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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 15, 2013


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council at approximately 6:00 pm, with Councilmembers Laliberte, Willmus, McGehee, Etten, and Mayor Roe present.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan and City Manager Bill Malinen were also present.


Closed Executive Session

   Consider Property Acquisition of 2659 Victoria Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive

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 2659 Victoria Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive in Roseville, MN.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning to Closed Executive Session to consider property acquisition at 2659 Victoria Street and 934-950 Woodhill Drive at approximately 6:02 p.m. 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:03 pm.  In addition to the City Councilmembers, City Manager Bill Malinen, Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were in attendance.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and returning to open session at approximately 6:33 pm.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in open session at approximately 6:35 pm.


2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Laliberte requested removal of Consent Item 7.c entitled, “Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000.”


Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Approve Contract for Printing Services.”


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


                                                Roll Call

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

               Nays: None.


2.            Public Comment

Mayor Roe asked that all observe a Moment of Silence in honor of the victims at the Boston Marathon and in support of the first responders at the scene.


Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.         Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

In his role as Chair of the City of Roseville’s Human Rights Commission, Mr. Grefenberg announced several upcoming dinners and dialogues related to the prevention of violence of any kind, and how it impacts everyone, sponsored by the Commission.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that this would the purpose was to provide an opportunity for Roseville residents to participate in a facilitated dialogue funded by the Busch Foundation, with three (3) facilitators leading this combined town hall and focus group.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that the goal was to find areas of concern and relevant issues of Roseville residents, and would hopefully serve as the next step in civic engagement for the community, in identifying individual and/or collective responses and ultimate resolutions.  The event is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at the Roseville Skating Center, Olympic Room; with a light supper served at 5:15 p.m., followed by focused discussion and sharing of perspectives from 6:00 – 8:30 p.m.  Approximately two (2) weeks later, Mr. Grefenberg announced that a follow-up session would be planned.  While there is no cost for the meal or discussion, Mr. Grefenberg noted that R.S.V.P.’s were welcome to accommodate food availability; and those reservations and additional information was available from Carolyn Curti at City Hall (651/792-7026) or through the City’s website, Human Rights Commission tab.


4.         Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Councilmember McGehee announced the annual Roseville Clean-up Day scheduled for Saturday, April 27, 2013, at the Dale Street entrance to Central Park.  Additional information is available from Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt at City Hall (651/792-7027) or through the “clean-up” tab on the City’s website.


Councilmember Etten announced the continuing meetings as part of the Roseville Parks and Renewal Program, with each meeting addressing specific parks/facilities in the system:

April 16, 6:30 p.m. at the maintenance building on the City Hall Campus (Topic: Oasis Park)

April 23, 6:30 p.m. at the same location (Topic: Rosebrook Park)

April 29, 6:00 p.m. at the same location (Topic: Bruce Russell Park)

April 30, 6:30 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center (Howard Johnson Park)


Councilmember Laliberte announced the 60th anniversary of the area League of Women Voters, with a special recognition scheduled on April 25, 2013, with additional information on the event, its location and cost available from Carolyn Cushing at 651/633-0602 or at  On behalf of the Roseville City Council, Councilmember Laliberte offered congratulations to this organization.


Councilmember Willmus announced upcoming informal tours by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture at Langton Lake Park on April 22 – 25 to review damage from Emerald Ash Borer infestations.  Registration and additional information is available by contacting Erica Commerce at 651/210-6244 or by contacting the City of Roseville’s Park and Recreation Department at 651/792-7006.


Councilmember McGehee reported on her attendance at the first Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority sponsored community meeting held last week regarding the Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment Project, along with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the meeting was very exciting and embarked upon a new process for Roseville, with the City of Roseville having assembled a substantial piece of land for redevelopment, and initiating meetings with the community, and particularly the adjacent neighborhood, for their input and involvement in the process of designing what the community wants incorporated into that redevelopment.  Councilmember McGehee announced future opportunities for presentation and small group discussions scheduled on April 25, 2013 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., with emphasis on a block exercise for participants with a map of the area and blocks of different types/styles of housing arranged within those blocks under different scenarios.


Councilmember McGehee announced subsequent workshops scheduled on May 15 and May 28, 2013 respectively, that would include developers making presentations on potential development proposals to provide market insight, and subsequent recommendation from the focus group to the HRA, who would be ultimately responsible for marketing the property and defining its redevelopment in accordance with those expressed community wishes.  Additional information is available from HRA Housing Manager Jeanne Kelsey at 651/792-7086.

Councilmember Etten noted that the meetings were being held at the King of Kings Church/School directly across from the Dale Street fire station.


Mayor Roe updated the public and City Council on recent happenings of the North Suburban Cable Commission at their March and April meetings, in adopting a rate order in response to Comcast rates implemented in 2012, with the NSCC concerned that they were not properly presented in accordance with franchise agreements with the ten (10) member cities.  Mayor Roe noted significant concerns regarding the DTA or digital adapter fee and related public queries.  Mayor Roe noted that the NSCC’s April action initiated a more formal negotiation for franchise renewal to address the significant gap in positions of the parties, and to preserve timing concerns, with the current franchise agreement set to expire in October of 2013, with no guarantee that terms would be continued under that agreement in the interim.  Mayor Roe advised that this was basically an administrative litigation process with the member cities and cable provider; and cautioned individual Councilmembers of the need for discretion in their responses if contacted by Comcast during that litigation process.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.            Recognize Outgoing Commissioners

Mayor Roe recognized six (6) advisory commissioners who were retiring due to term expirations, or resigning due to moving out of the community.


Those commissioners present for recognition included Jason Etten, former Parks and Recreation Commission, resigning when elected to the City Council; Harold Ristow, retiring from the Parks and Recreation Commission having served his full terms; Daniel Boerigter, retiring from the Planning Commission having served his full terms, a portion of them as Chair of the Commission; and Jeff Lester, resigning from the Planning Commission due to moving from the community. 


Others recognized but unable to attend tonight’s meeting, included Luann Peterson, retiring from the Ethics Commission at the end of her term, and having served part-time as Chair of the Commission; and Peter Strohmeier, resigning from the Planning Commission due to moving from the community.  Certificates of Recognition were available for each Commissioner.


Commissioners Ristow and Boerigter provided brief comments on their experiences.


From their years of service with Commissioner Ristow, Councilmembers Willmus and Etten thanked him for his years of service and his perspective on the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.


Mayor Roe thanked these commissioners for their years of service to the community;  and thanked all advisory commissioners for their service, noting that the City Council would be unable to do their jobs effectively without their support and input.


6.            Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of April 8, 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.

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 8, 2013, meeting as presented.


                                                            Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


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

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

ACH Payments







                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; 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:



Type of License

Lindsey Pille at Massage Envy Roseville

2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120

Massage Therapist


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


d.         Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. to Approve Preliminary Plat at 2305 Walnut Street

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the proposed Highcrest Park 5th Addition PRELIMINARY PLAT; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the Request for Proposals (RCA) dated April 15, 2013.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


f.             Approve Annual Variance Board Appointments

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, ratifying the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners Michael Boguszewski, Shannon Cunningham, Bob Murphy, and Jim Daire (alternate) as Planning Commission members appointed to serve as the Variance Board from May 1, 20-13 to April 2, 2014.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


g.         Adopt a Resolution Supporting Sales Tax Exemption on City Purchases

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11066 entitled, “A Resolution Supporting Sales Tax Exemption on City Purchases.”

                                                            Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


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

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 15, 2013.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that there were no vehicles/equipment listed for resale for those replacement purchases; and requested additional background be provided in the future on the status of the equipment scheduled for replacement, and whether they were being replaced based on their condition or just due to the proposed CIP schedule replacement.


Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that the Zamboni and maintenance vehicles had been previously deferred; and the purchase amount shown reflected trade-in values for those other vehicles in the near future; with the specific Zamboni cost reflecting a net cost after trade-in value calculations.


Mayor Roe suggested adding authorization to staff for those sales as part of tonights requested action.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff level discussions included those items under $5,000 that were not typically brought before the City Council, when traded in or auctioned off, with those items over that amount coming before the City Council in the future.


Councilmember McGehee noted an apparent overlap of function between the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments (e.g. ice control equipment), and questioned if this equipment was specific to the Parks Department.


Mr. Brokke advised that the equipment was jointly used by both departments, and there were no overlapping pieces of equipment, with both departments working together to avoid any duplication.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that, in the future when purchases are listed, they be identified with trade-in prices reflected to allow more transparency.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows; and amended to authorize the sale of surplus vehicles and/or equipment over $5,000 in value as applicable for these replacement items.






Budget / CIP

Parks & Rec

Americana Fireworks

4th of July fireworks display



Parks & Rec

Midway Ford

Maintenance vehicle replacement (3) – State bid contract purchase



Parks & Rec

Frank Zamboni Company

Zamboni replacement



Parks & Rec


Snow removal/ice control equipment – State bid contract purchase



Parks & Rec

Titan Machinery

Towmaster Trailer – State bid contract purchase




                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


e.            Approve Contract for Printing Services

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 15, 2013 and the bid form attached to the RCA.


Mayor Roe noted additional information provided by staff at the request of Councilmembers, as a follow-up to the agenda packet on Friday, with a list of bids received; and as displayed by Communications Specialist Tim Pratt at the meeting.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he didn’t think sufficient information had initially been provided by staff to validate a decision by the Council until receipt of the bid tabulations following his request for additional information. Councilmember Willmus requested the process followed as standard operating procedure and retention of data for individual committee member rankings, and asked that a future City Council policy discussion provide a city-wide administrative retention of that data.


Mayor Roe suggested the discussion should be two-fold: whether individual rankings are typically retained; and how that data would or should be used as part of the agenda information and staff report.


Councilmember Willmus advised that, at this point, the City Council now had all the information needed to act on the requested action.  However, going forward, Councilmember Willmus asked that when a subcommittee or internal group was performing the scoring process, their individual scores be retained for consideration when those actions come before the body.


Councilmember McGehee concurred that the individual scores should be retained; however, she didn’t consider that the material should come before the full body in agenda packets, but retained in the event of any unusual legal cases where it might be needed for reference.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the information currently displayed was typically included in the standard information provided to the City Council for their decision-making, and was appropriate.  Councilmember McGehee opined that collection and retention of scoring, and potential use should be addressed by the City Attorney.


Councilmember Willmus, based on his past experience particularly with the Parks & Recreation Commission and subcommittee review, participants or bidders were identified as by letter but not individually identified.


Councilmember Etten concurred that more information needed to be available to the City Council as standard operating procedure to allow for educated decision-making; with decision-making processes of subcommittees retained, since they affected the recommendation for and provided that background information to the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the comments made and that the displayed information provided adequate information for the City Council’s decision-making.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that, anytime citizens were engaged to rank recommendations as part of a committee or task force, the City Council needed to look to their information as representatives of the community.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that she wanted to see more, not less, data when asked to make decisions; and expressed her frustration with the last few meetings with summary information provided in staff reports rather than being provided supporting data.  Councilmember Laliberte further opined that this should be a required part of the process versus a “trust us” approach from staff.


Mayor Roe noted that, in the past aggregate scoring had been provided, and he concurred that it needed to be there, not because the City Council didn’t trust the information being presented, but for full transparency for the City Council and the public when seeing the report for the first time and resulting conclusions.  From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t need individual scores, but that he did want the aggregate rankings; however, he agreed to defer to the Council majority for their wishes as to how price information was reflected in staff recommendations moving forward.


While recognizing that this particular item was a small bid relative to some items, Councilmember Etten opined that aggregate ranking versus individual scores should be included in the agenda packet; but that those individual scores should be retained if further detail was needed.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed that the data created over the course of the evaluation should be retained by the City; cautioning that the data remained non-public until contracts were finalized.

City Manager Malinen duly noted this discussion for future reference.


Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded,  approval of an Agreement between the City of Roseville and Greenhaven Printing for printing and mailing services (Attachment A); and approval of an Agreement between the City of Roseville and Real World Enterprizes, d/b/a Impressive Print for printing forms and envelopes (Attachment B).

                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption


10.         Presentations


a.            Emerald Ash Borer

          Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided a quick update on Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) findings in the City of Roseville, and based on the current status map (Attachment A); and as detailed in his memorandum dated April 8, 2013.


          Mr. Brokke reviewed upcoming community meetings scheduled for residents with the Department of Agriculture; and communication of the City Plan adopted in the fall of 2010 to address this potential infestation, and funds established in 2011 for public tree removal. 


          Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Brokke included disposal of Ash trees on private property found to have infestations; disposal available at Ramsey County tree/brush sites for use by homeowners and/or tree contractors; and timing for harvesting trees.


          Mr. Brokke announced community education meetings scheduled with the Department of Agriculture at Langton Lake Park with tours from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. at the west parking lot at Langton Lake Park to show affected trees, and signs and symptoms of EAB infestation.  Mr. Brokke advised that additional information was also available on the City’s website.


b.            Parks and Recreation Renewal Program Review

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke and Park Superintendent Jeff Evenson reviewed the current and upcoming process for the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program.


Mr. Brokke provided a quick introduction and review of the process to-date as detailed in the RCA dated April 15, 2013.


Mr. Evenson reviewed the process used and examples of how each Park Renewal process proceeded by neighborhoods, the overall community, and then the Parks & Recreation Commission; highlighting the public engagement strategy for Lexington Park.  Mr. Evenson noted that a common theme for each park was trail connections and inclusion of natural areas.  Mr. Evenson noted that detailed information for each park was provided on the City’s website; and encouraged continued feedback from the public.


Councilmember Willmus thanked staff for the continued outreach, opining that he was impressed with the turnout at those neighborhood meetings, which spoke well of the overall process.  Specific to ice rinks in neighborhood parks and residents seeking hard surfaces (e.g. pavement), Councilmember Willmus encouraged staff to look into the possibility of pervious pavement as applicable, and to serve as a good model for other areas of the City.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with the remarks of Councilmember Willmus; speaking in support of the process, as well as pervious surfaces, although questioning why grass was not a sufficient surface for the rinks during summer months.  In noting the amount of vegetation evidenced in supporting maps for each park, Councilmember McGehee suggested serious consideration be given for maintenance and irrigation for draught years in particular; with irrigation and draught-resistant plant materials considered during the design process moving forward, given rising water costs.


Specific to this example, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if there was feedback about the organized hockey rink surface being located so far from the warming house.


Mr. Evenson advised that a typical connection could be clumsy in any parks, with the proposed plan including a sheet of ice for open skating with a flooded connection to the hockey area for easier access by skaters.  Mr. Evenson noted that the discussion had come up at every park meeting to-date where a hockey rink was included, with concerns about who gets closer access to the warming house.  Mr. Evenson advised that options were currently under review in an attempt to work out any potential conflicts.


Councilmember Etten spoke in concurrence with previous Councilmember comments.  Councilmember Etten referenced this entire process as a good opportunity for residents to engage in their community and provide input into their park and the overall park system, and to-date had provided great responses from the community at those meetings.  Councilmember Etten opined that this process should also provide an opportunity for the City to be seen in a different light, allowing for the community to be pro-active rather than reactive to proposed improvements and redevelopment in Roseville.


In conclusion, Mr. Brokke addressed the extensive playground equipment replacement program as part of the Park Renewal Program, anticipating fourteen (14) replacements at a cost estimate of $1.6 million.  Mr. Brokke advised that the process of selecting playground vendors, using the Best Value Process, as detailed in the RCA, was a major portion of this Renewal Program.  Mr. Brokke reiterated the additional information available on the City website; and encouraged public participation.


Mayor Roe and Councilmembers thanked the Parks & Recreation staff for their extra time and efforts during this process.


Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, SW Roseville

Mr. Grefenberg noted that the southwestern portion of Roseville recently held their first meeting and expressed his enthusiasm for this great example of civic engagement providing an opportunity for staff and consultants to listen to the neighborhoods.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed his appreciation of staff’s leadership throughout this process. While recognizing continued significant differences among neighbors, Mr. Grefenberg noted that concerns were that Evergreen Park was basically an athletic field, tot lot and hockey rinks; with many neighbors preferring that a natural space or connection be available, and remained unresolved.  Mr. Grefenberg again thanked staff for their attempts in engaging local neighborhood groups and associations and thanked Mr. Brokke and Mr. Evenson for their collaboration with the neighborhood in getting neighbors engaged.

11.         Public Hearings


a.            Extend Working Hours for the 2012-13 Storm Sewer Lining Project

City Engineer Debra Bloom provided a brief review of this request as detailed in the RCA dated April 15, 2013; and the process of this application.  Ms. Bloom noted the night work is proposed in the areas of the intersection of County Road B and Dale Street and the intersection of County Road B-2 and Hamline Avenue; and the need to have generators running after normal restricted hours; and therefore requesting this noise variance to complete this work. 


Ms. Bloom advised that notice of the proposed variance and tonight’s public hearing had been mailed to all property owners within a 350’ radius of both intersections; and anticipated a one to two night work time maximum to accomplish the lining.  Ms. Bloom advised that the overall goal was to get the work done; and noted that this lining was a much less expensive and less invasive process than excavations.  Ms. Bloom advised that residents in those same notice radii would be mailed notices of the exact work dates once known, and anticipated for May or June of 2013, depending on weather and contractor mobilization and availability.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:03 pm for the purpose of hearing public comment on extended hours for this project; with no one appearing for or against.

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a variance to City Code Section 405.03 Hourly Restrictions of Certain Operations to extend the working hours for the 2012-2013 Storm Sewer Lining Project to permit construction activities to occur outside of the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on any weekday, or between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm on any weekend or legal holiday.


                                     Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:17 pm.


12.         Budget Items


a.            Discuss Council Program Priorities

Mayor Roe referenced the bench handout, consisting of the City Council’s individual and composite rankings by department and function for tax-supported and non-tax-supported programs.  Mayor Roe suggested tonight’s discussion focus on areas of discrepancy, and the rationale for those discrepancies, whether further clarification was needed or consideration of policy/priorities.  Mayor Roe noted that the budget calendar indicated the next stop was adoption at the April 22, 2013 meeting of the City Council priorities to allow staff to move forward with their budget recommendations.


Finance Director Miller concurred with that interpretation of the budget calendar; unless the City Council preferred another reiteration of the rankings based on tonight’s discussion; with formal adoption proposed for April 22, 2013.


City Manager Malinen suggested discussion focus on those items having rankings between staff and Councilmembers of two points or more.


At the request of Mayor Roe, the ranking rubric brought forward by the Finance Subcommittee and subsequently adopted by the full City Council was restated by City Manager Malinen as follows:






Critical to achieve City aspirations


Significant to achieve City aspirations


Important to achieve City aspirations


Desirable to achieve City aspirations


Councilmember Laliberte reviewed her interpretation of rankings completely removing community aspirations from her review, and considering “7” as critical based on mandatory statutory requirements to address public safety or assets; “5” as good or important, but maybe not required; “3” as nice to have; and “1” indicating services could be provided without it. 


Mayor Roe opined that he didn’t see that interpretation or review to be problematic from his perspective.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she looked at the exercise differently, seeing few things absolutely critical beyond providing emergency, water, sewer, and public safety services, based on that identification from the Cobalt Survey in her rankings.  Since everyone know how the City is run, Councilmember McGehee opined that Councilmembers were aware of how residents liked thinks done and their desire to keep things the way they are, at no cost.  While that is not a function the City Council is able to achieve, or reduce using this method, Councilmember McGehee expressed her ongoing frustration and her perceived lack of value in the entire exercise, opining that it didn’t have any value nor did it get the City where it needed to go.  Councilmember McGehee stated that every Department Director knew what their department did without any huge input from the public of those activities, other than they wanted more but didn’t want to pay for more.


Mayor Roe opined that the next critical step is for staff, based on this composite ranking information, was for the City Council to provide direction on a Preliminary Levy level as a target to see if it was possible.  At that point, Mayor Roe noted that Department Heads and their respective staff would take that figure and see what they could achieve.  Mayor Roe advised that this exercise provided staff with their input into that staff process, and from that perspective had value.


Specific to his rankings, Mayor Roe advised that he took them quite literally, with “1” not critical or important, but desirable; and noted that he tried as much as possible to review line items in light of achieving community aspirations.


Councilmember Willmus, in reviewing his approach, advised that it was similar to that of Councilmember Laliberte, or a hybrid based on his own perspectives beyond community aspirations.  In his review of City Council results provided by Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus admitted that he may not have ranked the Enterprise Funds quite as high, since they tended to be self-sustaining and generated their own revenue. While recognizing the exercise as an interesting process, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was not ultimately his focal point in making determinations, but used as a generalized guide for him, with other factors taken into consideration that came up over the course of the year.


Mayor Roe noted that the exercise was not intended as an end-all.


As a member of the Finance Committee, and one of the authors of the revised rubric, Councilmember Etten noted that he still struggled with it not reflecting how individual departments operated and his inability to look at how the budget affected the reality of staff as part of their daily operations.  Councilmember Etten opined that one of those missing components was his inability to discern whether new money was required of was fully funded for something he ranked as significant.  Councilmember Etten opined that the rank didn’t help rank Enterprise Funds or the License Center, since he ranked the License Center as high, but did not cost the city money.


City Manager Malinen clarified that the License Center was a net revenue source for the City.


Councilmember Etten concurred; however, he opined that it was not necessary to the City’s day-to-day operations.  Councilmember Etten expressed his frustration with this process that didn’t get to the heart of how the City operated.


Mayor Roe asked City Manager Malinen and/or Finance Director Miller to respond as to whether they found this step in the process helpful on funding; questioning if staff found something would cost more based on the priority ranking, if Department Heads didn’t then review how to weigh it into their respective department budgets or request an increase in the levy to facilitate that higher ranking.


Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern, in lacking a budget document showing how departments actually operated, and if he chose to initiate a new program or seek investment of new money for a specific department or purpose, with each ranking different, he would have a hard time determining how that new priority affected the entire process; or if it required a new staff person, or whether those responsibilities were broken out over different areas.


Mayor Roe noted that this would become evident through recommended staff reallocations.


City Manager Malinen responded that this approach brought staff a knowledge of Council priorities for where to allocate resources, and those things the City Council deemed they wanted the City to excel at, and were most important, as well as those ranks that may not be as important or considered expendable.  Mr. Malinen referenced the “yellow line” concept for that ranking, and while perhaps seen as harsh, in reality the exercise had not panned out that way, but did allow both staff and the City Council to look at line items to determine desirable versus essential or critical.  Mr. Malinen advised that the overall concept allows Department Heads to adjust and reallocate resources when they understand priorities across the board.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen confirmed that this had been staff’s experience over the last few years; and as staff had delved in deeper into operational aspects of the organization, their recommendations back to the City Council relative to City Council rankings have dictated those recommendations within the overall budget process.


As an example, Councilmember Etten addressed the Council Composite Priority ranking 2.2 for the Recycling Program Administration Service Charge (Item 20 – Administration Department Programs) and questioned how that impacted operations from management on down; and whether that hypothetically indicated a cut in the City Manager’s salary by ranking that line lower.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed that line item as an example of the process as an internal charge having other aspects of the overall Enterprise Fund having Ramsey County and other financial support.  Mr. Malinen noted that it would be difficult to eliminate or reduce that program based on its overall function for the community. 


Mayor Roe noted that, based on that rationale, staff did not put that item below the “yellow line” but something close to that low ranking may be reduced.


Specific to Line 20, Councilmember Willmus suggested that it could be eliminated as had been done successfully by other communities.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus clarified that he didn’t mean elimination of the Recycling Program, but operating it without a Recycling Coordinator, and questioned whether it was necessary to have a coordinator to remain an efficient recycling community.


Mayor Roe opined that charges may be incurred elsewhere for a net balance.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that some things became problematic for her ranking since she didn’t know if her endorsement was also endorsing a dollar amount, since ranking didn’t connect to dollar amounts.  Councilmember Laliberte admitted her confusion with that aspect of the exercise; and suggested that it would be helpful to her if there was another iteration of the number of FTE’s required for each category to determine FTE’s versus “stuff.”  For efficiency purposes, Councilmember Laliberte recognized that significant job sharing occurred, but a differentiation between personnel and stuff was necessary for her ranking.


While Mayor Roe noted that information was available by program in background materials provided elsewhere, in terms of this document, Councilmember Willmus noted an overall lack of correlation between individual components and how they interacted with other components city-wide.


Mayor Roe clarified that this was not intended as an exercise in budgeting, simply ranking, and while not blind, it was for the purpose of deciding what was most important by priority ranking, thereby feeding staff decisions on staffing levels, position grades and various duties of those positions.


Citing another personal frustration with the exercise as she reviewed the calendar steps, Councilmember Laliberte noted there was nothing in the steps, but should be, an opportunity to roll up sleeves to determine efficiencies and/or areas to cut; and she questioned where in the process the City Council learned what they could do without, change or adjust accordingly.


City Manager Malinen noted that some of those things had already been addressed over the last few years; and while not necessarily big changes, they were dictated to some extent on where City Council priorities indicated.  Mr. Malinen noted another part of the discussion was Strategic Plan initiatives needing better definition or potential changes or efficiencies.  Recognizing Councilmember Laliberte’s frustrations, Mr. Malinen advised that this exercise would now provide a status quo base line from which to work based on those assumptions, with individual departments of the city attempting further efficiencies that would impact the overall budget based on composite rankings.

Mayor Roe referenced one-time costs from 2013 that would not be carried forward to 2014, as part of the process requested in past years by Councilmember Pust.  Mayor Roe opined that this particular portion of the process may have been shortchanged in past years; but requested more detail be provided for the City Council and public by each Department and the City Manager, before the City Manager-recommended budget came forward, specific to new State mandates, levy amounts, and significant changes in each department. Mayor Roe suggested that information be made available, at least no later than between the City Manager-recommended budget was presented but prior to budget hearings for the September Preliminary not-to-exceed Levy being established.  Mayor Roe noted the need for a better understanding and evaluation of those specifics and a more detailed discussion as part of the ultimate decision-making process.


While past decisions incorporated a biennium budget going forward, Councilmember Laliberte requested staff’s delineation of those items budgeted for but not spent to-date; and asked that those items be specifically highlighted and pointed out by staff.


To the extent possible, City Manager Malinen, Malinen noted 2012 carryover operations had been funded significantly by position vacancies, and once provided for in 2013, the question remained as to whether they were part of the 2014 baseline.  Mr. Malinen opined that staff had done a good job to-date in separating out operational versus capital for budget purposes.


Mayor Roe noted that this was what former Councilmember Pust had requested; and asked that staff not lose sight of that in other parts of the budget process; and as a hopefully innovative organization, it was continuing to learn efficiencies and not carry things over automatically, but provide a new number to carry forward.  Mayor Roe noted that the quarterly reports provided by staff were helpful, but unfortunately the later 2013 reports would not provide information soon enough for the 2014 budget, but should be helpful with a biennial budget.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe, while Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee remained unconvinced with the process.


Councilmember McGehee opined that what she and Councilmember Laliberte were seeking was more transparency beyond this format rather than “silent management” through a duplication of administrative services within departments.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her frustration in not being able to determine that or review that level; and opined that she had ideas outside of this setting, but this format didn’t allow that level of review that she and Councilmember Laliberte were seeking.  In all of the rating exercises, Councilmember McGehee noted that it didn’t consider the dollars.  Councilmember McGehee also referenced different opinions of residents on what was or was not an amenity in the community; and those things that may not rank highly, but brought in revenue to the City, but also were services that were highly valued or important to the Roseville community itself (e.g. License Center).


Councilmember Willmus noted Finance Director’s Miller’s provision of the projected surplus or money carried over from 2012 and available for use in 2013; and asked if Mr. Miller could provide an update on that information at this point based on his projections.


Finance Director Miller advised that the information was typically available in late spring, and would be available in May of 2013 as the City Council received the formal audit; but offered to highlight the information at this time as well.


Relative to the duplication comments, Mayor Roe asked staff to address this; however, he cautioned the City Council on its role and staff’s responsibility to manage the City and develop a budget.  If staff observed any duplication, if directed by City Council policy or if not sufficiently articulated by the City Council for staff, Mayor Roe suggested that further clarification should be provided that the City Council did not support any duplication of staff, administrative charges or services.  Mayor Roe opined that, from his personal perspective, it was not his role to look for those to “win one” for the taxpayer, but to provide a clear policy directing staff that their recommendations are based on that policy and always included as part of the discussion process for any funding level.  Using the License Center as an example, Mayor Roe opined that he may need to re-evaluate his ranking based on tonight’s informative discussion.


Mayor Roe suggested that the key message to City Manager Malinen and staff was that the City Council was dependent on more information coming to them  from staff for a better understanding and future discussion and providing a refined recommendation.


City Manager Malinen asked for City Council clarification on deviations between staff and City Council composite rankings; advising that he highlighted those discrepancies of two (2) points or more, opining that those were significant to him.


Mayor Roe led discussion into those areas highlighted by City Manager Malinen to address rationale in those discrepancies.


Administration Department Programs

Council Support Program/Function (Code 1)

City Manager Malinen noted that, since the work of the City Council is of the utmost to the overall organization, this function took a fair amount of staff time, and form his perspective, it was a basic function of government.


Council Business Meetings (Code 9)

City Manager Malinen noted that this also was important for the work of the City, since the City Council was at the top of the organizational ladder.


Councilmember Etten noted that City Council salaries were not ranked high by Councilmembers, and that line item as well as others, created frustration for him when there may not be a sufficient narrative description or the same description may be used for several items within the department making it hard to distinguish.


Councilmember McGehee opined that what was critical to her was not whether a meeting was held, but whether the health and welfare of the community was addressed.


Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her frustration in not knowing the difference in personnel and material costs for each line item, using “audits” listed under business meetings as an example.


Mayor Roe suggested that item could be shifted.


Intergovernmental Affairs / Memberships (Code 11)

City Manager Malinen noted the need in this category to recognize the value of the City with the League of Minnesota Cities for insurance, which he considered mandatory based on quotes for liability from other agencies, and the LMC still remaining the best out there.


Mayor Roe noted that interesting comment, as he might rate membership lower, but insurance higher, and recognized that was part of the concern expressed by Councilmember Laliberte, and suggested this discussion may have been more opportune as a work session discussion a month earlier.  However, in all fairness, Mayor Roe noted that his absence at the last meeting didn’t serve to provide more discussion and make things more clear.  Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested a second iteration of this ranking would be prudent before the April 22, 2013 meeting.


Recording Secretary (Code 12)

City Manager Malinen noted that there were differing opinions in meeting minute content, with the only legal requirement to record the motion and second; but more detail preferred by some whether critical or important.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, from the opposite perspective, he preferred the level of detail currently used.


Mayor Roe noted that those perspectives were clearly indicated in the various rankings.


Elections (Code 13)

City Manager Malinen noted that this was a mandatory service of the City; with Councilmember Willmus concurring and questioning his own rationale in ranking it as a “1,” and obviously skewing the composite ranking.


Recycling Administrative Service Charge (Code 20)

City Manager Malinen reviewed the intent of this category as defined.


Recycling Communications / Outreach Efforts (Code 21)

City Manager Malinen opined that this was an important function if the recycling program was to remain successful.


Mayor Roe suggested, based on tonight’s discussion and various perspectives, that the exercise be repeated in a second iteration to let the results speak for themselves.


Community Development Department Programs

Organizational Management (Code 4)

                   Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon explained his rationale in ranking, noting that code enforcement was complicated, with numerous processes to follow and court proceedings, thus his higher ranking of this mandatory function for the City.


Economic Development and Redevelopment (Code 5)

Mr. Trudgeon advised that he ranked this function lower, as something that the City could do without or provide for less emphasis, unless the City Council chose to take advantage of the City’s inner-ring suburb location and at what level they chose to drive development or redevelopment.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mr. Trudgeon’s rationale completely.

Councilmember Laliberte noted that she ranked it higher, as she considered that function including grant applications and bringing in revenue that would alleviate the burden on residents.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she also disagreed, opining that this was the more important job of this department, with several recent actual developments that did not provide a useful or positive impact on the community or its residents; necessitating long-range planning as a critical element.


In adding to those comments, Mayor Roe noted his ranking as a “7,” especially as a first-ring suburb and the community aspiration for an economically stable tax base.  Reverting back to organizational management (Code 4), Mayor Roe reviewed his across-the-board philosophy for program offerings and associated staff for those programs, it ranked as a “5” or “7” for him.  However, based on tonight’s discussion, Mayor Roe advised that he may need to revise his rankings where behind-the-scenes organization made various programs succeed as deliverables (e.g. recruiting volunteers for park and recreation programs).  Mayor Roe noted his ranking of “3” as important priorities.


In her review, Councilmember Laliberte noted that she ranked all organizational management functions as a “5,” and if it involved delivery of a service, she ranked it higher.


Mr. Trudgeon noted, from his perspective, how he ranked the program and based its organizational management function accordingly.  Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember comments on economic development.  However, he noted that his initial understanding was that everything could not be ranked as a “7,” and therefore his review was that in not ranking mandatory functions the highest, it would be a dereliction of his duty, requiring that he based all functions compared relative to those mandatory items.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that economic development was more discretionary and his ranking was based on that; and while he agreed that it was very important, it also depended on how many dollars were available overall.


Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Trudgeon for making that distinction.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Trudgeon for not ranking all functions as “7,” and recognized that there was a fixed pot of money requiring choices, and the inability to have resources or personnel available to do the job at the level ranking by the City Council.  Based on that assumption, Councilmember McGehee requested that staff then come forward to the City Council with a request or explanation of their interest in doing a function and as a result, the amount of funding required to accomplish it.  Councilmember McGehee noted past discussions clarifying that the department was not funded with tax dollars; and the need for regrouping when experiencing an economic slump.  If sufficient staff and resources were not available, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff then explain that to the City Council and ask for use of dead time to do these important jobs.


Mayor Roe suggested this may be a good example of the need to look at a funding mechanism, such as property tax support or through development fees.


Relative to all departments, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the level of funding is not factored into this ranking by staff at this time, and it would be challenging to rank importance and efficiencies.


From his perspective, and indicative of his lower rankings, Mayor Roe noted those items he identified as important but not mandatory and requiring adjustment of staffing levels or output to reporting agencies.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff would deal with that it those functions came near the “yellow line.”


Zoning Code Enforcement (Code 12)

Mr. Trudgeon again supported his ranking rationale by noting that this was also a mandatory function of his department for the City.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was confused with the same description for Codes 1, 3 and 4 regarding enforcement and organizational management, inadvertently thinking that indicated a duplication of functions.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that it now made sense to her after this discussion.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was his fault in not looking at this twice, since each area of enforcement was a different function: code, planning, nuisance and zoning.


As a follow-up, Mayor Roe suggested refining and clarifying those definitions.


Finance Department Programs

Business Licenses (Code 4)

Finance Director Miller noted that this was mandated by City Code, and therefore he ranked it accordingly as a “7.”


At the request of Mayor Roe as to the level of service for the function, Mr. Miller questioned why the City would choose not to provide excellent service for that function; with Mayor Roe noting that this function was self-sustaining based on fees as well.


Contractual Services (Roseville Visitors Association and Housing & Redevelopment Authority) (Code 7)

Mr. Miller noted the definition itself was the key word, thus his ranking as a “7.”


(Code 9)

In his ranking for Economic Development, Mr. Miller concurred with the rationale of Mr. Trudgeon; and if you were starting a city from scratch, it was a nice function; however, he questioned how critical it was for the City’s short-term objectives and aspirations, since to him it appeared a more long-term objective, without necessary resources currently committed.  During his twelve (12) year tenure, Mr. Miller noted the laissez-faire perspective to development; however, he admitted he was hearing something different from the City Council at tonight’s discussion from previous indications.


Lawful Gambling Community Donations; Gambling Licenses and Reports (Codes 33 and 34)


Mr. Miller noted that these are also a requirement of current City Code, therefore mandated.  However, Mr. Miller suggested that the City could consider getting out of lawful gambling regulation or determining which groups received gambling profits.  However, since it was currently dictated or mandated by City Code, Mr. Miller advised he had therefore ranked it high.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified that the City made no money for this function, but simply served as a pass-through for funds through oversight.  Mr. Miller advised that the City did not need to be involved in how and where lawful gambling monies are distributed (e.g. Community Fund), and he was unaware of any other city that performed that function.


Noting budget revenue in all columns, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the actuality of excesses or shortfalls. 


Mr. Miller advised that it depended on the fund, with non-tax-supported funds having its own fund, without property tax support (e.g., IT, water, sewer, storm sewer, golf course, license center, etc.) and didn’t require any taxpayer involvement.  For those specific enterprise funds, Mr. Miller advised that any surpluses stay within the fund, and any shortfalls are made up from previous excesses.


While not having participated in past City Council decision making, Councilmember Laliberte the City had a high level of volunteers and fundraising within the City by and for other groups.  In recognizing how Councilmember McGehee ranked the License Center, Councilmember Laliberte noted that a large portion of the community relied on that service locally as well.


Councilmember McGehee concurred.


License Center (Codes 38, 39, 41, and 43)

With the City’s decision to serve as a Deputy Registrar, Mr. Miller noted that this required it to provide certain services, thus he considered it a mandate and ranked it as a “7” accordingly.


Mayor Roe admitted that this rationale may require his re-evaluation for the next iteration.

Fire Department Programs

Organizational Management (Code 3)

Fire Chief Tim O’Neill advised that this was the day-to-day operations of him and his Administrative Assistant in oversight of seventy (70) part-time and full-time personnel (e.g. payroll, supply ordering, maintenance of employees, invoices, etc.)


Fire Administration & Planning (Code 7)

Chief O’Neill advised that this was the day-to-day operations of two (2) personnel: the Battalion Chief./Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector (e.g. computer data, pre-planning of buildings, etc.).


Fire Prevention (Code 8)

Chief O’Neill advised that this was two personnel (Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector) in servicing over 200 multi-family apartment dwellings in the community for annual inspections, commercial/retail inspections, awareness of any new businesses and their storage capacity and/or building conversions related to access and flammable and/or hazardous materials); as well as plan review for any new construction or remodels.


Councilmember McGehee noted that this service is being provided by the City that any business would normally provide for themselves and their customers; and questioned if a fee could be applied for this service from a fire prevention standpoint as part of doing business in Roseville.


Mayor Roe questioned if a fee could be charged.


Chief O’Neill advised that he didn’t know the answer at this time, but would perform research to find out.  Chief O’Neill advised that, to-date, the City had not charged a fee during his 25 year tenure; and he was not sure if that was a common practice in the market, but advised that he would report back on any such possibility.

Police Department Programs

Overall, Police Chief Rick Mathwig advised that 87% of the budget per category were personnel costs based on time spent studies recently completed.


Community Liaison (Code 1)

Chief Mathwig advised that this was the work and interaction of the Community Resource Coordinator; with 2/3 of the department’s volunteers coordinated through this position (e.g. neighborhood watch captains, park patrol, annual Night to Unit, etc.)


Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for clarifying that personnel cost upfront.


Animal Control (Code 12)

Chief Mathwig advised that this function was for animal control in the wee hours of the morning when Community Service Officers were not available.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief Mathwig advised that some of this function could be deferred until a CSO became available; however, others needed immediate resolution by the officer.

Police Reports  by Officer (Code 15)

Chief Mathwig noted that this was mandatory to the rule of law; and in order to hold criminals accountable and process through court, that prosecution required reports.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that she saw reports under Code 3, so when she saw it again under Code 15, she thought it was redundant, and therefore ranked it lower.


Chief Mathwig clarified that Code 3 is recording the report, but Code 15 is the officer writing the report and generating follow-through the State and other agencies or jurisdictions.


Public Safety Promo / Community Interaction (Code 16)

Chief Mathwig advised that this included officer-friendly interaction as part of the department’s pro-active efforts within the community versus reacting to crimes.


Councilmember McGehee questioned, if an officer was on patrol, why this community interaction was not considered part of his normal duties.


Based on time spent studies, Chief Mathwig noted this distinction; with Mayor Roe concurring on how the time study determined these various functions in how the overall salary is divided.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte in how the department’s interaction is defined with the Karen community as an example, Chief Mathwig advised that such interaction is spread throughout all division, with all those divisions involved in some way in that interaction.


Councilmember Etten advised that he ranked this as a “7,” based on the critical need for the Police Department to positively establish relationships and build stronger communities.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in patrols by district to enhance familiarity with districts and whether that was being accomplished.


In response, Chief Mathwig advised that being in one area of Roseville allowed an officer to interact better with that neighborhood and carry out duties more effectively.

Parks & Recreation Department Programs

Personnel Management (Code 5)

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke noted that his department was heavily youth and volunteer oriented, requiring significant training by management, which he considered critical.  However, Mr. Brokke noted that this then required considerable effort each season; and further noted that an entire reorganization of the department was required several years ago to function with fewer people.


Golf – Department-wide Support (Code 23)

Mr. Brokke noted that this function also included skating center functions and turf maintenance in parks, depending on the season, but was supported departmentally in an effort to maximize people.


In her rankings, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she ranked protection of city assets (e.g. facilities or grounds) as “7’s” across the board, as a responsible of the City.  Based on that higher ranking, Councilmember Laliberte noted that her other rankings fell below that, based on her perspective.


Mayor Roe referenced his rankings of “1’s,” recognizing that they were desirable, and he didn’t consider their elimination; but based on his rationale in terms of achieving community aspirations.  Using the OVAL as an example, while being a huge community asset, Mayor Roe questioned if it was critical, suggesting that he ranked it as desirable; and likewise with the golf course.  After considering Mr. Brokke’s comments on departmental and city-wide support items, Mayor Roe indicated that he would have to change his rankings accordingly on the second iteration.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, noting that she hadn’t fully understood the cross-utilization of staff and would also need to change her rankings in the second iteration. 


Discussion ensued regarding the percentage of programs/service supported through fees and compared with other communities based on their interpretations, with Mr. Brokke advising that the City of Roseville was supported overall between 50-60%, with the nationwide average of approximately 35% fee-supported.  With a reference by Councilmember McGehee in her research with the City of Shoreview and their programs 95% fee-supported, Mr. Brokke advised that he was unaware of any recreation department 95% fee-supported; however, he volunteered to perform further research on that data.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that the Shoreview Community Center was held at 78% fee-supported, per City Council policy.


Mr. Brokke clarified that the City of Roseville’s fee-supported programs are 100% fee-supported; with Mayor Roe noting that under Program Management (Code 16), a review of revenue indicates the City of Roseville at 102% fee-supported in that category, as confirmed by City Manager Malinen.


Councilmember McGehee noted that it was hard to make sense of spending, when the Check Register didn’t show revenues.


Given the time remaining for tonight’s meeting, Mayor Roe, with Council consensus, deferred remaining items to the next business meeting with the exception of the Website vendor review.

Public Works Department Programs

Building Maintenance – Organizational Management (Code 3)

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the duties of this function (e.g. supervision, work planning, purchasing) all dependent on contract status, which can be heavy at times.


Based on tonight’s discussion, Mr. Schwartz asked that Finance Director Miller review the listed budget figure for that item, as it appeared to be high to him, which Mr. Miller duly noted.


Central Garage Organizational Management (Code 4)

Councilmember Etten noted the general maintenance budget shifted considerably.


Mr. Schwartz advised that his ranking rationale was similar to that used by Mr. Trudgeon, if critical to performing a function, the level of service was rated at a “5” or higher, with level “5” still considered by him to be a high service level.


Mayor Roe thanked all Department Heads for their attendance and assistance in processing this information.


City Manager Malinen noted that the April 22, 2013, had this item for adoption in accordance with the budget calendar; and asked if the City Council wished another iteration as part of the process and based on tonight’s exercise and subsequent discussion.  


By consensus, Councilmembers expressed their preference for a second iteration, and determined a deadline of Wednesday night to be included as part of the agenda packet.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Malinen advised that addition of the FTE information would be discussed at the Department Head meeting with Finance Director Miller. At the recommendation of Mayor Roe, and by consensus, Councilmembers determined that it was only fair for staff to complete the exercise again as well based on tonight’s discussion.


City Manager Malinen suggested the acronym “DISC” as an easy way to remember the ranking rubric, Desirable, Important, Significant and Critical.


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Approve  Vendor for Website Redesign

Communications Specialist Tim Pratt was available to present to lead this discussion, as detailed in the RCA dated April 15, 201, as assessed by the committee (Attachment B).  


Regarding User Experience Evaluation (UX) – Line 33, Mr. Pratt advised that no proposals were received from those involved in civic engagement; and asked for feedback from the City Council to staff on that specific area.


Motion to Extend Curfew

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, moving to extend the City Council curfew to 10:17 p.m. to complete this discussion.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Discussion included various components of the recommended service/vendor; stand-alone versus compatibility of mobile and e-communication enhancements; user-friendliness of the end products through responsive design; overall coordination by one vendor to coordinate parts (Vision Internet); and total dollar amount proposed and detailed in the RCA in the amount of $83,750.00 with all options except the civic engagement component.


Further discussion included a background in April of 2012 pointed out by Councilmember Willmus when the City was approached by Civic Plus and made aware of pricing for extending an update of the old site; and follow-up in August of 2012 without that information presented again.


Mr. Pratt clarified that staff had advised Councilmembers at that time that the Civic Plus proposal did not meet the City’s needs, and still did not do so.


Mayor Roe recalled that their proposal was for freshening up the current site, and when vetted by the committee continued to be found lacking.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the proposed cost for Fredrickson Communications at $36,000.00 to perform beta testing when there were people in the community who could test those sites; with Mayor Roe clarifying that someone had to measure and test those results.


Mr. Pratt clarified that the intent was to determine the use benefit of public users, not internal staff, including field testing by Roseville residents, and preparation of presentation of that end report.


Based on her experience with several website redesigns in her professional career, Councilmember Laliberte questioned what needed to be fixed: function or content/design.  Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that a complete website redesign cost an incredible amount of money, and questioned a minimal budget of $20,000.00.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that the User Evaluation was not something she thought she could fully support.  While recognizing that GovDelivery was a good vendor, Councilmember Laliberte stated that others could be designed with more options available to select from.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her hesitancy with this request as proposed without additional information being available.


After further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there should be an easy fix working with the current provider if design was the big issue; and suggested a la carte options available to get the website designed to the City’s liking, but that it could become an immense and costly process.  Councilmember Laliberte admitted that the current site had considerable room for improvement; but noted that she didn’t see recommendations of the Civic Engagement Task Force who had done considerable work on this issue.


Mr. Pratt clarified that the Civic Engagement Task Force’s thoughts were incorporated with Attachment A to the staff report.  Mr. Pratt further clarified that the a la carte portion of this proposal was for the mobile and enhanced e-communication components only, with the redesign sold as a package and representing the least expensive of those considered, with only three (3) responses received and reviewed.


Councilmember Laliberte recognized staff’s comments and the expense of this option; however, she noted that the existing vendor most always proved less work and money; with the only question remaining as to whether or not the City could work with the current vendor.  Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concern that she didn’t feel she had enough data or that the process itself had been exhaustive.


Since the Civic Engagement Task Force representatives were initially appointed with this as one of their charges, Councilmember Willmus questioned why their role appeared to have diminished.


Motion to Extend Curfew

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, moving to extend the City Council curfew to 10:30 pm to complete this discussion.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg

In response on behalf of the Civic Engagement Task Force, Mr. Grefenberg advised that they supported Fredrickson Communications and Vision Internet as outlined in the staff report as the first step.  Mr. Grefenberg clarified that the Committee also recommended that the City Council authorize an RFP for the civic engagement component; however, the committee did not recommend the mobile or enhanced e-communications components as outlined in the staff report.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation in working with staff; however, he stated frankly that while there had been some advocates – himself included –  of continuing to use Civic Plus, during the process it had become evident that they could not provide what the City needed, especially with the civic engagement component. 


Discussion ensued regarding the civic engagement component as a stand-alone proposal; misunderstandings among committee members regarding committee priorities and recommendations, established as 1) web design; 2) usability studies; and 3) civic engagement.


Mayor Roe summarized the committee recommendation that the user study and one consultant to coordinate all of this was necessary, with the options for mobile and enhanced e-communications not yet indicated until the other components were completed; and further noted that staff was seeking further direction from the City Council on the civic engagement component, as outlined in the RCA.  Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation for the committee’s observation; and again summarized that a user experience evaluation appeared to be the number one priority.


Mr. Grefenberg advised that the committee was thinking basically of functionality, and thought an agreement had been reached for adoption of three (3) recommendations and one recommendation to seek authorization to pursue the civic engagement component.


Councilmember McGehee spoke strongly for a user beta test, opining that the current site’s search function was practically non-existent and inconvenient.  As a user, Councilmember McGehee suggested that this be the first step, and additional components not be considered at this time, as long as they could be interfaced at a later date.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Pratt clarified that actual services that Vision Internet would offer; with Councilmember Etten not comfortable with the cost for the enhanced e-communication component at this time.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she could not support a User Experience Evaluation, as she had found that website companies dealing with redesign included that as part of what they do; and suggested that the RCA (line 47) combine their professional assessment with Attachment B needs identified by the committee and task force, to clarify what the City needed and wanted.  However, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she could not support Fredrickson Communications at $36,000.00.  If the City was assured that Vision Internet could provide what the City needed, or other components, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she could support that component; and based on today’s technology, spoke in support of a more cohesive arrangement overall.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte, and based on the comments offered by Mr. Grefenberg, direct staff to come back with an RCA reflective of tonight’s discussion on the civic engagement component.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he could support a committee/staff recommendation, based on a refined RCA that clearly ruled out Civic Plus as an option.


City Manager Malinen suggested moving forward with the web redesign; and seek multiple responses for the civic engagement component, but allowing for a basic website that would be up and running with enhancements to follow.


Mr. Pratt clarified that the Vision Internet proposal for mobile service did not include smart phone application, but could be accessed wirelessly.


Mayor Roe concurred with the recommendation of City Manager Malinen.


McGehee moved, Roe seconded, authorizing staff to move forward with finalization of a contract for redesign of the City website by Vision Internet; in an amount not to exceed $24,750.00, and a fee (starting in 2014) not to exceed $5,550 annually with a friendly amendment by Councilmember Etten, accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion and to seek proposals on the civic engagement tool of the project.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her preference that all of the proposed services, including clarifications from tonight’s discussion, be documented in a new RCA, with the civic engagement RFP information included.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Laliberte in preferring that a revised staff report includes the number of additions and annual fees, rather than his current level of uncertainty as to what staff was being directed to move forward with at this time.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference not to seek a refined RCA; opining that there was clear definition available now: to provide an RFP for all of the civic engagement components, with part of the RFP process potentially including a package that would work with Vision Internet, at a cost not to exceed $24,750.00 for Vision Internet, and an annual fee of $5,500.00 to get the process started.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that this was the actual recommendation of the committee and staff.


City Manager Malinen noted that timing was a critical issue.


At the request of Mr. Grefenberg, Mayor Roe confirmed that the RFP process would follow the previous process including participation by the committee.


Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her request that no action be taken on this tonight, based on the amount of work already completed, but also recognizing her lack of clarity for all needs.


Mayor Roe noted that some of the proposals may be set to expire; and Mr. Pratt further advised that the Civic Plus license expired at year-end unless the City chose to pay for extending that license fee.


McGehee moved, Roe seconded, to call the question.


                        Roll Call

            Ayes:  Etten; McGehee; and Roe.  

Nays: Willmus; Laliberte.

Motion carried.


                        Roll Call (Original Motion)

            Ayes:  Etten; McGehee; and Roe.  

Nays: Willmus; Laliberte.

Motion carried.


14.         Adjourn

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:35 pm.

                                                Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.