addressed the Community Development Department and Planning perspective on if and where current retail uses might convert to limited processing; with Mr. Paschke opining that he didn’t see it converting in major retail areas (e.g. Rosedale Mall), but thought it would be more prevalent to do so further out (e.g. REI and Schneidermann’s strip mall or similar facilities).  Mr. Paschke noted that some of those buildings already had limited production/processing uses as non-conforming legal uses.  One example of a potential use under this additional definition, but not currently allowed would be brew pubs, where limited production would apply.  Mr. Paschke advised that this would simply clarify permitted uses; but the intent was not for manufacturing uses going into retail sites.

 

In terms of impact, Mr. Paschke concurred with Mayor Roe that retail would have a higher impact due to more customers, rather than a limited production use with minimal product shipping and delivery trucks.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had initiated this proposed text amendment, not a specific developer, with the intent to keep the zoning ordinance as clear as possible rather than attempting spot rezoning of certain parcels, a common practice in the past, and requiring a change to the Comprehensive Plan as well.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that his concern was to find a solution to retain the retail focus at Rosedale and the shopping center to the north as Regional Business by not allowing limited production there; while still considering that permitted use west of Fairview Avenue to Cleveland Avenue and the frontage road.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he could consider a zoning change for limited production in that portion of the RBD.

 

With concurrence by Mr. Paschke, Councilmember McGehee stated the three (3) options available: to leave permitted uses as current; to permit limited production/processing in RBD; or allow the use as a Conditional Use throughout the RBD.

 

Mr. Paschke displayed a map of potential boundaries if using Councilmember Willmus’ suggestion to create another zoning district.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff could review that in more detail to rezone some areas and return with that additional information for Council consideration.  Mr. Paschke advised that this would also open up other areas in the community as well (e.g. RB on west side of I-35W near auto dealerships, currently in a more industrial area), noting that this would provide them with additional options for future redevelopment. 

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the Conditional Use option as it could set the stage for substantial changes in any RBD; as well as the Conditional Use running with the land in perpetuity.  Councilmember McGehee opined that her personal preference was to move toward Councilmember Willmus’ suggestion for another zoning district or leave it as is.  If owners of buildings didn’t want to renovate or sell those buildings, Councilmember McGehee stated that development would then remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that she was not enthusiastic about additional or different types of traffic in areas with a retail synergy.

 

Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concern from the previous meeting related to this proposed use adjacent to residential areas (e.g. Target and Har Mar Mall area in the RBD); and spoke in support of Councilmember Willmus’ suggestion for an additional zoning district as one she could support.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that RBD didn’t include only retail and that there were other uses already in the Rosedale and Target neighborhoods; with a potential redevelopment as an office use also meeting current RBD requirements.  Mayor Roe questioned if limited production was that much different than office use, noting that it still had to be compatible with RBD.  Mayor Roe opined that developers seeking limited production space would probably not want to develop in existing retail areas to a great extent as those costs would be higher.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to provide more flexibility for those properties with minimal impact and within compliance standards for RBD, and those design standards if and when renovating or retrofitting a building.

Mr. Paschke advised that when the Comprehensive Plan update was in process, some areas were reviewed where boundaries appeared to make sense; however, others like this one had not been talked about, but boundaries shifted.  Mr. Paschke displayed a 2007 land use map that identified industrial manufacturing properties believed to be a good spot for RBD; however, the long-term impacts were not always taken into consideration and thus the problem areas identified by staff at this time.  Mr. Paschke agreed with Mayor Roe’s statement that there was a high premium on retail properties, especially around the Rosedale Mall, and he didn’t see limited production use as an interest in those areas.

 

If the City Council directs staff to further research an RBD-2 zoning designation, Mr. Paschke noted that it would require a separate zoning map amendment to create that district.  However, Mr. Paschke noted that the questioned remained if other types of uses having a limited production/processing component to their business model (e.g. brew pubs) could locate in the RBD-2, as they are not currently a permitted use in the RBD.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that his intent was to keep office uses on the west side of Fairview Avenue and not relocate to Target or Best Buy as an example in the future.  Councilmember Willmus opined that by creating an RBD-2 designation for areas west of Fairview Avenue would accomplish everything the City Council was discussing; and he further opined that it was a great idea.

 

Mayor Roe stated that he would be opposed to creation/segregation of an RBD–2 zoning district for the purpose of maximizing flexibility for uses not even thought of yet for limited production in retail areas; but not offering those same concerns for existing production uses.  Mayor Roe opined that he wasn’t sure he wanted that level of specificity, further opining that a brew pub use, for example, may be more interested in locating in a retail-oriented area, but would be prohibited from doing so if an RBD-2 district was created. 

 

Mayor Roe further noted that the limited production use could be added to the RBD, with the scheduled review of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code in a few years providing an opportunity to check to see whether that change was working as intended, if that check did not happen sooner.

 

Further discussion ensued related to various areas of concern or applied use, including not supporting the Conditional Use option; extending the Office Business Park zoning designation on the west side of Prior Avenue to deal with those uses while not precluding retail uses along Cleveland Avenue; possible RBD-2 designation only covering Rosedale and the Target area without substantial spot zoning; and practical issues needing further research by staff, with both positive and negative impacts investigated, for RBD-2 or Office/Business Park zoning designation.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested that information be provided in Work Session format.

Public Comment

Mark  Rancone, Roseville Properties Representative

Mr. Rancone reviewed some of their existing properties and their current non-conforming uses, limiting their ability to retrofit the buildings for tenants looking to lease space for limited production/processing.  Mr. Rancone provided photos to highlight some of those examples; this developer’s willingness to make significant improvements to their properties if able to lease them, and financing issues from lending institutions in attempting to fund those renovations for non-conforming uses.  Mr. Rancone noted their desire for some flexibility in keeping the buildings occupied and providing jobs in Roseville, without seeking any financial assistance from the City to do so.  Mr. Rancone noted that this type of use actually had less impact than retail, since it was typically Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; but made the highest and best use of those buildings.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern that a future property owner may not have the same sense of responsibility of Mr. Rancone, and could create issues.

 

Councilmember Etten, in referencing RBD adjacent to single-family and multi-family residential, suggested leaving things as they are currently, but use the RBD-2 only for those areas (e.g. Fairview Avenue west of Cleveland Avenue) to allow flexibility for businesses but exempt areas near residential properties. 

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred, noting that adding the second zoning designation would serve to protect some of those residential areas adjacent to RBD, while still accommodating business interests as expressed by Mr. Rancone and his goals that would be accomplished with that zoning designation.  Councilmember Willmus commended Mr. Rancone for his firm’s proactive redevelopment and improvement on their properties.

 

Regarding limited production use adjacent to residential areas, Mayor Roe opined that, due to their nature and hours of operation and lower traffic, a converse argument could be made that limited production had less of an impact than retail, since that continued to be a major concern heard from residents in those areas (e.g. truck deliveries, snow removal, hours of operation). 

 

Mr. Paschke referenced the complementary ordinance amendment proposed, and immediately following this item, that clarifies the type and number of trucks allowed with this limited production and processing use.  Mr. Paschke noted that the current code language did not have such a clarification; and agreed that existing retail areas have significantly more vehicles and trucks than was found now with existing limited production uses.  If that was the Council’s overall concern, Mr. Paschke assured them that how those limits were defined would get to the heart of that issue by creating a specific permitted use and then clarifying it within that district, allowing for those protections.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding the specific and higher standards beyond industrial standards that address adjacent residential areas; need to separate the Target retail area from this proposed use; and the likelihood that Target would ever develop as a limited production use negating any need to protect that area.

 

At Councilmember Willmus’ concerns regarding the Wilbert Vault property as an example of a limited production/processing use adjacent to a residential area and ensuing problems, Mayor Roe responded that that particular use would likely be grandfathered in, since it was now zoned Office Park, would be a legal, non-conforming use, but unable to expand further under that designation and offering protection to adjacent residential properties.  Based on the current requirements for parking, drainage, and other standards with the rezoning now in place, Mayor Roe noted that impacts to neighboring properties had been sufficiently addressed for any redevelopment.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING this item for staff to return with further recommendations and/or options.

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; and Laliberte.

            Nays: Roe.

            Motion carried.

 

Mayor Roe noted that it was conceivable that staff may return with their same recommendation.

 

Mr. Paschke sought clarification from the Council on what impact was being regulated beyond concerns about this type of use adjacent to residential properties.

 

b.            Adopt a Zoning Text Amendment Creating a Definition for Limited Warehousing and Distribution and Permitting as Permitted and Conditional Uses within the Regional Business and Office/Business Park Districts

Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed this proposed companion text amendment, as detailed in the RCA dated March 25, 2013.   Mr. Paschke clarified the difference in what was done inside the building versus trucks outside the building.  During his research while drafting the proposed definition for limited warehousing and distribution, Mr. Paschke advised that he reviewed that same area and its predominant uses with a variety of trucks.  Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that he had formulated the limit of eight (8) vehicles permitted, and any additional vehicles requiring a Conditional Use.  Mr. Paschke further clarified that there was currently no such definition in code.

 

Discussion included whether to add a definition for permitted use or Conditional Use, or as a stand-alone use in those districts for warehouse distribution uses that were not processing anything; clarification that the vehicles were identified as the specific number related to operations, and not delivery trips per day or intended to address semi-trucks; and the need to provide code language to add criteria for Conditional Uses as well as permitted uses.

 

Public Comment

Mark Rancone

Mr. Rancone sought to clarify the intent that this proposed text amendment did not preclude semi-trucks delivering raw goods or picking up goods, similar to those at existing retail stores.  Mr. Rancone sought to ensure that such restrictions didn’t occur, but that the language was intended to address delivery vans for a particular company.  Mr. Rancone noted that the vehicles could and should include service trucks, mechanical trucks for repairs, distribution vans, and employee vehicles.  Mr. Rancone provided several examples and the limitations of parking space available in most buildings that may be used for this purpose.

 

Mr. Paschke clarified that the intent was for fleet vehicles used to distribute goods.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that clarification also be included in any text amendment for enforcement by staff and as an information source for those using the code.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this item for concurrent discussion and action on it and the previous item as noted.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

c.            Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Text Pertaining to Chapter 1010 Sign Regulations of the City Code, Specifically for Canopy Signage and Temporary Signs

Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed this proposed text amendment to the City’s Sign Regulations as detailed in the RCA dated March 25, 2013; noting the changes were specific to canopy and temporary signage and were a result of ongoing discussions with business owners and existing proprietors.

 

Canopy Signage

Mr. Paschke advised that this amendment was intended to address those businesses (e.g. fuel stations with convenience stores) rebranding or refreshing their signage, with current code severely limiting the square footage allowances and challenges they faced at some of those sites.  In order to assist businesses in meeting their marketing goals, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was making this recommendation for application on the front canopy area.

 

Temporary Signage

Mr. Paschke noted the continual consternation in monitoring and enforcing these types of signs, and the issues remaining since the code had been revised, with some areas remaining unclear or ambiguous.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommended this text amendment to provide more options and flexibility for small business owners with limited area for promotion of their businesses.  Mr. Paschke advised that the permit requirements and associated fee would address the additional staff time for monitoring those types of signs while addressing the issues that repeatedly come up.

 

Mayor Roe divided the discussion between the two types of signs.

 

Free-standing fuel canopy portion

Discussion included clarification that the proposal would be the maximum amount of signage allowed on the canopy from any side; how staff arrived at their calculations to avoid being too restrictive; and examples by Mr. Paschke of typical signage that did not exceed the proposed allowance; with variance applications as an option, but not anticipated, for any potential excesses on a case by case basis.

 

Annual Sign

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation to staff for addressing this issue, one he had heard often from business owners.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the annual fee proposed, with staff advising that it was still pending, but anticipated within the $50 to $75 range; types of signage permitted subject to the applicant providing staff with specifications and diagrams or photos of the signs to determine if they are permitted or not and designating their placement with approval by the landlord/property owner, and renewed annually; limit to one sign, not multiple signs, and limited to a duration of 60-days total to avoid the current proliferation of multiple signs; and how to address signs on corner lots.

 

Further discussion included differentiation between signs on private property and rights-of-way, and minimum footage from property lines.

 

Councilmember Laliberte requested a clarification in the ordinance that the annual sign will be limited to one (1), as she didn’t see that in Item #5, with temporary signs limited to two (2), but no reference to annual signs.

 

After further discussion, and upon recommendation by City Attorney Gaughan, the consensus was to revise Section 3, Item 5 (Number) to specify “… the use shall be limited to two temporary signs [and/or one]Annual Sign…

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding human signs on rights-of-way, Mr. Paschke advised that it was not regulated in the sign ordinance, only in the nuisance ordinance.

 

Whether or not they distracting to motorists, Mayor Roe advised that their ability to remain fell under other State Statutes.

 

McGehee  moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1435 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” as amended.

 

Councilmember Willmus also thanked Mr. Paschke for proactively bringing this item forward to address this ongoing concern within the business community.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Ordinance Summary (Super Majority)

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1435 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Table 1010-2 and Section 1010.07 of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

d.            Adopt an Ordinance Approving Zoning Text Amendments to the Design Standards Sections, Specifically to the [building[ Materials in 1005, 1006, 1007, and 1008 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed this proposed text amendment to clarify existing code, as detailed in the RCA dated March 25, 2013.

 

Etten  moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1434 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;” as amended to correct the ordinance date.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked staff for bringing this forward.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting examples of the quick failure of some paint applications; while still allowing the ability to stain some materials.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Ordinance Summary (Super Majority)

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1434 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

10.         Presentations

 

11.         Public Hearings

 

12.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Appoint Citizen Representatives to Various Commissions

Mayor Roe introduced this item as detailed in the RCA dated March 25, 2013, correcting appointment listings for the Parks and Recreation Commission, one partial and one full term.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Matthew Becker to the Ethics Commission for a term ending March 31, 2016.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Discussion ensued regarding longer term appointments per current City Council policy and how filling vacancies and then two full terms may impact decision-making for the City Council.

 

Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was supportive of appointing Mr. Stoner, but had also intended to move nomination of Jon Klava for the longer term based on his longevity in the community.

 

Mayor Roe asked the makers of the motion to discuss the merits of their motion.

 

Councilmember Etten advised that he appreciated and had been impressed with the time spent by Mr. Stoner in researching the Master Plan, and his study of the Parks and Recreation and City overall.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Etten.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of Mr. Stoner for the partial term based on Councilmember Etten’s comments as well as the varied background and new ideas he could bring to the Commission.

 

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of Jon Klava to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a term ending March 31, 2016.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation that Mr. Klava had been the community longer, and also that he had young children, all active users of the park system, but allowing for three (3) different perspectives based on those varying ages.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Etten.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she supported Mr. Stoner and Mr. Gelbach because they brought a different point of view outside the enthusiastic users of parks that frequently came forward to serve on this Commission.  Councilmember McGehee noted the business and management perspective that Mr. Gelbach could bring to the Commission, particularly during the Park Renewal process, and supported the mix of Mr. Stoner and Gelbach as a term, opining that Mr. Klava’s interests were similar to those of Mr. Stoner and didn’t provide that other perspective.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that he had considered Mr. Gelbach based on his unique perspective and experience with resource management based on their family tree farm up north; opining that he could offer some valuable insight to the Commission and staff.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he was also supportive of Mr. Gelbach, and had originally supported Mr. Gelbach and Mr. Klava.  In recognizing the need for such diversity on the Commission and varying perspectives, since Mr. Stoner had already been appointed, and given the similarities between Mr. Stoner and Mr. Klava, Mayor Roe advised that he therefore felt obliged to vote “no” on the appointment of Mr. Klava.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, a substitute motion for appointment of Philip Gelbach to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a term ending March 31, 2016.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that he had offered his perspective previously.

 

Councilmember Etten echoed the previous comments of Councilmember Etten; and agreed that if appointed, Mr. Gelbach would make a good Commissioner.  In his review of the current Commission and his election to the City Council that created the vacancy, Councilmember Etten noted his concern in keeping a historical perspective in the membership, but opined that the Commission would not be harmed through appointment of either Mr. Klava or Mr. Gelbach.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Jerry Stoner to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a term ending March 31, 2015.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with those comments; opining that Mr. Gelbach was a very credible candidate and the Commission would be in good hands with either appointment.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that her original thought had been that the work the Commission was currently involved in would lend itself more to Mr. Klava at this stage, but advised that she would be content with either candidate being appointed.

           

                                                Roll Call (Substitute Motion)

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the former motion had been taken care of with the substitute motion.

 

Councilmember Willmus encouraged Mr. Klava to apply for future vacancies, or to stay involved through other venues; stating that if there had been three vacancies, he would have been appointed.


Mayor Roe concurred advising that all applicants had been outstanding, and if all could be appointed, they would be, and all would be of great benefit to the community.  Mayor Roe, augmenting the encouragement of Councilmember Willmus, suggested that Mr. Klava involve himself in the Master Plan Renewal and Implementation process through one of the subcommittees of that process.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred, opining that this was probably the most outstanding group of candidates she’d seen for any of the vacancies, with an excellent group of applicants coming forward.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of James A. Daire to the Planning Commission for a term ending March 31, 2014.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that Mr. Daire brought his background in planning from another metropolitan venue to the City of Roseville and the Planning Commission; and expressed her excitement in having him become part of the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that all candidates interviewed very well, but noted the good job done by Mr. Daire in expanding his background; and further opined that he should bring an interesting perspective to the Planning Commission with his experience in the planning field.

 

Regarding whether to appoint candidates to full or partial terms and whether that affected their decision-making, Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee opined that it did not concern them.

 

With concurrence by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in strong support of Mr. Daire, and expressed her appreciation in receiving his application based on how much he had to offer the community; and spoke in support of him serving for either term available.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of Robert Murphy and David Joseph Stellmach to the Planning Commission for terms ending March 31, 2016.

 

Councilmember Willmus reiterated that these were two more excellent candidates similar to the others already discussed.

 

Councilmember Etten opined both applicants would be great additions and bring a broad variety to the Planning Commission, with Mr. Stellmach’s legal and practical experience, and with Mr. Murphy’s long-term residence in the community, as well as residing in an area that will see extensive redevelopment in the future.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred; opining that she had originally supported Greg Royce based on his being younger than the current median age of Planning Commissioners, and while not having a long history as a resident, would bring fresh ideas to the Commission.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the Commission was not an outspoken group as a group dynamic, and further opined that during his interview, Mr. Royce didn’t hesitate to bring things forward and provided a willingness to think outside the box.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she supported Mr. Stellmach without issue, and asked that the City Council consider the Commission as a whole and consider Mr. Royce.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was in favor of Mr. Murphy, with his ability to see both sides of an issue from her perception during his interview.  However, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she listed Mr. Stellmach as her preference early on, while also recognizing that the ideas offered by Mr. Royce offered some new ideas that didn’t typically come forward from the Commission.  Councilmember Laliberte noted her interest in appointing someone supporting the best interests of the entire community, not just their own interest.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he had chosen Mr. Murphy and Mr. Stellmach.  Mr. Stellmach for his legal background and interesting perspective, and Mr. Murphy as a longstanding member of the community and the City’s Fire Department.  Councilmember  Willmus opined that both would be beneficial additions, and advised that he was maintaining his support for those two choices.

 

At the suggestion of Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee moved a friendly amendment to separate the two appointments.

 

Mayor Roe declared the motion failed for lack of a second; returning to the original motion for appointment of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Stellmach.

 

Mayor Roe advised that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Royce had been his choices; and advised that he concurred with the points made about Mr. Royce, and this difficult decision only served to again underscore the quality of the pool of candidates.  Mayor Roe opined that the Council would go not go wrong with any of the appointments, but noted that it was their job to make those difficult decisions, often influenced with a fine point, but ultimately a majority choice.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that Mr. Murphy was a fine choice and that she had no hesitation in accepting him for appointment, and remained optimistic that he would help in her efforts around Langton Lake.  Councilmember McGehee noted that her preference was to give new people a chance to participate.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe again thanked all those who applied, opining that it was a great sign of the vitality of Roseville.

 

b.            Consider Approving a Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless at the Reservoir Woods (1901 Alta Vista) Communication Tower

Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the RCA dated March 25, 2013; and advised that the Variance Board had unanimously approved the variance at their March 6, 2013 meeting; as well as the application having responded to a series of questions at the March 5, 2013 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting specific to the design of the shelter, aesthetic changes to the building, and landscaping issues.

 

Mr. Miller noted a revised Tower Lease Agreement, provided as a bench handout, with revisions to Section 38 as indicated from the original Agreement as final details were reviewed.  Mr. Miller advised that staff had been directed to continue working with Verizon on outstanding issues related to screening, trees, mulch and various landscaping elements; with Verizon continuing to address each of those elements to staff’s satisfaction, and ultimately the City’s resulting in submission of a revised Site Plan and the Tower Lease Agreement.

 

Discussion ensued regarding whether the amount allowed for landscaping, having been increased from $3,000 to $5,000 would prove sufficient, with both Mr. Miller and Mr. Brokke responding affirmatively.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted her attendance at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, and the substantial discussion should St. Paul Water not formally approve the north trail access, since it had not been memorialized to-date.  If not approved for some reason, Councilmember McGehee cautioned that the lower trail would turn into a road, and she could not support that, opining that this was the most critical piece still pending.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller provided a status update on staff’s meetings with the St. Paul Water Board; and his expectation from those discussions that a formal agreement will be available in April or May of this year providing for permanent access for all users of the tower and pathway.  Recognizing that the tower and pathway had been in place for a long time already, Mr. Miller emphasized that the St. Paul Water Board had no interest in getting in the way of the City or other tower lessees and their use.  Mr. Miller noted that the Board had provided a temporary access permit until that permanent agreement was in place; and things were delayed for any reason, Mr. Miller advised that they would simply return to the Board seeking extension of that temporary permit or allowing time to take a more serious look at alternatives, with the southerly route obviously the most viable alternative.  Mr. Miller noted the northerly route was preferred due to its flat terrain, and a lot of the discussion at the Parks & Recreation Commission was specific to implications for that; noting that other providers would also have similar issues, not just Verizon.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that other users did not have access agreements in place with St. Paul Water either; and reiterated that the Board was not interested in getting in the way of the access route.  Mr. Miller provided a historical perspective, with all parties anticipating such a formal agreement was being drafted in 1997, but never followed through.

 

As to whether the City Council should make their approval contingent upon that agreement being completed, Mr. Miller advised that it would be at the discretion of the City Council if they chose to do so.  However, Mr. Miller noted that the agreement already had language in it that the City was obligated to provide access to Verizon; and in entering into that obligation, it was already in place for all other providers as well as for recreational users.  Again, Mr. Miller advised that the Board was not attempting to limit that access, but simply wanted it formalized.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that, one thing she had found most distressing historically, was the vagueness of City contracts.  With Mr. Miller stating that the City had an obligation to users and park access without having a formal right to use it beyond its historical use, Councilmember McGehee opined that this created a problem for her.  While the City Council can approve this, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City be more diligent in its attention to detail for contracts to actually protect what the City was doing.  From her perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be damaging to have to give up that route and have a southern access, since there were no other options; and reiterated the need for the City to be more aggressive in getting these things done and use more care in the future.


In all fairness, Mayor Roe opined that there were such issues in any organization, many not within the control of the current City staff or city council members, and that they were being rectified now.  Mayor Roe noted that, if the access agreement was not approved, the City would experience a problem with all users.

 

Mr. Miller noted that the City had committed to the tower construction years ago; and prior to being developed into today’s park use.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred, noting that revenue from the tower leases were what had made that park possible.

 

Mr. Miller concurred; and noted that there had been no apparent problem until Verizon had a discussion with the St. Paul Water Board and the Board found no previous pathway agreements had been put in place, with the “access to tower” language inadvertently left out.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller advised that addressed the lease revenue uses and if there would be any cost for the use agreement with St. Paul Water, with direction to staff from the Parks & Recreation Commission on their preferences and those items needing additional work.  Mr. Miller advised that the Commission did not formally adopt those items, but provided their conceptual preferences.  Mr. Miller reiterated that the Variance Board approval was unanimous since there were only two (2) members on that particular Board.  Mr. Miller noted that there would be no cost for the access agreement with St. Paul Water. 

 

Mr. Miller advised that revenues derived from tower rentals were directed to the City’s IT function and intentionally designed to make sure those rentals provided s support system for all City functions.  However, Mr. Miller noted that the City Council could change that policy at their discretion.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission had recommended that revenue from the Verizon facility be allocated to parks; and suggested a future discussion related to that recommendation and as part of budgetary discussions.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding Section 38 of the Tower Lease Agreement and allotment for site aesthetics and landscaping and how much was actually needed for restoring the site and providing screening; appreciation for the graffiti issue and timely restoration of any such damage, and whether to consider that city-wide; fencing application on the site; the significance of the improvements planned by Verizon for the overall site; and staff’s confidence that the allotted funds would cover the site improvements. 

 

While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s concerns that the site be restored at their expense and none to the City, Councilmember Laliberte concurred; however, she thanked Verizon for their existing upgrades since January and thanked them for the concessions they had made to the City to-date.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a lease agreement between Verizon Wireless (VAW), LLC and the City of Roseville, for leased space at the city-owned Reservoir Woods Communication Tower, subject to final approval by the City Attorney; as amended in Section 38 as per the bench handout.

 

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

            Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:26 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:35 pm.

c.            Discuss Solar PV Installations on City Hall and Maintenance Buildings

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz introduced this item as detailed in the RCA dated March 25, 2013.  Mr. Schwartz introduced Ms. Rebecca Lundberg with Powerfully Green; and Mr. David Streier with Newport Partners, LLC.

 

Mr. Streier provided a bench handout for his presentation.

 

Mr. Streier, through his presentation, noted his company’s involvement with financing solar projects and provided a background of the firm specifically for non-profits and public entities.  Mr. Streier noted the availability of one more year in the Xcel Solar Lease Structure rebate program, specifically tailored for Xcel territory and the two (2) rebate programs they currently offer.  Mr. Streier provided some examples of various solar applications; the number of units specifically recommended for the City of Roseville’s facilities (Maintenance Building and Police Department portion of City Hall); and how the tax credits would be applied for this installation of panels manufactured in Mountain Iron, MN.  Mr. Streier briefly reviewed that MN State Statute requirement (Chapter 471.345) and how energy savings needed to be guaranteed, with the application designed to take advantage of federal solar tax incentives for such projects.

 

Mr. Streier addressed funding, with a 10% down payment required of the City, and anticipated return on investment or a payback period of approximately 12.5 years; and based on his firm’s review of the City’s actual Xcel energy bills and based on the size of the system needed.  Mr. Streier advised that his firm handled all engineering, design, installation, equipment and financing components after the City’s initial 10% down payment.  Mr. Streier advised that the lease structure allowed Newport to monetize federal tax credits and beneficial depreciation.

 

Ms. Lundberg advised that the manufacturer of the panels provided a thirty (30) year power production warranty.

 

Specific to the installation at Roseville, Mr. Streier reviewed the two (2) proposed applications to the newer roof portions on the maintenance building and police department, with anticipated total construction cost at $660,000, of which the City would be responsible for 10%.   Mr. Streier advised that the system would be turned back to city ownership in six (6) years; and based on a historical energy average inflation amount, the city should realize a savings of approximately $237,000 over that time. 

 

Mr. Streier reviewed other installations completed for the City of Lindstrom, and one in process for the City of Champlin.

 

Mr. Schwartz noted that there was one other MN manufacturer who had done several installations for the City of Maplewood, and since only operational for about six (6) months, staff was researching further information from them on that installation and that manufacturer.  Mr. Schwartz noted that there was only minimal maintenance required for the systems, basically replacement of the inverters after fifteen (15) years.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had consulted with the City’s roofing engineer and contractor, and they were supportive of the installation; however, they did ask to be included in the placement of the system as well as throughout the design process.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff continued to research State Statute requirements regarding competitive bids; and tonight’s requested action was to authorize staff to further research the installation; and authorizing signing a non-binding Letter of Intent if the City Council was interested in pursuing the project. Mr. Schwartz referenced additional steps outlined in State Statute for the City Council to take before any actual award of a project, including notice requirements and publishing some of the data.


In response to Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Lundberg advised that the typical life expectancy for this solar installation was forty (40) years, with standard module warranties for 20-30 years. Ms. Lundberg reviewed the laboratory testing for this particular product by the National Renewable Energy Labs under extreme lifestyle and weather conditions, with the silicone modules exceeding expectations through 100 years of extreme conditions without exception.  Ms. Lundberg noted the composition of the glass meant to be outside and withstand hail; and all wires protected in channels; with the inverters guaranteed for ten (10) years, with only modest operational expenses.

 

Regarding the condition of the existing roof with this installation, Mr. Schwartz advised that this was the rationale for installation on the newer roof portions of the designated buildings; with approximately 25,000 square feet needed for each system and allowing for other rooftop equipment as well.  Ms. Lundberg noted the need for actual roof space of approximately 5,000 square feet for each 40 KW installation.

 

Discussion ensued regarding snow loads and requirements of the installation process, with oversight and design by both electrical and structural engineers and part of Powerfully Green’s due diligence and accomplished through spreading out nominal ballast and adding for dead loads.

 

Further discussion included other possible ground and/or rooftop applications including the new fire station and future park shelter construction; additional cost for ground mounts based on soil type and other considerations, with the City of Red Wing used as an example of such application; and how snow reacted to the installation and was addressed through angles of the panels with the onus on Powerfully Green to estimate conservatively to address those load based on this type of climate and continued use; and ability to access the roof through this installation procedure, using concrete blocks and not permanently attaching the panels to the roof itself, but through use of ballasts and space between rows allowing for access.

 

Additional discussion included staff discussions with the City’s roofing contractor and existing warranty on the membrane with no impact to that warranty; the City’s current energy use lower than some other public agencies and applications based on the rates of KW hours; ability to move the array– at the City’s cost of between $7,000 to $10,000 – to facilitate future roof replacements; and the need to take those costs into consideration for the City’s future CIP needs.

 

Further discussion included excess power generation – while not anticipated – going back to Xcel’s grid under this program; the number of meters available on the City Hall campus that could take advantage of such a system; and contractual agreements between the firms and Xcel Energy if the application is successful. 

 

Ms. Lundberg noted the need to apply to Xcel now for preliminary approval for this competitive program and the limited number of dollar available for rebates; seeking that those funds be set aside for the City of Roseville as the process moved forward.  Ms. Lundberg noted that the program was currently funded through fiscal year 2015, on July 1st; and once funds were fully allocated, other applications were put on a waiting list.  At this time, Ms. Lundberg advised that she was not aware of any plans by Xcel to renew this particular program after 2015.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in reviewing the City of Maplewood performance data before making a decision to proceed.

 

Ms. Lundberg advised that if Powerfully Green failed to meet the projected performance levels, Newport was responsible for that failure.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the first step in moving forward with an application would be a non-binding Letter of Intent; with Mr. Schreier concurring, and showing the commitment to Xcel for a project to happen.  Before Newport can submit engineering information and other paperwork, Mr. Schreier advised that the Letter of Intent would need to be included in that application; reiterating that it was non-binding at this point.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of this proposal or at the new fire station if applicable.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the consequences if the City changed its mind or changed which facility for the installation or other issues; with Mr. Shreier assuring Councilmembers that, until a lease agreement is signed, there is nothing binding for either party, as clearly outlined in the proposed Letter of Intent.

 

At the request of City Manager Malinen, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could still pursue other vendors and other opportunities at this point.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that he had initially reviewed the Letter of Intent, and there were several items he wanted to discuss further with staff.  However, City Attorney Gaughan suggested the City Council could move forward, but make the motion subject to City Attorney approval; and taking into consideration potential installation on the fire station or any other facilities that staff feels may be appropriate.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a non-binding Letter of Intent, but make the motion subject to City Attorney approval; and taking into consideration potential installation on the fire station or any other facilities that staff feels may be appropriate.

 

Additional discussion ensued regarding the Letter of Intent and $200 application fee that Newport Partners would be responsible for; timing of essence to get into the application process with Xcel based on the competitive nature of the program; a review by City Attorney Gaughan of his outstanding concerns, but recognizing the non-binding nature of the Letter of Intent for both parties; built in safeguards in place; and potential long-term budget savings.

 

Councilmembers Etten and McGehee spoke in support of the motion.

 

Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte spoke in opposition to the motion without first having an opportunity to review the final Letter of Intent.

 

                                    Roll Call (as amended)

            Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe.  

            Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

            Motion carried.

 

13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Discuss Best Value Practices

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke presented an overview of the procurement methods used by the City, including the Arizona State Model (ASU) Best Value Performance Information Procurement Systems (PIP) and the City of Roseville’s Best Overall Value method, and the differences between the two programs.  Mr. Brokke noted that the Best Overall Value model was used for professional services according to adoption of a 2012 policy.  Mr. Brokke reviewed and compared the criteria and values for developed for each method; noting that both systems were still evolving, and involved education and training for staff and vendors on various projects, including the Park Renewal Program.

 

City Manager Malinen addressed the professional services policy, as amended by the City Council to include the best value process, and insertion of the term “overall” to differentiate that method from the ASU model for best value procurement and statutory requirements.  In hiring attorneys, janitors, construction management services, or recycling services, Mr. Malinen noted that the City was not statutorily bound by the lowest bid as typical for construction projects.  Mr. Malinen agreed that staff continued to implement the best overall value process internally, and continued to refine the process as it was used, particularly with the weighting of ratings.  Regarding the ASU model, Mr. Malinen advised that there were currently 5-6 staff members trained in that process, which also continues to evolve each time it is used.

 

Discussion included those staff members trained and their role in the City; the model currently being used by MnDOT that follows State law and how performance measures are applied; benefits and/or detriments for variations between risk and value added or other areas of focus, as well as qualifications versus capabilities or expertise of vendors; how weighting is determined for specific projects; identification of risks by contractors themselves and how they could mitigate those risks before encountered and how they would make a project better beyond the areas identified by staff based on their perspective; and advantages of keeping the vendor selection process blind until the interview itself.

 

Based on her personal experience with the best value process, Councilmember McGehee expressed her favorable impression with the ASU model, but her disappointment with the best overall value process currently used, and suggested that staff develop additional improvements moving forward.  Councilmember McGehee specifically addressed the interview process in the best overall value process and its specificity and there was a need to allow vendors to improve the City’s initial request for proposals (RFP) and also to adjust performance ratings.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that additional education and training for all parties involved in the process was needed; with the selection process a vital component.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that his purpose in bringing this request forward was to differentiate between the two processes; with qualifications being the main component from his perspective.  Councilmember Willmus questioned the use of the best overall value process in selecting janitors, or similar vendors; and sought additional information on the variables entering into the evaluation and if or how past relationships enter into that process.

 

City Manager Malinen reiterated that the process remained totally blind allowing for an unbiased review, one of the strengths of the process for the initial evaluation, scoring and ranking; and remaining unknown to interviewers in that initial part of the process.

 

Mayor Roe opined that both processes were apparently continuing to evolve as they were used and as staff became more adept at using the methods.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that this discussion had been helpful from her perspective; however, she remained confused as to which process was used.

 

City Manager Malinen responded that the natural evolution from his perspective was to use the ASU model for construction projects, which the Public Works Department continued to pursue, while awaiting the MnDOT model as well.  Mr. Malinen suggested that which process was used could be based on the total project cost estimates and size of a particular project.  Mr. Malinen noted that neither process was used all the time, since it was fairly labor-intensive from an administrative point.  However, Mr. Malinen advised that when cost effective, the processes would be implemented as much as possible.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation of the third party component in the ASU model, allowing for guidance from outside the City, which he opined should improve the process.  In the best overall value process, Councilmember Etten expressed concern in how to determine the best vendor qualifications through the blind approach.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff continue to keep the City Council apprised of the processes continue to evolve.  Mayor Roe note that the ASU third party participation would not be available to the City long-term, and was being used specifically for the Park Renewal Program.

 

Mr. Brokke stated that he was an advocate for the best value procurement system, and once the City had full access to the software/license, staff could continue to improve the process.  Mr. Brokke suggested moving slow at this time to get the process right and then developer a deliberate plan moving forward.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, to extend the meeting until conclusion of the following item.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.  

Nays: None.

 

b.            Discuss the Budget Program Prioritization Process

A bench handout was provided from Councilmembers Etten and McGehee entitled, “Proposed Process with Proposed Rubric” related to this discussion.

 

Councilmember Etten provided an overview of the proposed rubric and process as outlined, designed to provide more educated choices for priority ranking, with categories ranked in the 2013 budget as outlined on page 2 for easy reference versus ranking.  Councilmember Etten opined that, without information from Department Heads who were experts in their fields and with their own budgets, there was a disconnect.  Councilmember noted the value of that specific department information versus a congregate ranking by Department Heads of all departments.


Mayor Roe reviewed past methods and rationale in what the ranking numbers signified in the overall process; and the value of having Department heads provide their feedback prior to the City Council’s ranking.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, in the proposed process, the specific programs within each department were not being evaluated on their own merit, but should be the first assessment, including a section for special notes.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this allowed staff an opportunity to highlight specific items in their departments.

 

Mayor Roe noted, from his past history with the process, emphasized the process and its design purposely developed to provide the prioritization exercise by all parties, allowing the City Manager and Department Heads the information they need to make recommendations to the City Council as related to personnel and budget from 2013 moving forward.  Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council complete their ranking prior to receiving a lot of recommendations from staff, opining that staff needed that direction and priority ranking from the City Council before proceeding with their recommendations.  Mayor Roe concurred that Department Head feedback on their priorities for their programs was vital for the City Council to reflect upon as they provided their priorities back to staff.  Mayor Roe noted the information provided in August of 2012, and updated last week on potential department-specific strategic plans providing the outside picture.  Mayor Roe opined that he remained hesitant for staff to return with more detailed information until the City Council provided input and ranked community values. 


As to the specific recommendation to do ranking, Mayor Roe agreed with that process, as long as previous year rankings could be converted to provide continuity and consistency.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten as to whether the previous year’s rankings were vital, Mayor Roe responded that while not necessarily so, the way the numerical assignment from #1 through #7 was used (staff report, page 3) was critical versus desirable to function.  Mayor Roe suggested that those numbers be blended with Councilmember Etten’s proposed system (staff report, page 2) and ranked by importance.  Mayor Roe recommended #1 be those items critical to the City’s aspirations/goals; and #7 be those desirable to City aspirations/goals.  In order to make the prioritization process work, Mayor Roe suggested the following sequence: determine the rubric, then prioritization, then staff’s specific recommendations for budget/personnel.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the ranking process and how to identify those critical, significant, and desirable functions.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that, following the previous City Council meeting, Department Heads had discussed the merits and their preferences in ranking by department versus as a composite.  Mr. Malinen advised that their consensus was to keep the aggregate system to provide input to the City Council for all 160 programs.  At this stage of the process, Mr. Malinen advised that departments would provide that form of input for the City Councilmember’s individual ranking development without providing recommendations on where to adjust, reduce or reallocate specifics.  As the first step, Mr. Malinen noted how critical it was for the process for the City Council to provide their comfort level for spending and levy amounts; at which time staff would determine how and where to reallocate to achieve that funding.

 

Mayor Roe questioned the rationale in having, for example, the Fire Chief rank organizational support for the Community Development Department; and what expertise he brought to the process in ranking within another department.  Mayor Roe opined that the Department Head and City Manager should come up with the ranking prioritization within a specific department.  Mayor Roe further opined that it was asking a lot of Department Heads to prioritize other departments within some level of expertise with them.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe’s concerns.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that Department Heads were naturally advocates for their specific departments, and while possibly having less of a range of expertise with other departments, were able to recognize their overall importance.  Mr. Malinen advised that once internal differences are determined, as identified within a department, the end results from the City Council prioritization process would ultimately provide that information.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council relied on Department Heads to identify what was critical to achieve goals and visions of the community, through all the processes; with the overall City management then fine-tuning that within the organizational structure before it comes back to the City Council.  Mayor Roe reiterated his confusion in how helpful it is to have other Department Heads weigh in for other departments.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred; opining that individual Councilmembers were not the experts, and without that Department Head input, they couldn’t do their best.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that it was critical to the city function versus goals, vision and aspirations since those items were in the City Council’s strategic plan, and reiterated her desire for Department Heads to address those items critical to the City function.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that he needed to know why those functions were needed, if they were intended to achieve the aspirations of the community.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the strategic planning was separate from the basic budget.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it was vital to the basic budget.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe’s comments; opining that it would be very beneficial to see and hear what each Department has for their own area.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was difficult for him, as an example, to rely on Mr. Brokke’s ranking for activities in the water department being done by Mr. Schwartz. 

 

In referencing the columns included for 2012, Councilmember Willmus opined that it would be helpful to him to also be able to look back to 2011, providing two (2) years for comparison moving forward.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this request was similar to that of former Councilmember Pust in the recent past.

 

Mayor Roe noted that each program was included in the 2013 budget documentation in the meeting materials, with information available at least back to 2008.

 

Councilmember Etten noted the difficulty he found in referencing multiple documents rather than having the information available on one document.

 

Mayor Roe noted that it essentially came down to type font and paper size; and suggested to staff that 2011 – 2013 may be possible on one sheet.

 

Councilmember Willmus further referenced a comment of former Councilmember Johnson, that budget discussions begin closer to the beginning of a meeting, rather than at the end and so late in the evening.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support or larger paper for comparison years, with one set of pages for each department.


Mayor Roe concurred that it would be helpful that it would be helpful to have the comparison years per department, and including definitions on that same sheet for each department.  Mayor Roe further suggested that the strategic plans summary documents for each department could be included in that same document, at least for the 2014/2015 timeframe.  Mayor Roe suggested, to the greatest extent possible, to have all information for each department contained in one document that would continue to evolve through the process; and stressed the importance of identifying them as “revision a, b, or c” and clearly dated on each revision or document.  Mayor Roe opined that this would not only be helpful to the City Council but the public as well.


Councilmember Laliberte also spoke in support of getting everything into one document as suggested by Councilmember Etten; and supported ranking from high to low based on how critical an item was.   Councilmember Laliberte further supported the initial prioritization from departments versus aggregate.

 

Councilmember Etten concurred.

 

Regarding priority ranking, Mayor Roe sought clarification on the potential budget impact, whether for the big picture or department-specific priorities for personnel and budget impacts at this point.  Mayor Roe opined that, at this point and until the City Manager-recommended budget was presented, it remained an unknown to the City Council and made it difficult for staff to provide a budget and personnel impacts without the benefit of prioritization.  However, if the revenue portion is related to income associated with a specific program, Mayor Roe opined that it could be a beneficial component to have available.  Mayor Roe questioned how Department Heads would know how to rank items within their department until receiving City Council priorities.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that this was not the intent of the recommendations made by him and Councilmember McGehee.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested having the budget impacts identified by staff early in the process.

 

Mayor Roe opined that he could not support that, since it required a lot of staff to make recommendations before receiving City Council directives/goals, and required the City Manager-recommended budget to be delivered early in the process as well, without having all the components available.

 

Councilmember Laliberte, when first listening to Councilmember Etten’s recommendations, advised that she understood the document to be dynamic or living, and as discussions ensued, other columns would be filled in that didn’t need to be populated at this stage in the process.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that concept.

 

Mayor Roe stated that it may be safe to say where the strategic plan plugged into the process at this stage and change it as the process moved forward.

 

City Manager Malinen reiterated that, once individual Councilmembers developed their priorities it would provide staff with an understanding of the City Council direction and funding potential, or how much of a tax levy if any they would support.  Mr. Malinen advised that this would drive how staff ranked and determined lower level priorities.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated the process: prioritize, establish a preliminary comfort level for a levy, and generation of a City Manager-recommended budget.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred with that process overview.

 

Finance Director Miller, recognizing that he apparently had a lot of work to complete, sought clarification of the specific City Council direction on what they were directing staff to do over the next two (2) weeks to allow the greatest efficiencies.

 

Mayor Roe summarized those directives as follows.

1)    Develop a living document, along the lines of the Rubric, from which to work and having the ability to add columns later; and including a minimum of two years comparison (2011, 2012) from previous budgets.

 

Councilmembers concurred with that directive.

 

2)    Staff prioritizations and joint recommendation from each Department Head and the City Manager.

 

3)    Under personnel/budget impacts, for the first go-around, City Council direction will initially be based on the strategic plan presented from the last meeting, and including refinements from staff and including adding outside estimates available from the strategic plan with those numbers available for change after prioritization and when the City Manager-recommended budget comes forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that the first pass to the City Council would provide staff prioritization, along with the other two years budget columns for comparison; with revenue, personnel, and budget remaining blank at this time.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that they could remain blank or include numbers if and when available from the strategic plan.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she would prefer to have this iteration completely blank.

 

Councilmember Laliberte offered no preference as to whether blank or not.

 

Mayor Roe recommended that they initially be received blank.

 

4)    A column will be available for City Council ranking.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the initial document may need to be separate at this time; but once the City Council completed their individual ranking exercise on April 8, an average would then be available, allowing for discussion and directing staff to move forward for the April 15, 2013 discussion.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified that the staff ranking would be available after April 8; and the aggregate ranking on April 15; with Mayor Roe confirming that, with staff providing a report to the City Council for further discussion.

 

Discussion ensued to clarify wording for the Rubric, with initial suggestions for #7 to be critical to meeting City visions/goals; #5 significant; and #1 desirable.

 

Mayor Roe suggested reducing those numbers to only four (4); with Finance Director Miller responding that that would be a big help.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller requested whether there was City Council interest in defining “critical” or “essential” and what their difference was.

 

Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had the same questions, and opined that this was perhaps Mayor Roe’s rationale in suggesting changing “essential” to “significant.”

 

Mayor Roe noted that references were being made to two (2) different documents, the staff report (page 3) and Councilmember Etten’s e-mail; and suggested distinguishing between “critical” and essential,” and not to be confused with Councilmember McGehee’s iteration of “critical” and “significant.”

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that she could distinguish them.

 

Mayor Roe suggested “critical or essential,” “important,” and “desirable” as the three (3) ranking factors.

 

Finance Director Miller noted a substantial number of functions not mentioned in the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning document; and sought direction on how to address those items.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the Finance Department function was one of those not mentioned, yet necessary to the City achieving its overall goals and aspirations.  Mayor Roe suggested that those items supporting the broader vision be subjected to the judgment of staff.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was a good example of why it was important for department-specific ranking and for her not to base her priorities on an aggregate of departments, since each Department Head knew what was more essential to the bigger picture.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that staff would bring a list of what is critical to their attention, not necessarily based on past practice, but current functions and needs.

 

Finance Director Miller noted that past practice in providing an aggregate department ranking provided a global, city-wide prioritization exercise; and if that was set aside for the time being, with the City Council receiving individual department priorities, how that would translate into the overall organizational priorities.

 

Mayor Roe opined that the overall result should be the same, if individual department programs on an overall list were ranked highest to lowest, even if mixed and a slightly different process.

 

14.         Adjourn

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:37 pm.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

  1. Roseville MN Homepage

Contact Us

  1. Roseville City Hall

  2. 2660 Civic Center Drive

  3. Roseville, MN 55113


  4. Monday - Friday
    8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.


  5. Phone: 651-792-7000

  6. Email Us

Arrow Left Arrow Right
Slideshow Left Arrow Slideshow Right Arrow