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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

June 10, 2013


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:00 pm, and welcomed everyone.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.  Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


Closed Executive Session

5:00 pm         Discuss potential offers to purchase the following properties:

1.    Owasso School Site, 934-950 Woodhill Drive/2659 Victoria Street

2.    Mounds View School Site, 2959 Hamline Avenue

3.    1984 County Road C-2

4.    Press Gym Site, 2650 Fry Street


Mayor Roe indicated that, in accordance with Minnesota statutes 13d.05, cities may hold discussions about the potential purchase or sale of real property in closed session rather than in open session.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, closing the meeting to discuss the potential purchase of the listed properties.


          Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe

          Nays: None


Mayor Roe convened the city council in closed session at approximately 5:05 pm to discuss the potential purchase of the listed properties.  In addition to the council, Interim      City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Mark Gaughan, and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke were present.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning the closed session and returning to open session at approximately 5:55 pm.

          Roll Call:

          Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe
          Nays: None

          Mayor Roe reconvened the city council in open session at approximately 6:05 pm.


2.         Approve Agenda

Interim City Manager Trudgeon requested an addition to the agenda for consideration of a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, July 1, 2013; with Mayor Roe suggesting the addition to Agenda Item 15 entitled “City Manager Future Agenda Review.”


Councilmember McGehee requested a brief discussion of Agenda Item 7.e entitled, “Direct Staff to Advertise Vacancy on Human Rights and Police Civil Service Commissions.”


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


                                                Roll Call

               Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; 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 an upcoming concert, sponsored by Trite to the Troops and Beyond the Blue Ribbon, as a benefit for The Fallen Heroes Education Fund to assist with college expenses for the families of fallen heroes.  The benefit concert is scheduled on Sunday, July 23, 2013 from 5:00 – 6:30 pm at the Arden Hills location of North Heights Lutheran Church.


Mayor Roe announced several upcoming Parks & Recreation Renewal Program community meetings for various parks; with additional information available on the City’s website or by calling City Hall.


Mayor Roe also reminded residents of the upcoming Rosefest festivities from June 22 – 29; as well as the Fourth of July celebration at Central Park on July 4, 2013.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


            a.         Recognize Girl Scout Gold Award Winners

Mayor Roe recognized several Girl Scouts in their achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award as follows, none of whom were available for tonight’s meeting:

Hannah Kiresuk, who developed a unique and fun education program for elementary students in which she shared her own knowledge and expertise about honeybees, and developed recourses in a variety of media to further enhance learning and allow others to continue the activities;

Alyssa Mumm, who worked with her church to develop ideas to get fifth and sixth graders involved in their community as well as have fun, by developing age- appropriate service opportunities, from support of food shelves to creating midwife kits and sensory blankets; and

Amanda Walker, who along with her doctor, family and specialists at Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, planned and led an educational and networking event to scoliosis patients newly diagnosed and long-time patients, making “Living With a Curve” an annual event.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, a proclamation recognizing Hannah Kiresuk, Alyssa Mumm, and Amanda Walker, for their achievement in each receiving the Girl Scout Gold Award.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


6.            Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of June 3, 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, Etten seconded, approval of the minutes of the June 3, 2013, meeting as amended.



·         Page 34, Line 10 (Laliberte)

Correct from a 1.5 to a 1.0 FTE position


                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; 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, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


70008 – 70166





                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


            b.         Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

          Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of various business license applications for the period of one (1) year, as listed in detail in the Request for Council Action dated June 10, 2013.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


c.         Approve a Zoning Text Change to Chapter 1006 of the City Code to Eliminate the Size Limitation Unintentionally Applied to Motor Vehicles that may be repaired in the Industrial Zoning District

          Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1438 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Chapters 1001 (Introduction) and 1006 (Employment Districts) of Title 10 “Zoning Code” of the Roseville City Code.”

                                                            Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


d.            Amend Section 1009.06 of Zoning Ordinance to Clarify the Initiation Process for Zoning Map and/or Zoning Text Amendments

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1439 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code.”


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


e.            Direct Staff to Advertise Vacancy on Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Police Civil Service Commission

Councilmember McGehee advised that she received a request from HRC Chairperson Gary Grefenberg, that when advertising the HRC vacancy, candidates be alerted of the expectation that they allow time to serve at the regular two (2) hour meeting of the Commission monthly, as well as the ability to devote 5-6 hours in addition each month for HRC related activities.


Councilmember Willmus requested that staff go outside typical sources of advertising (e.g. using and other avenues to seek applicants.

Mayor Roe noted that was becoming part of the City’s regular sources for advertising.


Mayor Roe advised that he had received notice of a vacancy on the Planning Commission; however, confirmation of that vacancy had not been received by staff or the Commission.. 


Roe moved, Willmus seconded, amendment of the proposed motion to conditionally include advertising a vacancy on the Planning Commission as well, pending verification of the vacancy.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to advertise for applicants to serve on the Human Rights, Police Civil Service, and Planning Commissions, as amended; with applications due to the City by July 10, 2013; and interviews tentatively scheduled at the July 15, and appointment at the July 22, 2013 respective City Council meetings.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


f.             Approve Firefighter Relief Association Amended Bylaws

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the revised Roseville Firefighters’ Relief Association Bylaws (Attachment A).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption


10.         Presentations


a.            Update from Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire

Mayor Roe welcomed newly-elected Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire.


Commissioner McGuire reviewed her career in higher education and background in various elected official capacities; and reviewed some of the committees she had been assigned in her role of County Commissioner, including Chairing the Board’s Legislative Committee; Chairing the Active Living Ramsey Communities Committee; and service on the I-35W Corridor Coalition; NE Diagonal Transportation group; County Transportation Board and a number of other committees.  Commissioner McGuire reviewed and promoted some of those efforts, including “Economic Gardening” providing peer coaching and forums and information networks and resources for local entrepreneurs and businesses.


Commissioner McGuire reviewed recent events and activities including the TCAAP groundbreaking last week to enhance the county’s tax-base to benefit all Ramsey County residents: as part of Acting Living Ramsey Communities; Small Business Roundtable, also attended by Mayor Roe with Congresswoman Betty McCollum; and her enthusiasm for the upcoming Rosefest Parade and Taste of Rosefest.


Commissioner McGuire provided Interim City Manager Trudgeon and the City Council with a number of resources for distribution and encouraged residents to contact her office at any time by calling her office at 651/266-8359.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Commissioner McGuire reviewed the intent and focus of the “Economic Gardening” offered by Ramsey County to cultivate home-grown businesses throughout the county; however, clarified that the group was not intended to provide funding, but provide training, transportation, and networking opportunities for small business owners.


Interim City Manager Trudgeon noted that the state had numerous programs available, even though they were very competitive, that provided funding (e.g. Angel Funding; Economic Guardian Program; Women Venture; etc.) with information on those resources available through the City’s Housing & Redevelopment Authority office.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he would verify that the resources were available on the City’s website.


Councilmember Laliberte alerted Commissioner McGuire to a dangerous road situation in Roseville on Hamline Avenue at the northern most entrance into the Ramsey County Library/Roseville Branch, where there was no turn lane for those southbound even though many were turning into the library.  Commissioner McGuire advised that she would look into the situation.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Commissioner McGuire noted that there was not much activity at this time with the NE Diagonal efforts.  Mayor Roe noted that at a recent meeting of the East Metro Transit Alliance, he had received confirmation that the commercial railroad does not want to give up any right-of-way at this time; and encouraged the group, with the assistance of Commissioner McGuire, to pursue a broader area for this transportation corridor beyond that of the railroad’s rights-of-way.  Commissioner McGuire concurred, and advised that she would further research it and attempt to get the group reinvigorated accordingly.


Commissioner McGuire noted her attendance, along with Mayor Roe, at the recent federally-funded FEMA training for Ramsey County and all communities within the county; opining that it had been a great investment of time.  Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it put county-wide and community preliminary emergency plans to the test, through a mock disaster enactment with a tornado at the Minnesota State Fair and in Maplewood and White Bear Lake, finding areas that worked well  and others needing improvement.


Mayor Roe thanked Commissioner McGuire for her attendance and information; and Commissioner McGuire asked that everyone keep in touch with any issues or concerns for which she could provide assistance.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:44 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:49 pm.

b.            Joint Meeting with Parks & Recreation Commission

Those present from the Parks & Recreation Commission included: Chair Dave Holt; Mary Holt; Lee Diedrick; Randall Doneen; Phillip Gelbach; Jerry Stoner; and Erin Azer.


Chair Holt provided an overview of tonight’s joint meeting agenda, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013, and related attachments; with each commissioner reporting on those various components as listed. 


Commissioner Gelbach reviewed those seven (7) goals established for 2013, and activities accomplished to-date by the group, with five (5) completed to-date, and the remainder available tonight for discussion and further direction from the City Council.  Those two (2) remaining goals included: pursuit of a local option sales tax and pursuit of a community center.


Regarding a community center, Councilmember Willmus advised that Parks & Recreation Director Brokke had a wealth of information over the last 20-25 years on past discussions.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the discussions always get started, and end up at the same roadblock related to finances for construction and/or operation.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the Commission could play a vital role in the planning and implementation process by seeking input on what level of funding and expectations there were from the community; and then to link those two components together, in addition to the background information he previously referenced.


Councilmember McGehee urged the Commission, if it chose to go forward, to seriously consider the location, noting the lack of any park amenities in the SW portion of Roseville.  Councilmember McGehee noted her past support in moving forward with a referendum for a community center that would incorporate the interests of all residents, rather than starting with individual park buildings in specific parks, all of which were located other than in the SW portion of the City.  While still supportive of a referendum for a community center, Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment in not having offered something for the entire community versus specific parks.


Councilmember Etten opined that he felt it was very important to pursue a local option sales tax, since there were a number of users of the Roseville park system, as well as the City’s infrastructure system and businesses, beyond Roseville residents, providing an interconnection and regionality of the park system.  Councilmember Etten opined that this helped to make the system and the City of Roseville unique from most other suburbs not serving the regional community, and opined that it was logical for the City to move forward with a request to the State Legislature; and would also serve as obvious way to fund a community center.  Councilmember Etten further opined that it would provide a great tool without putting the burden only on local property owners; and encouraged a proactive approach in accomplishing this goal.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had yet to make up her mind on either item.  On the topic of a community center, Councilmember Laliberte stated that it was reassuring to know there was a history available for review; however, she suggested that there were also lessons to learn from other communities and their community centers, those that had proven successful and those efforts that had not achieved success in funding yearly operations.  Councilmember Laliberte requested any future information and discussion include that background information and research as well.  Regarding the local option sales tax, Councilmember Laliberte noted that, even though this would broaden the tax burden, it would still put that additional burden on Roseville property owners and residents, which she found not amenable, when looking at the additional burden already placed on them with the Park Renewal Bonds.


Councilmember Etten suggested that the local option sales tax could serve to cover some of the City’s CIP items and provide a wonderful tool for the overall community.


Regarding the local option sales tax, Mayor Roe questioned if this was intended to be specific to the Parks & Recreation Department needs, or for broader City issues (e.g. public safety services also taxed by regional traffic).  Mayor Roe advised that current State Statute required the tax to be tied to regional, capital needs.  Mayor Roe noted that one option would be to lobby the State Legislature to change the statute, which he was supportive of doing, providing greater opportunities for the City of Roseville and other communities.  However, Mayor Roe noted that this was not going to happen overnight, due to state representation and interests from outstate Minnesota.  In order to move ahead under current Statute, Mayor Roe noted that the voters should understand what is involved and how it will affect local residents, then possibly tying it into a community center discussion.  If a local option sales tax was used to fund a community center in part and requiring voter approval, Mayor Roe noted that it was important that education of Roseville residents was handled well, using an effort similar to the Parks Master Plan and Parks Renewal Program models.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the Parks Master Plan had included information gathering from the community pertaining to a community center; and should be included with other data.  Councilmember   Willmus concurred that outreach and getting the public involved at the earliest opportunity was vital.


Mayor Roe expressed concern with proceeding too soon with the local option sales tax or community center proposed for those two (2) projects in 2014, noting that impacts to local taxpayers for CIP increased funding and the bond issue had not been fully realized, but would be coming on line in 2014.  Mayor Roe advised that he was concerned with the impacts of doing too many things too fast..  Mayor Roe noted that, while a community center has been under discussion for several decades, the Fairview Community Center was and had been serving the community in a limited capacity for years, through the efforts of the School District and City.  While not necessarily the same vision talked about in the Parks Master Plan, Mayor Roe noted that those discussions initiated with the Master Plan process provided a good starting point; however, emphasized the need for community buy-in and the ability to express their points of view as vital.


As a big supporter of sustainability, Councilmember McGehee focused discussion on maintenance issues, noting that if the community wanted to be in a position of sustainability by 2020, it would require $1.4 million annually even before any additional park improvements were put in place.  Councilmember McGehee referenced discussions later this evening on levy limits imposed by the legislature for 2014; and even with the $315,000 set aside by the City Council last year for CIP needs, the City would not be able to meet the current annual needs, without any other facilities or structures coming on line.  While having historically talked about a community center and recognizing the value the community places on its park system, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had not historically funded those assets, creating the need for the recent $19 million bond issue to fund them; but having no program in place going forward with any solid based funding for those current or the proposed buildings.  While continuing to hear the opinion that a local option sales tax will get the City out of its current “mess,” Councilmember McGehee opined that there were many legislative issues needing to be addressed, and many sides not yet fully researched, including other communities building up their own retail centers, creating additional competition for Roseville’s retail community. 


Mayor Roe noted that the Council consensus providing direction to the Commission was to continue looking at the possibility of a community center; however, noting the need for considerable homework yet to be accomplished; and recognizing that moving forward immediately may not be feasible.


Specific to the comments of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt recognized the ongoing struggle, specific to the Park Improvement Program (PIP) and lack of funding over the years; and asked that the City Council take that into consideration as they developed future budgets, to reinstate and continue funding of the PIP to prevent any further deferred and more costly maintenance issues.


Commissioner Azer provided a synopsis for the potential of a Park Board (Attachment B) crediting the report researched and prepared by Commissioners Nolan Wall and Gregg Simbeck, who were unfortunately unavailable to attend tonight. Commissioner Azer noted that the report provide the pros and cons between Parks & Recreation Commission and a Park Board, advising that the Commission sought direction from the City Council.


Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for this report, as well as all materials being presented tonight by the Commission, including providing the negatives and positives of issues.  Councilmember Etten advised that he was still undecided about a Commission versus Park Board, including questioning the willingness of people to put in the extra time required, if using the Maple Grove model as an example.  Councilmember Etten stated that another concern of his was making sure a Park Board wouldn’t get in the way of day-to-day functions and operations of the Parks & Recreation Department and noted the need for clear job definitions and how department served the community.


Councilmember Willmus echoed thanks to the Commission for their reports; and regarding a Commission versus Board, opined that a Board would provide increased fiscal transparency for the community.


Commissioner Azer opined that her main concern was that she thought this Commission of incredibly dedicated and hardworking members, already did the work of a Park Board. If additional authority was added with a Board, Commissioner Azer opined that things would change; and suggested that Commissioner Nolan’s rationale for more transparency was based on the City Council and Park Board making decisions, allowing for more awareness of activities.


Commissioner Doneen noted that fiscal transparency would include the City Council providing a lump sum with a Park Board allocating those funds.  When funds were mixed with the overall City budget, Commissioner Doneen opined that they were more difficult for the public to track.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Etten clarified his concerns along legal lines and functions, authority, property acquisition and how much responsibility is held by a Park Board versus the City Council.  However, Councilmember Etten stated that he found the information contained in the report had alleviated some of his concerns versus his original concerns when the issue first came up for discussion with three (3) available options.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in continuing to explore the option of Park Board; and suggested that it would be beneficial for Commissioners Nolan and Simbeck present during that continued discussion.


Mayor Roe noted that this discussion was very preliminary and only a portion of items being covered in this meeting.


Further discussion included the City of Minneapolis Park Board model; current State Statute language and any potential legislative revisions beyond City ordinance; how this fit with the Commission Subcommittee work being done by Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee; clarification (line 110 of the report) that the City Council had apparently at one time directed investigation of a Park Board versus Commission.  Additional discussion ensued regarding current shared responsibility, personnel and equipment, for trails and pathways and natural resource management between the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments, and whether separating those areas could lead to additional expenses.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of a more detailed future discussion; opining that this had become a large scale community issue based on the City not taking care of its assets; and opined that if there had been Park Board, he didn’t think the issue would have been deferred for so long, and would have provided greater oversight and accountability for those assets, proving more beneficial for the community. 


Councilmember McGehee opined that she would have an issue with the Mayor making appointments to a Park Board versus selection by the full City Council, since the Board would have taxing authority.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus clarified that a Park Board functioned similar to the City’s HRA, with appointments selected by the Mayor and ratified by the full body; and approval by the body of an annual budget.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had not initially been inclined to favor a Park Board; however, the information provided was good and needed her further review.


Mayor Roe opined that he remained skeptical at this point; however, suggested that he could be swayed.  Mayor Roe expressed concern with park operations being integral in the City organization, would they become too independent; as well as separating a huge taxing authority losing integration with overall City operations.  Mayor Roe noted that, while, similar to the HRA levy, a Park Board levy may not be separate on property tax statements, the current Ramsey County statement lumped all taxing districts together and did not provide that separation.  Mayor Roe suggested there may be a way to accomplish that; however, he also recognized that the levy would remain part of the City levy, simply managed outside of the direct control of the City Manager.  Mayor Roe suggested that there may be different models that would provide additional information; and opined that he needed to have a better understanding before coming to a clear decision.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe confirmed that he was curious enough to bring the issue back for more informal discussion by staff and the City Council.


At the opportunity for further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte suggested further consideration of areas available under the City Council and staff’s responsibility and under the current Commission model that would provide the same level of transparency versus creation of a separate organization.


Mayor Roe concurred with that point.

Councilmember McGehee expressed her willingness to have further discussions.


Commissioner Azer referenced interaction and interconnection among departments in lines 153-155 of the report based on the Maple Grove model and clarified that the intent in a Park Board was not in recreating the Commission, but simply retooling and reorganizing current efforts.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation of the Commission, opining that they “set the bar” for other advisory commissions.


Mayor Roe noted that Council consensus was to continue this discussion with more details and specifics in the future.


Regarding a volunteer coordinator position, the Commission’s research was provided in Attachment C; with the Commission making a strong recommendation for the City Council’s wholehearted support, as outlined by Commissioners


Councilmember Willmus concurred with their recommendation.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City Council, during budget discussions, had discussed such a position, and whether the position fell into more than one area of the City operations.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that the ability to combine and share functions across all departments provided a more favorable option in her opinion.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this fell into other reorganization efforts (e.g. communications) to free employees for other roles and find efficiencies within the organization rather than funding an additional position in the overall effort to make things happen.


Councilmember McGehee concurred that a volunteer coordinator was needed; however, she also questioned if the position was specific to the needs of the Parks & Recreation Department.  In discussions related to community outreach and civic engagement, Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in having a volunteer coordinator manage the volunteer resources for the City, encouraging the community to volunteer in a variety of ways.


Commission Holt advised that, in their research, the models used all started with a Parks & Recreation-focused group, and then expanded further.  Commissioner Holt advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission had projects already defined and outlined, and would be the obvious place to start.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments and proposals outlined by Councilmember Laliberte for city-wide volunteer coordination.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Parks & Recreation Director Brokke provided a comparison of FTE’s in the Parks & Recreation Department now, at approximately 24.5 compared with several years ago at 27.5 and a total of 29 FTE within the last twenty (20) years, with that reduction occurring while increasing facilities and programs.


In researching with the Ramsey County Library Volunteer Coordinator, Commissioner Diedrick noted their suggestion that one group be started initially to provide a good, sound footing, such as with a pilot program first.


Commissioner Gelbach noted that the Commission did not disagree that everyone needed a volunteer coordinator, he noted that the Parks & Recreation Department had approximately 2,700 volunteers today, and anticipated growth; and further noted that this area was already in place with systems and a process to begin the most effectively.  Commissioner Gelbach opined that it provided a starting point, and could be expanded if and when other departments indicated a need, if could be expanded without waiting another year to hash out other needs.


Councilmember Willmus noted his viewing of the presentation at last weeks’ Commission meeting; and opined that if it was going to be implemented, it would be prudent to start in parks, given the thousands of people annually utilized by the Department throughout the community.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that by having an extra person helping in that area it would save money for the City in the long-run; and would be worth exploring.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the Department had been looking at the possibility for a number of years, and opined that the timing was right and encouraged the City Council to look in that direction.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with a pilot program to prove it worked before other areas were brought in; and if the Commission already had bodies and projects, it only made sense.  However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her preference that this conversation continue and determine if a current staff person could be freed up from work they’re currently doing, such as through reorganization of various departments.


Chair Holt opined that the City’s current Parks & Recreation staff was already very short-handed; and they were seeing the need for an additional body.


Councilmember Laliberte reiterated that her intent was to shift some of the work or responsibilities out of an existing position.


Mayor Roe opined that there was no question that volunteer coordination was already taxing existing staff, but if there was an opportunity to gain efficiency and refocus duties, it may still be necessary to add another person.  Mayor Roe reiterated that this was part of the ongoing budget discussion and process, to provide volunteer coordination, sustainable maintenance of facilities and equipment, and other components, all entering into the big picture.


Chair Holt expressed the Commission’s desire that the City Council also look at the efficiencies to be realized by bringing another person in that would recruit additional volunteers.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Mayor Roe’s comments about sustainability and budget constraints; noting that the City had just found out about the levy limits imposed at the end of the legislative session; with mandates and contractual obligations already in place, and no money available.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it only made sense for the City to look at more efficiency and centralize functions to free up its currently overworked staff.  While recognizing that the City was certainly not overstaffed, Councilmember McGehee also recognized the need to have the money to pay staff.


Mayor Roe suggested another option, while clarifying that he was not advocating for it, would be for the volunteer coordinator position to be funded by its user groups, and if that required an increase on user fees (e.g. 1%) to accomplish that, it may be worth discussion.  Mayor Roe advised that it was not his intent to suggest a huge fee increase on its user groups, but it may be part of the creativity needed.


Councilmember Laliberte again expressed her appreciation of the Commission’s very helpful report.


Chair Holt recognized the numerous issues the City Council needed to consider; however, he opined that there came a point where no more further efficiencies could be found.  Chair Holt noted that a significant way the City saved money was through utilizing its volunteer pool and their efforts; and a coordinator could provide additional gain for the city beyond the focus of cost of the position.  Chair Holt opined that he was of the firm belief that the position would actually be cost-neutral or save the City money in the long-run; and asked that the City Council change their thinking along those lines, and encouraged their efforts for that consideration proving very beneficial overall.


Commissioner Doneen, in the Commission’s role as the City’s Tree Board, provided a report on the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation in Roseville, referencing the original Management Plan providing five (5) options, and the one-time set-aside of $100,000 in funding for potential infestation, now being realized.  Commissioner Doneen reviewed various options in how aggressive the City chose to be related to removal and replanting, and asked for their consideration during budget deliberations, and how it fit with other natural resource management priorities as well.  Commissioner Doneen opined that this infestation would make a huge impact in many areas of the community and its entire eco-system, with funding and proactive measures needing to be reviewed and updated. 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Commissioner Doneen clarified that the Commission was currently focused on boulevard and City property, but not targeting forested areas of parks, but those in the city-wide public property tree inventory for those that could be mowed around for diversity planting, with no focus to-date on private property.  Commissioner Doneen advised that he was advocating initiating a diverse replanting now by identifying areas through use of the tree inventory.


Discussion included an historical review of other communities having had an infestation and whether there had been a recurrence; 25% of the City’s current trees of the Ash species; treatment versus removal; special consideration of the City’s Golf Course with substantial Ash trees; treatment strategies being a delaying tactic, not a cure; and the Commission’s search for any available grant funding to help lower costs in addressing the infestation(s).


Councilmember McGehee requested more detailed information on treatment types and available historical data for future discussions.


Mayor Roe questioned if there may be some assistance from the State, County or Metropolitan Council to more broadly address the infestation, since it was regional and not city-specific.


Even though the City will probably not have resources to assist private property owners with infestation, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the infestation would travel across property lines, and the City needed to educate private property owners and make them aware of the issues.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:03 pm and reconvened at approximately  8:10 pm.


11.         Public Hearings


12.         Budget Items


a.            Consider Revising the 2014 Budget Process

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief summary of the RCA dated June 10, 2013; and deferred to Finance Director Chris Miller for more detail on a proposed revised 2014 budget process.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that Department Heads had reviewed the current timeline and potential revisions, and were in agreement the RCA prepared by Finance Director Miller; clarifying at the request of Councilmember Laliberte that they agreed with the revisions and were not being pulled along unwillingly.


Finance Director reviewed the RCA, noting that it encapsulated comments heard by staff over the last few weeks, as well as their individual discussions with staff, indicating that there would be more of a comfort level if everyone paused and stepped back.  Mr. Miller advised that a recurring theme of those concerns was preference for an annual versus biennial budget process, recently implemented; as well as meeting with each department for more detailed review and input versus emphasizing the prioritization process alone.  Another concern was with the information packets provided and whether or not they were helpful or feel short of the information needed.  Mr. Miller noted that staff didn’t want to prepare information that the City Council did not want; and asked that they reach consensus on the information they needed and how they wanted it presented.  Mr. Miller reiterated the comments of Interim City Manager Trudgeon with Department Heads being comfortable with a new approach if and when so directed by the City Council.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that Department Heads universally liked the ability to meet with the City Council to discuss budget challenges and impacts, similar to the opportunity provided during the Strategic Plan process.  Regarding Mayor Roe’s question regarding whether there was Department Head support for the City Council’s program-based budget approach, Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that there was no universal answer for that.  Given the complexities of program-based budgeting and ranking, when having to eliminate or reduce programs, Mr. Trudgeon stated that Department Heads often felt it was hard for the City Council to relate to the negative and positive operational impacts within and across departments.  Using a simplistic approach broken down by departments and divisions, and the number of employees, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was easier for him to have a conversation with Department Heads.  Also, Mr. Trudgeon questioned if the program-based budget ever evolved as needed, suggesting that performance measurements were really never finalized over the last few years.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that, if it was to continue, it would require the discipline of both the City Council and staff to stick with it; but questioned whether it was a good fit for the City with the current budgeting challenges faced.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller opined that the recently completed ranking process should not be tossed out, as whether done deliberately or transparently, it signaled the City Council’s priorities to the community.  Mr. Miller noted that the priority-based budget process was designed to be a deliberate process for those programs/services funded and those not funded; and whether retained or not, the City Council would still be signaling their priorities when adopting a final budget in December.


Mayor Roe observed that the challenge with a program-based approach was that it was based on the terms of eliminating programs/services versus assigning resources up or down.  Mayor Roe noted that the first time the City Council went through the ranking exercise, they found so many programs/services and employees being intertwined, the level of discussion never allowed time to get to the Department Head level for their input.  With agreement by Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Miller, Mayor Roe concluded that the program-based process had merit, but needed to be used better and not focus so much on process.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of staff’s recommendations, including the upcoming discussion on reorganization.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council and staff had held enough discussion about priorities and customer relations, and further opined that improved customer relations and efficiencies and centralized communication and website efforts in one place for design and maintenance were prudent.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that by talking with a Department Head, they could identify areas for efficiencies rather than the City Council attempting to manage or direct their internal organization.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of having those discussions by department and with Department Heads.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her support of moving in a new direction; and concurred with staff’s recommendations, offering her enthusiasm in having work session or discussions with each department, and hearing how the community needs for their departments have changed, and the bigger challenges they were facing.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested using the priority programming as an ancillary part of the discussion; however, she reiterated that having those discussions directly would be very beneficial and get to the heart of the matter


Mr. Trudgeon suggested an option for the City Council to set aside a special night, and/or hear from two (2) departments per night so they could make a more detailed presentation and not have the discussion crammed into a meeting with everyone watching the clock due to other agenda items; and suggested a two-hour period for that discussion, suggesting early evening, allowing more focus on that discussion.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with that suggestion, opining that there was nothing the City Council did that was more important to the community; and expressed how anxious she was to have those serious discussions with Department Heads and give them the time they deserved.

Councilmember Willmus echoed everything he had heard so far on this item; noting his ongoing struggle with the program-based budget when not engaging it fully, opining that he felt he was only getting the Cliff Notes version of department information.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this provided the City Council a more thorough understanding of department specifics and how departments interacted, allowing the City Council to be better decision-makers.  As far as a biennial budget process, Councilmember Willmus advised that he had never been a fan; and while it was good to have some guidance for year two, it was difficult to make decisions with unknown implications that far in advance with any accuracy.


Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for the proposed changes, opining that it provided the City Council with a better understanding from its own experts and allowed discussion on efficiencies and impacts of what would happen if service levels dropped significantly.  While recognizing that everyone naturally wanted to advocate for their own department, Councilmember Etten noted that it would not be an easy discussion, but with the current situation in searching for a new City Manager and the recent legislative impacts, a one year budget, rather than a two-year budget, made much more sense.


Mayor Roe opined that he had always thought some of the best budget discussions had been with Department Heads, and concurred with Councilmember Etten’s comments, and advised that he would not interested in having individual departments explain what they did and how much it cost; but if they needed more employees, how they proposed to fund them.  While this may appear to put Department Heads on the spot, Mayor Roe opined that they knew their stuff and had a good understanding from past discussions how things worked, rather than Department Heads identifying needs and the City Manager not addressing it, with the City Council ultimately going along with the City Manager-recommended budget.  Mayor Roe noted that this then opened up the need for Department Heads to lobby the City Council to address those needs, not providing for a good process for anyone.  Mayor Roe suggested that it was much more beneficial to have a dialogue throughout the budget process, with trade-offs and impacts identified to avoid confusion.  Mayor Roe advised that he was seeking a back and forth dialogue, with tough questions addressed and realistic answers provided.


Councilmember Etten opined that it would be key information for the City Council for each Department Head to look at the global picture, not just their own department, to determine how shared positions or responsibilities among departments and personnel could achieve efficiencies (e.g. communications efforts) and suggested a discussion among Department Heads before meeting with the City Council to consider some different ways to accomplish that beyond the current sharing.  Councilmember Etten opined that it should be evident to staff that the City Council had a strong willingness to look at things in a new way, to develop more efficiencies, and what impacts that would mean for their Departments based on previous discussions.


Mayor Roe suggested consideration be given to which departments presented at a given time to address sharing among obvious departments; with both Department Heads available at the work table for the entire discussion, not just for their specific department.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with the cross-department sharing and efficiencies, suggesting that the Department Heads consider which tasks they could shift to Administration from their department to free resources; with Interim City Manager Trudgeon picking up that discussion for an administrative overview.


Regarding a biennial budget process, Mayor Roe expressed his preference for always looking ahead as far as possible and for the City Council to be aware of known impacts that will be fairly major to the organization and community (e.g. TIF Districts due to be de-certified in certain years; balances coming into an account; known mandates whether funded or not; etc.) Mayor Roe advised that he was noted interested in minor supply costs; but wanted to look out a minimum of five (5) years for the major items to make sure those items and any CIP items are brought into the discussion, for the current and future City Councils as well.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that one of her points was the benefit of a second or third year forecast for debt service or contract obligations, to make sure they were on the radar as far as they could be known in advance, similar to the CIP planning recently accomplished.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested a set of upfront questions of the City Council to initiate discussions with Department Heads versus an on-the-spot discussion with substantial information provided.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested a “best wish list” from each Department, what they would do if planning for a certain percentage reduction in their annual budget, a flat budget, or a certain percentage increase; with those Department Heads coming prepared to answer and consider shared efficiencies.


Mayor Roe concurred with that suggestion; opining that it would allow Department Heads to be more prepared and that it would provide a good framework to begin with.


Discussion ensued regarding scheduling of those meetings; with Mayor Roe directing staff, by consensus, to poll the City Council on available dates and times that could work.  When considering whether to include weekends in that potential schedule, Mr. Trudgeon opined, with consensus of the City Council, that it would be unfair to staff during the summer months to ask them to meet other than during a weekday/evening.


Further discussion included whether to focus on levy versus non-levy funds, with Mr. Miller clarifying that the levy was statutory, but the budget was not, even though it was past practice that the budget and levy went hand in hand; and the public preferring to know the whole picture, whether levy or non-levy funded. 


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that he would research when the preliminary budget needed to be adopted and report back to the City Council.


It was the consensus of Councilmembers that the entire budget and levy, and non-levy funds be reviewed.


b.            Receive Update on Legislative Impacts on the 2014 Budget

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller provided a more informed review of the recent legislative actions on the 2014 budget, as detailed in the RCA dated June 3, 2013; and as addressed in the RCA dated May 13, 2013, provided as a bench handout, outlining preliminary major budget impacts for the property tax-supported programs.  Mr. Miller provided estimated dollar amounts for each category in 2014 budget dollars.


Discussion included Local Government Aid (LGA) benefits in relation to levy limits reinstated for 2014; the reinstatement of sales tax exemption for cities with some exceptions; mandatory PERA contribution increases for the City and employee for Police and Fire employees; and ways to capitalize or reduce CIP tax-related benefits in non-tax supported areas while recognizing quick erosion of savings with inflationary impacts.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that he would alert Department Heads of the prudency of deferring any applicable major purchases of equipment/vehicles scheduled for later in 2013 to 2014 to save sales tax.


Mayor Roe noted that the estimated levy increase under the levy limit would be reduced with the impact of LGA allotment, creating a smaller net impact.  Mayor Roe advised that he would be looking to staff feedback as to whether to use the $225,000 for operating for year 2014 or continue to follow current policy in not using the unanticipated funds for operational needs.  Mayor Roe advised that he personally thought the City Council should continue to follow its policy and not become dependent on LGA for normal operating expenses.


Additional discussion included potentially using the LGA to address CIP needs and meet some of those goals; defer or reduce levy impacts; the LGA re-implemented in a spirit of reform by the State Legislature to provide some relief to taxpayers, while recognizing the minimal amount and minimal impact to taxpayers based on 2013 median value homes in Roseville.


Staff was asked to coordinate with Mayor Roe to provide the property tax impact calculator on the City’s website in a user-friendly format for Roseville taxpayers to access, once more details were known and finalized.


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


14.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss City Manager Search Process

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon briefly summarized the RCA and attachments dated June 10, 2013; as prepared by Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon.  Mr. Trudgeon apologized that Ms. Bacon was unable to attend tonight’s meeting do to a family medical emergency. 


By consensus, the City Council agreed with the proposed stakeholder group; and staff was directed to implement that group as presented.


Discussion included evaluation rankings and how to spread the numbers for the clearest understanding and greatest spread, noting that the Best Value Procurement method used 1-5-9 for evaluations with no numbers in between; and resumes provided by the consultant firms with individual expertise and experience; proposed content and point system weighting (e.g. service process steps structure).


Councilmember Etten expressed preference to provide more emphasis for Items B and I.


Mayor Roe suggested less weighting for bid completeness and completion, since that was a technical detail.


Mayor Roe, with City Council consensus, suggested that the evaluation group be tasked with weighting; with Councilmember Willmus concurring, questioning its value to be included in weighting performance follow-up after placement other than for a reference for that firm in future bidding endeavors.


Councilmember Willmus suggested removal of Item E from the criteria evaluation list, since two (2) members of the review committee had already expressed their opinion.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that, until RFP’s were received and a cost estimate available, she would wait to provide her perspective on how fast or slow the process could be.


Staff was directed to proceed as indicated.


b.            Consider Making Recycling a Utility under City Ordinances

Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the RCA; with Councilmember Willmus speaking in support of the proposed ordinance revisions and subsequent action tonight.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1440 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 4, Section 403.01, Recycling Collection;” and “Ordinance No. 1441 (Attachment B) entitled “An Ordinance Amending Title 1, Section 106.09, City Departments: Public Works.”


Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference that the zero waste community events not be lost in the shuffle, as they provided good public statements for the City to encourage others to do the same.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Recycling RFP discussed that option; and that staff would consider it in the interim as well.


c.            Discuss Reorganizing Administration Department

At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the organizational structure of the Administration Department, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested a two-fold discussion: how an Environmental Specialist could work long-term in Public Works as addressed by Public Works Director Duane Schwartz in Attachment A; and how the Administration Department could restructure to reflect that change and meet the needs of the City Council, community and staff. 


Mr. Trudgeon noted that the RCA outlined the current Administration organizational structure and suggested tonight’s discussion focus on the more important and broader community values and City Council initiatives for the community and how to refocus resources rather than focusing on specifics.  As an example, Mr. Trudgeon noted that duties reassigned in the Communications Department could provide additional time for customer service and provide some much-needed clerical assistance to the Human Resources function; as well as working with Department Heads to make sure services are provided that they need, and to allow other department administrative staff to work up options.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that no firm conclusion be drawn tonight; but sought City Council input to make sure staff was moving in the right step.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was his understanding that C-TV could provide employees for video production, with preliminary discussions having taken place; however, he was not sure of the savings potential or cost implications if the City contracted exclusively with C-TV for those services.


Mayor Roe advised that former City Manager Malinen had held preliminary discussions with C-TV in his role on the Franchise Renewal Committee; noting that current City staff supervises those employees, and could provide some savings if that function was reallocated to free that employee for other duties.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in understanding those aspects more fully.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred, adding that it should be determined if those previous conversations were still current.


Mayor Roe advised that C-TV was currently providing similar services to the Village of Saint Anthony, and they could be used as a model.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Trudgeon for bringing this forward as requested and as part of his role as Interim City Manager.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her main interest in bringing together the website review for the entire City with that function part of the communications face of Roseville, freeing those within various departments now performing that function.  Councilmember McGehee also expressed her interest in seeing a change in the City’s newsletter to make it more informative with issues current in the City rather than a piece of paper patting the City on the back for a job well-done.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this was the avenue for some residents, without internet access or not fluent with it, to be aware of current events, since the Roseville Review did not get delivered to apartment complexes.  Councilmember McGehee suggested more information and education versus propaganda.


Mayor Roe noted that an aspect of the newsletter format was based on timing, since it was only issued a handful of times per year; and to address issues was difficult based on that timing.  Mayor Roe suggested that a strategic analysis of communication opportunities may be more prudent, and if issues were included in the newsletter, it would need to be published more frequently at a possibly greater cost.  Mayor Roe opined that it made more sense to have that functionality as part of strategic thinking as a part of this organizational plan.


Discussion ensued regarding a job description with someone experienced in those areas of strategic thinking;


Councilmember Willmus expressed the vital importance for the administration function to provide customer service; noting that he repeatedly heard from residents that they are not able to receive that service in a timely and helpful way.  Councilmember Willmus noted at an employee may be someone’s first contact with the City, and historically, this has been a struggle over the years.


Mayor Roe opined that customer service is what someone does, not what they also do.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced her discussions with individual Department Heads and how many of their staff worked on communications items; and opined that one resident employee with the tools and vehicles to make sure the City communicated and engaged citizens was better than having quasi-expertise within each department.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested that this should be a communication position with a broader scope and who could provide assistance to other departments as well as residents.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that such a role could drive some of the Administration Department’s structure internally, and also provide an opportunity to create some hierarchy in the Department for current employees to delegate their duties and/or enhance their current job descriptions.


Mr. Trudgeon suggested more detailed discussion at a future meeting; noting that while he and Mr. Schwartz had held preliminary discussions, they needed to expand on that before bringing a recommendation forward to the City Council.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Schwartz reviewed Attachment A, noting that it was the first draft of roles and responsibilities of the position seen to best fit given the shift of the Recycling function to the Public Works Department.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this also addressed current focus areas, goals and direction of the City Council and community, as well as meeting some of the department’s needs and goals based on the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process.  With assistance from Ms. Bacon, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff attempted to make sure the position was structured with the right background and skills.  Mr. Schwartz recognized that many other communities had a different focus, while some were similar to that of Roseville; but those the size of Roseville or larger had these specialist areas to deal with natural resource and recycling issues, and some of those went even broader.  Mr. Schwartz advised that one of the next steps would be to create an actual job description and look at appropriate salary ranges and return to the City Council for further discussion, in conjunction with working with the Interim City Manager and Finance Director on how to fund the full position.  At this point, Mr. Schwartz advised that there was no particular time frame in place.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the draft (Attachment A).


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Schwartz advised that consideration was being given for the recycling portion of the job description to be in the range of 25-40%; but noted that this would be further refined; with the recycling fund providing a portion of funding for the proposed position.


Depending on the recycling vendor chose, Councilmember Willmus noted that there were other considerations to be reviewed and potential reallocation of funding accordingly.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of this approach, especially the sustainability and natural resource components.  Noting that several residents had approached her about the status of organized collection in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee suggested this position could serve as a model for joint partnership agreements similar to the City’ Information Technology and Telephony services to be offered to other communities.  On a related note, Councilmember McGehee advised that those residents providing feedback were not supportive of the Maplewood organized collection plan, but appeared more comfortable with the Little Canada model.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of offering the service to other communities, suggesting that application certain development fees could also fund the position.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for pulling this together so quickly, and for getting the recycling position into the Public Works Department without the benefit of knowing the resources available.


Mayor Roe noted that the communication function of the City was currently funded by franchise fees; and opined that, with those fees currently being negotiated, he anticipated that they would be at similar levels; and expressed confidence that they would continue to be funded for some time.  Mayor Roe opined that, if there were increased communication costs, they be funded sufficiently and that the CIP not be shortchanged again.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would provide additional information in the near future regarding time and dollar resources realized among departments and whether either was significant.


Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Trudgeon to discuss centralized purchasing with Department Heads as well.


Councilmember Laliberte encouraged Department Heads to provide other creative ideas during their upcoming budget meetings with the City Council.


d.            Discuss Subdivision Open House Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed the most simplistic approach to modify Zoning Code to include developer open houses and a trigger point for subdivisions.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff did not incorporate wholesale revisions at this point to seek a requirement for a meeting summary signed by the developer, as a neighborhood representative, since there could be varying opinions among residents unless or even if they were an organized group.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested additional discussion on the subdivision ordinance, slated for revision in the future, could address that option.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this staff recommendation, as detailed in the RCA dated June 10, 2013, would require a formal public hearing process at the Planning Commission level, and if so directed by the City Council tonight, could return to them in July for their approval.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if the rationale for a three lot of more trigger would create any code conflicts if the trigger was “three (3) lots or more” versus “greater than three (3) lots” language was used; with Mr. Trudgeon responding that it probably would not.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were few land divisions coming forward; and he didn’t think the revised language created a huge burden for anyone. 


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, discussion ensued regarding the rationale in having a thirty (30) day window and how that would proceed; with staff advising their intent was to allow sufficient time while keeping the timeframe succinct enough to address any major issues between residents and developers.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this also facilitated the timing of a developer in the entire application submission, Planning Commission review, holidays, scheduling open houses and public hearings, and other considerations. 



After further discussion, it was decided by consensus that an open house should not be held earlier than 15 days prior to submission of an application and held no longer than 45 days prior to the submission of an application


At the request of Councilmember Willmus regarding meeting location, and the rationale in holding the open house at a neutral location and to avoid any adversarial situations, it was Council consensus after discussion to insert the word “public” on line 27 to ensure transparency and convenience.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that the open house be conducted at City Hall, but after further discussion, it was decided that this may give the impression to the public that it’s a City project; and would also allow the flexibility for other meeting locations to avoid tainting the process.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte regarding line 27 stating that the open house “shall” be held at a public location, City Attorney Mark Gaughan clarified that this was the strongest language available, and no change was made.


Councilmember McGehee expressed concern that any objections or issues were fully documented at the open house, while recognizing the difficulty in getting someone to sign off on the meeting summary.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, discussion ensued regarding lines 45 – 47 regarding the written summary; and determined that more specificity was not needed, and the language would remain as recommended by staff.  Councilmember Etten also questioned the word “therefore” on line 18 and the need to include it, with City Attorney Gaughan advising that it referenced the previous sentence providing the basis for that requirement.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff provided a list of applicable addresses that provided a list of who was invited; but had no way of monitoring who attended the open house or who didn’t.


Mayor Roe suggested reference language in code, similar to Recycling as a Public Utility (e.g. Subdivision chapter 1101.02) providing for the necessary application data requiring an open house and requirements.


e.            Discuss Owasso School Property

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus provided an update for the public from the Closed Executive Session held earlier this evening related to acquisition of property, including the former Owasso School property at 934-950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street. 


Councilmember Willmus advised that the School Board of the Roseville School District No. 623 had formed a citizen task force to provide recommendation on the disposition of this school-owned property, with several recommendations made by the group to the Board.  One of those recommendations was to potentially engage in the sale of the entire parcel to the City of Roseville; and one was to split the parcel and sell the southern portion of the parcel to the City of Roseville and possibly allow the City to acquire an option to purchase the remainder (northern half) at a later date; and the third option to offer the parcel for sale to any party.


Councilmember Willmus advised that, given that information, the City of Roseville’s City Council had submitted an offer to the School District based on the City’s appraisal in the amount of $818,157 for just the southern portion of the parcel (5.39 acres); with that offer subsequently turned down by the School District. 


Given that status as of today, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council felt it was beneficial to continue a dialogue with the School Board, and if the opportunity became available, to pursue a joint meeting of the School Board and City Council to look at the offer currently on the table.  Councilmember Willmus advised that the City Council was bringing this information to the public to address ongoing curiosity expressed by residents as to the status of the property and potential for the City’s acquisition.


Mayor Roe noted that the School District had done their own appraisal of the property, for split into two parcels, as well as for the entire parcel, and had based their appraisal on future zoning for the entire parcel as High Density Residential (HDR).  Mayor Roe clarified that the City’s offer was based on the City appraisal using current zoning and condition of the site, with zoning of the southern portion designated as Park/Open Space and the northern portion designed as HDR, providing for slightly different appraisals of the two (2) parties.  Mayor Roe further clarified that the City’s offer was based on its desire to create parking for and ensure access to the ball fields on portions of the property.


In an effort to continue the dialogue, Councilmember Willmus suggesting directing staff to reach out to the School Board and attempt a joint discussion as previously noted.


Councilmember Etten opined that both bodies had a responsibility to the public to get together and talk about intent, goals and breaking down costs and other factors driving both parties, and finding a beneficial solution for the community.


Mayor Roe noted the past level of cooperation experienced between the City and School District and their staff regarding facilities and jointly constructing and/or managing various facilities; opining that this fell along those same lines.


Councilmember Laliberte also noted that the City heard back from the School Superintendent that the School Board rejected the City’s offer, but wanted to sell the parcel as a whole; and expressed her personal interest in making sure that position was sufficiently addressed as well.


Mayor Roe sought consensus for direction to staff to facilitate some discussion with both bodies and staff to accomplish mutual goals.


While recognizing the City Council consensus, Councilmember McGehee opined that this effort had the appearance of public coercion by the City attempting to bring the School Board over to the City Council’s point of view; and questioned if this was the best approach, further opining that this would not be her way of playing the game.


Mayor Roe took issue with Councilmember McGehee’s interpretation, advising that the City Council was saying and assuring the public that they remained willing to talk; and emphasized that they were not trying to publically shame anyone into a particular viewpoint, but simply bringing the public up-to-date on discussions so far, as many had expressed curiosity about it.


Councilmember Willmus also took issue with Councilmember McGehee’s statement, opining that he didn’t agree with her comment at all, noting that the School Board had held several public discussions on this issue; and in an attempt to provide transparency as well, the City Council was following suit.  Councilmember Willmus noted that these were public dollars being discussed by both parties; and the public had every right to know what the outcome of discussions up to this point.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that they were public dollars on both sides and that the public had the right to know; however, she opined that it seemed the wording was of a coercive nature.  Councilmember McGehee encouraged Interim City Manager Trudgeon to schedule a joint meeting of the School District and City to discuss this; or representatives from both parties negotiate a counter-offer in some form; since she had not seen any counter-offer from the School District.


Mayor Roe questioned whether that was a motion or not.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to contact the School Board in an attempt to facilitate a joint meeting with the entire School Board, and barring that meeting, that a subset of the School Board and City Council meet in a public forum to continue dialogue; and if all else fails that the School District provide a counter-offer to the City’s original offer.


Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

Interim City Manager Trudgeon suggested a Special City Council Meeting  on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of:

·         A joint meeting with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority to recap of the Dale Street Project and recommendations coming forward;

·         Fire Relief Association meeting related to upcoming issues.

Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the meeting be limited to those two (2) items to educate the City Council on those items, and for the City Council to provide feedback to those parties.


Mayor Roe noted that Mr. Trudgeon would be out of town from July 8 -15, 2013; and discussion ensued regarding potential alternate dates to meet and potential individual calendar conflicts.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, scheduling a Special City Council Meeting on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of:

·         A joint meeting with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority to recap of the Dale Street Project and recommendations coming forward;

·         Fire Relief Association meeting related to upcoming issues.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


While Mr. Trudgeon reviewed upcoming agendas, Councilmember Willmus questioned the timing of the Recycling RFP; and sought a discussion as soon as possible.


After further discussion, it was Council consensus that some flexibility be provided in the Special Meeting on July 1, 2013 to provide for that discussion if so indicated and as time allows.


16.         Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Laliberte anticipated further information of the Administrative Department reorganization approximately July 15, 2013.


17.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:03 pm.

                                                Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.