City
Council Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2013
1.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, and welcomed
everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and
Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the agenda as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; 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 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 announced a benefit
concert on Sunday, June 23, 2013 from 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm at North Heights
Lutheran Church in Arden Hills featuring the music of Rockie Lynne. Mayor Roe
noted that the concert, sponsored by Tribute to the Troops and Beyond the
Yellow Ribbon, was to benefit the Tribute to the Troops Fallen Heroes’ Children’s
Education Fund; with additional information available at nhlc.org or tributetothetroops.org.
Mayor Roe announced openings on the
City’s Human Rights Commission, the Police Civil Service Commission, and
Planning Commission; with an application deadline of 4:30 pm on July 10, 2013.
Mayor Roe encouraged residents to apply; with additional information available
at the City’s website or by calling City Hall at 702-7001.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Proclaim July Parks & Recreation Month
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
designating July as Parks and Recreation Month in Roseville, MN; recognizing
the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources.
Etten
moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming July of 2013 as Parks & Recreation
Month in the City of Roseville.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of June 10, 2013 Meeting
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the minutes of the June 10, 2013, meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
7. Approve
Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim
City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Check Series #
|
Amount
|
ACH Payment
|
$297,211.02
|
70167-70290
|
310.933.40
|
Total
|
$608,144.42
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of business license applications for the
period of one (1) year, for applicants as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated June 17, 2013; and a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the
Church of Corpus Christi, 2131 Fairview Avenue N in Roseville, on July 6, 2013
for an event being held on church property.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of
$5,000
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases
and contracts for services presented as follows:
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
Budget / CIP
|
Parks & Rec
|
Upper Cut Tree Service
|
Ash Tree Removal (EAB Program)
|
$30,000.00
|
Budget
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Adopt a Resolution Changing the Comprehensive Land Use Map Designation;
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Zoning Map Classification; and by Motion Approve a
Parcel Combination, all for 600 County Road B and 2130 Dale Street and
regarding a Request by Mueller-Bies Funeral Home
Councilmembers McGehee and Etten
commended the applicant for engaging the neighbors throughout the process on various
issues.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11073 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Neighborhood Business (NB) for Property Located at
600 County Road B (PF13-007).”
Roll Call
(Super Majority Vote)
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1442 (Attachment F)
entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the
Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 600 County Road B from Low
Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) to Neighborhood Business (NB) District.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION of
County Road B; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the
recommendation of Section 7 of the RCA dated June 17, 2013.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Adopt a Resolution Approving Cost Participation Agreement Between
Ramsey County and the City of Roseville for Larpenteur Avenue Construction Work
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11074 (Attachment A)
entitled, “Resolution Approving Agreement No. PW2013-13: Ramsey County
Cooperative Agreement (Attachment B) with the City of Roseville;” for
Larpenteur Avenue construction work; and authorizing the Mayor and Interim
City Manager to execute the document.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve July 4th Display Contract
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of a Display Contract between Pyrotechnic
Display, Inc. and the City of Roseville to perform the 2013 Fireworks display;
and authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to execute the document.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Adopt a Resolution Requesting MnDOT to Conduct a Speed Study on Cleveland
Avenue between County Road B-2 and Fairview Avenue
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
clarified that the study included the frontage road west of Fairview Avenue on
the north side of Highway 36 in addition to the north-south section of
Cleveland Avenue north of Highway 36.
Mayor Roe noted that, when a
petition was received for a speed study, the results were based on a certain
percentile speed found on the roadway; and cautioned that there was no guarantee
on the recommended speed from that study.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
what recourse the City Council had in these types of situation, since there was
currently a conflict on speed limits, but the City was unable to arbitrarily
set speed limits itself.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
advised that the City could not enforce the 30 mph speed limit since there was
already an official action by the MN Commissioner of Transportation setting the
speed limit at 40 mph for one section, with MnDOT having the final say. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that this would get the process started for review and
resolution.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the City had any liability for reimbursing traffic citations issued in the
past.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised
that if that were the case, there would be little impact to the City given that
the major dollar amount collected from those citations was allotted to the
State of MN.
McGehee
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11075 (Attachment A)
entitled, “Resolution Requesting MnDOT to Conduct a Speed Study on Cleveland
Avenue from County Road B-2 to Fairview Avenue.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Zoning Code Text Amendment – Drive-through and Refuse Locations
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly summarized the request detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated June 17, 2013.
Discussion included staff rationale
for including Section 12.f (Chapter 1009.02.D.12, Conditional Uses, Specific
Standards and Criteria) allowing for screening flexibility of plantings or
opaque walls or fences based on particular cases where one may be preferable to
another (e.g. Walgreen’s site on Snelling Avenue and County Road C) with the
Community Development Department staff having the discretionary approval for
which application to use on a case by case basis.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1443 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;”
amending Section 1005.02.I: Design Standards, and Section 1009.02.D.12:
Conditional Uses, Specific Standards and Criteria – Drive-through Facilities.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Zoning Code Text Amendment – Garage Doors and Loading Docks
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly summarized the request detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated June 17, 2013.
Discussion included specific
Zoning Districts affected by this amendment, specifically Commercial Mixed Use
Business and Regional Business Districts that currently allow residential uses;
staff rationale in its definition of “overhead door” and leaving “vehicle” in
that definition, but still facilitating other equipment (e.g. fork lift, etc.).
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1444 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;”
amending Section 1001.02.I Definitions, adding the definition of Overhead Door,
and amending the text of the “Garage Doors and Loading Docks” section of the
Commercial and Mixed Use Districts (1005) and Employment Districts (1006 of the
Zoning Ordinance, and specific to the types of doors permissible on the front
of a building.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:34 pm. and
reconvened at approximately 6:37 pm.
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Approve Preliminary Park Plans
Parks & Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke, Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson and LHB Consultant, Michael
Schroeder were available for the presentation, with Mr. Evenson providing an
overview and Mr. Schroeder outlining the specifics for each park.
Evergreen Park
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her personal concern that the focus was going toward the ballfields, but
suggested that if that was the final plan, the Baseball Associations be
solicited for financial contribution. Councilmember McGehee advised that her
concern was whether or not the specific park improvements being requested by
the neighborhood were not being addressed, since the majority of the park was
taken up by the ballfields. Since this park is somewhat in the southwest
portion of Roseville, Councilmember McGehee suggested other park amenities be
addressed as well. Councilmember McGehee further requested that the current pathway
be incorporated as an entrance into the park, as well as to the adjacent
school, to create a safe pathway for pedestrians and bicyclers to get to the
park. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was an important trail, and a
formal entrance to the “park” portion of the park should be included in the
mix.
Mr. Schroeder responded that the
entry was intended to be addressed as part of the improvements.
Mr. Brokke responded that, while
the Baseball Association already contributed to maintenance costs, they would
be approached, along with all user groups, to solicit their financial participation
in the park improvements as well.
Councilmember Etten recognized the
upkeep already performed by the Baseball Association and those responsibilities
borne by the City, opining that everyone was contributing. Councilmember Etten
clarified that, ideally, a natural component was clearly included in the
planning process for each park, and that feedback from the neighborhood had
been sought for this park as well, with the intent to carve out some natural
space and be responsive to the neighborhood. Councilmember Etten noted that
the existing sidewalk was 90% completed to the corner entrance, and making a
small loop to make a connection should not be problematic; noting that almost
all park discussions to-date had included requests for such loops.
Mr. Brokke reminded everyone that
the intent was to continue joint efforts for all users, the community,
neighborhoods and all stakeholders in the City’s park system.
Councilmember McGehee advised
that, while the partnership with the City of Falcon Heights is great for use of
their park system in the southwest portion of Roseville, she would continue to
push for a park or amenities in Roseville as well.
Oasis Park
Councilmember Willmus confirmed
the location of the trail connection to Langton Drive to the pump station.
Councilmember McGehee cautioned
care of pond buffers for the lake based on algae concerns from garden
fertilizers, as well as to allow for appropriate shade and open space.
Councilmember McGehee further
questioned the concern with access to restroom facilities, a concern of many
residents, in their frequent locked status.
Mr. Brokke noted that this had
been a concern heard with all parks that bathrooms be kept open. Mr. Brokke
advised that a card system was being investigated, found popular for such applications.
While supporting the woods play
area as a great concept, Councilmember Laliberte asked that special care be
taken to ensure the safety of children in non-visible areas.
Mayor Roe commented that this
pavilion reminded him of the Como Park Pavilion uses for live performances.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Brokke advised that this park already had community gardens,
with 120 plots, and reviewed how the reservation system worked, and would
continue to do so upon expansion of the number of plots.
Rosebrook Park
Mr. Schroeder reviewed the current
condition of the Press Gym building, noting that it was a very substantial
building and would expend the majority of funds intended for this park just for
its demolition. Therefore, Mr. Schroeder reviewed some options to
significantly enhance the exterior aesthetics of the building, and re-use the
interior spaces. Mr. Schroeder provided several conceptual uses that were not
provided in other parks in the system, with a suggestion to focus on arts, and
to provide additional storage for the Parks & Recreation Department. Mr.
Schroeder advised that these were only suggested uses at this point, without significant
investigation, since the first step would be to achieve an agreement with the
property owner for acquisition of the parcel.
Given the thick, concrete walls of
the building, Councilmember McGehee suggested it could also be used as a safe
weather shelter, provide off-site storage, and suggested continued use of the racquetball
courts would also provide a use not currently available in the system.
Mayor Roe suggested that this
“bunker” could also provide a wall for public art or a mural in addition to
plantings to diminish the impact of the blank walls.
Councilmember Etten asked for
several considerations if the parcels were purchased. That the proposal to
remove the existing small parking lot in the corner of the property not be pursued,
as it seemed to acerbate community concerns versus alleviating them. Since
funds were not available for expanding parking on the edge of the parcel along
County Road C, Councilmember Etten suggested that the number of available
spaces not be significantly decreased, and if the property was acquired that
the proposal, as conceptually sketched, be reconsidered. Also, Councilmember
Etten asked, if there is a splash pad, it be rotated toward the pavilion versus
adjacent to the parking lot.
Sandcastle Park
Mr. Schroeder advised that this
was another park that would probably be seeing a significant evolution.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of the proposed relocation of the parking area to Old Highway 8 to reduce
neighborhood traffic, opining that it made great sense. Related to the
proposed dog park, Councilmember Willmus questioned if its proposed location
was the best place, so close to residents.
Mr. Schroeder advised that there
had been interest from the neighborhood, with many currently using the tennis
courts to throw balls around with their dogs; however, he noted that it was
still an unknown if it made sense to create this type of a space. Mr.
Schroeder noted that there were not funds to include all of the conceptual
amenities, and also noted that this request was probably from a small segment
of the neighborhood as well.
Mayor Roe questioned the location
of dog areas next to homes that may create a potential nuisance from noise; and
suggested it might lend itself to a different location since it wasn’t funded
yet anyway.
Councilmember Etten recognized
that there were not funds allotted for all concepts at this time; however, he
suggested that the parking lot relocation be a high priority; and questioned if
the tennis courts, intended to be relocated in the future, were proposed for
resurfacing or moving them at this time to allow phasing improvements in the
park without expending considerable funds for resurfacing them when they would
later be removed for relocation.
Mr. Brokke clarified that the
intent was to use a portion of the allotted $275,000 for this park to move the
tennis courts at this time to allow for future improvements.
Councilmember Etten supported that
intent, opining that he clearly couldn’t support a $50,000 to $75,000 expense
to resurface the courts and later relocate them.
Mr. Brokke advised that the intent
was definitely for phasing it; noting that the existing parking lot was
relatively new as well.
Specific to Mayor Roe’s concerns,
Councilmember McGehee stated that, based on her experience, dog parks were not
too noisy.
Related to the proposed pickle
ball area, Councilmember McGehee questioned their location in this park.
Councilmember McGehee also suggested dollars be spend on park amenities other
than the building, by reducing the size of the proposed building, and apply
that money to the parking lot. Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed to
be more important to get the traffic out of the neighborhood in the immediate
future.
Mr. Schroeder advised that, in
reviewing various layouts, an area for pickle ball was considered by the
basketball court; and that the request for pickle ball amenities had been heard
for a number of parks, as it was becoming a popular activity. Mr. Schroeder
advised that, while trying to accommodate the majority of neighborhood
requests, building size was also a consideration. However, Mr. Schroeder noted
that residents reminded them frequently that there was no other meeting place
in this neighborhood, and they felt much removed from the rest of Roseville;
and the intent was to make an attempt to at least connect them within their
neighborhood.
In an attempt to fund the parking
lot relocation, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the Oasis Park pavilion
would be sufficient for a meeting area for this neighborhood as well.
Mr. Schroeder advised that this
would be reviewed; and in the long run, planning would be done to narrow spaces
as much as possible to accommodate the budget and programming needs.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of cost
savings wherever possible.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
the previous presentation for other parks had included half walls and other
landscaping amenities that provided seating options; and questions if that was
included with these parks beyond the decking shown in the preliminary plans.
Mr. Schroeder advised that some
things would be more like benches, with the patio areas needing furnishing,
equipment and fixtures as part of each building in each park.
Southwest Roseville
Mr. Schroeder provided several
conceptual areas that would be appropriate to insert a park in this area of
Roseville. Mr. Schroeder reminded everyone that they were very preliminary
suggestions, since it would require property acquisition; and noted that this
was one neighborhood less interested in a typical park versus preferring
passive parks (e.g. HANC West) for walking and gathering spaces, or pocket
parks with linkages to other areas.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Schroeder advised that the neighborhood was provided an
opportunity to look at concept locations in southwest Roseville, and were told
that a follow-up meeting(s) would be held with them once a particular site was
more defined. Mr. Schroeder opined that it was a fair reflection of their
input that they were amenable to any and all of the concept locations.
As a resident of SW Roseville,
Councilmember McGehee stated that, if it ended up with several pocket parks, it
was vitally important to provide a safe trail to access them, since there were a
lot of busy streets in this area of the community (e.g. Snelling Avenue, County
Road B, and Cleveland Avenue as some examples), especially during peak hours.
In some of those areas, Councilmember McGehee opined that a way to access back
trails would be important to provide safe routes away from that traffic
congestion. Councilmember McGehee noted that a lot of neighbors in SW
Roseville use the City of Falcon Heights Park adjacent to Roseville, which
provided a much less active park in comparison to most of Roseville’s parks,
with a lot of natural area around it; and suggested that this be considered as
a useful model.
Mr. Schroeder noted that residents
had been very clear that they perceived trails as being part of any park
concept, basically that trails were parks.
Mayor Roe noted that, throughout
the Master Plan process, it was continually brought forward that the SW area of
Roseville not be overlooked.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
this had been an overwhelming and recurring theme heard during his campaigning;
not necessarily for a big park, but to enhance smaller areas; and expressed his
appreciation in offering some options that could achieve that preference.
In conclusion, Mr. Brokke advised
that all preliminary plans were available for the public online; and that
continued feedback was welcome. Mr. Brokke reiterated that follow-up meetings
for Rosebrook Park and SW Roseville would be forthcoming in the future,
following additional fine-tuning of concepts.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the Preliminary Plans for Evergreen, Oasis and Sandcastle Parks, as
presented and as detailed in the RCA dated June 17, 2013; moving toward final
design, plans and specifications for subsequent approval.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte;
McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:37 pm and
reconvened at approximately 7:38 pm.
10.
Presentations
a.
Joint Meeting with Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission
(PWETC)
PWETC Members present included Vice
Chair Dwayne Stenlund and members Jim DeBenedet and Joan Felice.
Member DeBenedet reviewed current
activities and accomplishments since last meeting with the City Council, as
detailed in the RCA dated June 17, 2013.
Vice Chair Stenlund noted the
important component of two advisory commissions working collaboratively, as
noted in the Parks & Recreation NRATS work on the Pathway Master Plan.
Vice Chair Stenlund reviewed the proposed
PWETC work plan for the coming year, as noted in the RCA, expressing his
continued amazement of the work accomplished by the PWEC, and the things that
came before them during a given year from the community-at-large as well as the
City Council.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Vice
Chair Stenlund defined “MS4” as the Municipal Separate Storm and Sewer System,”
a required permit process to separate stormwater drainage from sanitary sewer
drainage.
Vice Chair Stenlund reviewed the
three (3) questions or concerns in the RCA to provide additional direction or
clarification for the PWETC.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
For the benefit of the public,
discussion included an explanation of the current computer software program
used to establish the condition index at the lowest cost for the best
reasonable length of time possible.
Member DeBenedet led the
discussion regarding whether there was City Council support for the PWETC to
review whether or not there may be significant funds saved if the current
formula was reduced to reduce the condition index and/or lengthen the timeframe
for maintenance or reconstruction of the City’s roads.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of
continuing with a PCI in some form, but recognized the reduced gas tax money
coming to the City for this purpose. Mayor Roe note that it was fortunate that
most of the City’s streets had now been reconstructed, creating more of an
emphasis on maintenance versus a reconstruction mode. Mayor Roe stated that a
good question was what the best condition index was to use; and whether or not
the same index should apply to streets and pathways/parking lots as well.
Mayor Roe supported the PWETC reviewing the PCI and providing their
recommendations to the City Council.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in
support of the PCI; and questioned if winters similar to that experienced in
2012/13 throw the index off at all.
Member DeBenedet responded that
Public Works Director Schwartz would be the best person to answer that
question; however, he did note, with Mr.
Schwartz acquiesce from the audience, that the City’s Engineering staff
annually physically surveyed at least 20% of the City’s streets, allowing for
rescoring of the streets at that time. Member DeBenedet noted that this
allowed for a realistic review, and was not just dependent on when the road was
last constructed and computer assumptions on projected deterioration, but included
that field inspection for more accuracy.
Mayor Roe reiterated his support
of considering what average was best indicated.
Metro Transit/Rapid Transit
Process/Central Corridor Re-routing of Bus Routes
Vice Chair Stenlund reviewed
discussions by the PWETC with Metro Transit and their attempts to create a less
auto-centric and more community-centric transportation system; with the PWETC’s
desire to ensure all modes of travel were evaluated and/or re-evaluated.
Councilmember Laliberte shared her
perspective in her attendance at a recent planning meeting for rapid bus
transit down Snelling Avenue, with additional community discussions, including
when it reached Roseville, probably in conjunction with the City of Falcon
Heights, since they shared some bus stops.
Responding to Mayor Roe’s comment
that the route currently stopped at Rosedale, Councilmember Laliberte advised
that she had pushed the discussion to question why the route didn’t proceed up
to Northwestern and Bethel Universities. Councilmember Laliberte advised that
rationale of Metro Transit was that there had not been sufficient ridership in
the past to support extending that route; however, they reluctantly agreed that
they would review it again and if so indicated, could make changes based on
future ridership. Councilmember Laliberte noted that Metro Transit seemed
quite set in the route ending at Rosedale at this time; however, she noted that
their focus was based on the need to renegotiate their transit station lease
with Rosedale. Councilmember Laliberte advised that Metro Transit had received
significant input from the communities along that route relative to the design
of stations, curbing, stops, etc.
Mayor Roe opined that the City of
Roseville, as a community, needed to continue advocating other transit modes
for the Rice Street corridor, along with other adjacent communities. Mayor Roe
noted that it was typical that transit opportunities in Roseville focused on
Rosedale; however, he noted that there were a growing number of people passing
through Roseville to access both downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis that created
significant congestion on Roseville streets. Mayor Roe stated that this needed
to be considered to address the quality of life in Roseville for its residents.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
southbound Rice Street seemed to have a lot of activity toward University
Avenue to connect with the light rail system; and suggested Snelling Avenue and
Rice Streets would be realistic north/south rapid transit bus routes.
Councilmember Laliberte responded
that it may be part of Metro Transit’s long-term plans.
Mayor Roe concurred with that
point; as well as supporting continued advocacy for the NE Diagonal.
Member DeBenedet noted that there
had been a lot of discussion in the past of the emphasis and Metro Transit
funding in the northwest and southwest portion of the metropolitan area, but
that this side of the Mississippi River seemed to be in never-never land. Member
DeBenedet opined that it was important to make sure they didn’t forget that
area was here and needed to be served as well.
Mayor Roe reported on his
involvement in a loosely-organized group calling themselves the East Metro
Transit Alliance, made up of Ramsey County, Washing County, and Dakota County
Commissioners, staff and elected officials and/or staff of communities in those
counties, seeking to create more advocacies for transit in their area of the
metropolitan community. Mayor Roe advised that the group was not seeking to be
competitive, but hoping to facilitate pre-planning and cooperation among
communities along those corridors. Mayor Roe advised that he represented
Roseville on that informally; and would keep the PWETC and City Council apprised
of those discussions, through Public Works Director Schwartz.
Vice Chair Stenlund expressed his
hope that the connection of the City of Roseville to Como Park remained part of
that history.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
the PWETC assist the City Council in proactively exploring funding and planning
in general to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian traffic flow.
Discussion ensued on ways to
provide community access to bus rapid transit from east/west routes; use of
rail tracks along County Road C and potential development as Ramsey County
plans improvements on County Road C west of I-35W in the next few years through
potentially narrowing vehicle lanes to accommodate a continued and safe pathway
safely beyond the narrow portion that is currently deemed dangerous; the need
for pedestrian crossings at Highway 36; and providing public refuges for
pedestrians at busy intersections.
Member Stenlund advised that a
future field trip is planned by the PWETC to look at the City’s busiest
intersections.
Councilmember Willmus suggested a
field trip by the PWEC and City council to several recycling facilities, based
on the significant number of renovations in the last few years, and to see some
of the different opportunities available.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) was planning a field
trip later in 2013 to a water treatment plant, and when the dates became
available, she would share them with the City Council and PWEC.
Organized Waste Collection
In noting that the PWETC had
previously recommended that the City pursue organized waste collection through
a formal resolution to the City Council, Vice Chair Stenlund noted that the
PWETC had not yet received a response from the City Council; and therefore,
questioned if the City Council wanted the PWETC to continue pursuing that previous
direction.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she continued to hear from her neighborhood about it; and recognized the recent
legislative changes to the rules, with 60-days for negotiating with haulers.
Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be a saving to the community in many
ways; while recognizing that there were passionate feelings from both sides.
While not having the same emotional connection with her garbage hauler as some
residents, Councilmember McGehee advised that her main concern was the
potential of putting small businesses out of business. In her consideration of
the different ways to organize collection, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she would prefer a model allowing for current licensed haulers in Roseville to
have an opportunity to retain a similar number of customers so they would not
be forced out of business, and could keep their business interests in the
community.
Councilmember McGehee addressed
recycling as part of organized collection; questioning if mixing glass and
paper, in a single sort system, meant that the paper could no longer be used
for recycling as she had heard. Councilmember McGehee further stated that she
would support a small cart versus a bin for recycling, and if it was determined
to pursue single sort recycling, she wanted to have assurances that the items
she was preparing for recycling actually were recycled and didn’t end up in a
landfill. Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City put some conditions on
a recycling vendor to ensure they prove where the recycling was being taken.
Mayor Roe suggested that the focus
remain on organized collection; noting that through a community using an
organized collection concept, it was the only available means for the City to
specify where collected materials went; and could be included as one of the
selection criteria based on community values.
Member Felice opined that there
was a greater recovery of materials with dual sort recycling; and further
opined that the question remained whether or not more people would participate
in a single sort system, since the City of Roseville’s participation rates were
already very high.
Mayor Roe noted that, while the
overall amount collected is higher, would all of it be recyclable, or is some
contaminated.
Member DeBenedet opined that, if
Roseville residents called it recycling because it was in a different container
than refuse, but it was still not recycled into another product, it wasn’t
recycling, and the community was simply feeling good with no effect. Member
DeBenedet advised that the last direction provided by the PWETC to staff in
developing the draft RFP was to include single and dual sort; with a mandate
that each bidder state and demonstrate to the City where its recycling went and
what it was recycling for the end market. Member DeBenedet noted that the
City’s goal was to increase recycling collections, but also to ensure those
materials were actually being recycled. As an example, Member DeBenedet noted
that the City of Minneapolis, when going to single sort recycling, their
numbers shot up; however, he noted that their numbers were significantly lower
than those of Roseville’s as well, with current Roseville numbers indicating
80% participation or more. Member DeBenedet opined that fine-tuning was
important, but allowing a wider range of bidders was also important.
Regarding recycling and community
values, Councilmember Willmus questioned to what extent outreach had been conducted
to measure those values. Councilmember Willmus stated that he heard repeatedly
from residents their preference to move to single stream and sue carts; and
referenced a flyer from Eureka Recycling supporting that community support.
Vice Chair Stenlund advised that
the PWETC had researched community values through performing surveys; and that
the City’s goal of maximizing community recycling could be re-evaluated if it
was determined that the single stream program didn’t accomplish that; and upon
renewal or rebidding the contract, it could return to a dual sort system. Vice
Chair Stenlund opined that the important thing was to attempt innovations and
try to find the best way to accomplish the goals.
Mayor Roe, whether in considering
recycling or refuse, opined that if more was being recycled than ending up as
refuse, the community would find that supportable. Mayor Roe opined that the
question is what is realistic; and the only way to know that was through
reporting mandates in the recycling contract.
Vice Chair Stenlund noted that
another consideration for carts versus bins is the workers compensation costs
for vendors in their employees lifting bins versus a single sort system with a
cart that was lifted through robotic means, with the future probably trying to
eliminate some of the human components and costs.
Councilmember Willmus asked if the
PWETC had addressed why other communities are switching to single sort
recycling.
Member DeBenedet advised that the
PWETC had discussed researching that; however, there was no contact with other
communities; while indications were that it was to increase participation
rates; but not allowing for any analysis of how it related to recycling rates.
Mayor Roe advised that the City
had been provided some data.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
how to evaluate how much of the current 80% of materials collected was actually
recycled and if and how that could change with single sort. Councilmember
McGehee questioned if forcing revenue sharing was the only way to know what
happened to the materials. Councilmember McGehee questioned if any communities
were doing dual sort with carts; and reiterated her concerns, if the decision
was to move to single sort, that the materials were actually recycled, and
didn’t simply become glorified garbage.
Member DeBenedet advised that the
PWETC had been told by staff that some vendors considered the final market for
materials as proprietary information. Member DeBenedet advised that therefore,
the RFP had been drafted that this was a requirement of the City of Roseville,
and if they were not willing to provide it, they would not be considered as a
vendor. Member DeBenedet opined that the PWETC thought it was a right of the
City to be informed of that information. In response to Councilmember Willmus
questioning if the information was actually proprietary, Member DeBenedet
opined that the proof would surface in the bid if the RFP demands the
information.
Mayor Roe refocused the discussion
to organized collection; and providing a response to the PWETC.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he was still at the same point he was almost one year ago; opining that it
largely depended on how such a program was administered; and he wasn’t sure he
was quite there to know how that would happen, and remained still up in the
air. In response to Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion to provide segments of
the community for each vendor, Councilmember Willmus opined that such a program
would lose one of the key aspects to switch to organized collection: economies
of scale. Without having one vendor for the entire community, Councilmember
Willmus opined that it was difficult to put a tangible figure on the wear and
tear on streets, which he intuitively thought was part of the equation.
Member DeBenedet advised that, if
the City Council provided a response to the PWEC’s recommendations outlined in
their resolution last year, indicating that they were willing to pursue
organized waste collection, the PWEC would then respond to any and all specific
issues identified by the City Council. Member DeBenedet opined that this would
be the best way to proceed, after receiving the City Council’s feedback,
otherwise the PEWTC could really do nothing else until the City Council took
that step and responded to the PWETC recommendation.
Member DeBenedet opined that if
the City dealt with only one contractor, that vendor would still send out many
trucks and divide the City into routes; whether divided by neighborhoods or
however, and the PWETC could put a proposal together and determine a reasonable
way to accomplish it. Member DeBenedet cautioned the City Council that the
PWETC may not recommend the least expensive vendor, depending on their
qualifications and the information in their proposal. However, Member DeBenedet
further opined that it was not the role of government to protect every small
business in the state, using as a reference the little mom and pop grocery and
hardware stores that had not survived; suggesting that it was just the way
things were in the business community.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
while she had not been on the City Council when this was initiated, she had
heard citizen opinions in her campaigning. From her personal perspective,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that this was not a high priority; however, she
would provide a list of things she’d want to know from the PWETC before making
a decision. Councilmember Laliberte advised that her goal would not be to
protect business as much as to protect the choice of homeowners. In hearing
both sides of the issue during her campaigning, Councilmember Laliberte noted
that some were in favor or organized hauling, mostly based on the perceived
wear and tear to streets, but she had also heard from more homeowners who
preferred the current status quo, and liked the option of changing vendors if
they weren’t receiving good services from their current vendor. If organized
collection is proposed, Councilmember Laliberte noted that this then eliminated
that choice for homeowners. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she was not
convinced that the information on wear and tear on roads was conclusive enough
for her, given the other large vehicle traffic through town, including the
City’s own snow plows and equipment. In the interim, Councilmember Laliberte
challenged individual Councilmembers to talk to their neighbors to determine if
they could coordinate vendors themselves to reduce traffic on their streets.
Councilmember Etten stated that he
was in agreement with the majority of things he’d heard tonight. Councilmember
Etten opined that it made sense to divide the City as indicated by Member
DeBenedet; however, he thought the concept that a garbage can size should be
mandated seemed unfounded, while the ability to pick any size container and
still provide standards of service with City oversight through a contract was
feasible to ensure there was no reduction in service. Regarding the problem of
residents with lack of notice for increases in collection fees from current
vendors, Councilmember Etten opined came back to whether or not it was a public
utility similar to that consideration for recycling services, which he thought
was comparable. Councilmember Etten opined that the concern for not running
out some of the City’s current haulers would not be accomplished by handing out
sections of the community to certain vendors, and would indeed lose the economy
of costs being sought.
Member Felice noted that the City
had the ability to write the contract allowing residents to change the size of their
container; and accommodate other situations, such as when people moved out and
left considerable material for the next person to take care of. Member Felice
opined that this would take care of some of those concerns.
Mayor Roe, recognizing the adopted
legislation included a first step to see if haulers could come up with a plan
on their own, suggested that was a great idea and provided an interesting
approach if the City didn’t end up dictating to haulers, while still requiring
that they met a level of acceptability for the City. Mayor Roe advised that,
based on his concerns about choice of service, choice of carts, etc.; this
process held more appeal for him than the previous approach that didn’t appeal
to him at all based on a much different process and less creativity for
haulers. Mayor Roe advised the revised legislation had swayed him a little
more toward organized collection; however, he would want to retain the ability
for residents to have some choice, and where the garbage ended up. Mayor Roe
opined that he was not swayed by arguments related to safety or wear and tear
on streets, based on the current truck traffic in Roseville; with the onus on individuals
to do a better job of driving safely and watching out for traffic and
pedestrians.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
it would be helpful for the City Council to give the PWETC better direction for
a plan if their research included other communities, such as White Bear Lake,
Maplewood, and No. St. Paul who had taken on this issue over a year ago.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with Member Felice on the ability to draft
contract language with the City taking on the cost role as a good place to
start, along with community values components. Councilmember McGehee addressed
her other concerns related to health from diesel trucks, noise issues, safety
issues, and garbage haulers having a specified areas. Councilmember McGehee
suggested that the PWEC talk to haulers and come up with ideas to administer an
organized collection program and still provide safeguards for residents at no
extra charge. Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in hearing a report
on the proposal from garbage haulers as well as their suggestions.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he owned properties in communities with organized collection, and opined that
it was nice. However, Councilmember Willmus questioned if it was the best fit
for Roseville. Councilmember Willmus noted that the term “community values”
was thrown around a lot; and suggested if that was going to be continued, those
values needed to be accurate, and opined that the only way to do that was to
ask the community what they wanted. Councilmember Willmus noted that community
values had been sought for the park improvement process that helped him make
his initial decisions, and suggested that was a good place to start.
Mayor Roe, in responding to the
PWETC, suggested that the first step was to hold community meetings, using the
Parks & Recreation meetings as a model; concurring that it was an excellent
idea to provide good insight. Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would
formally receive the PWETC resolution at an upcoming meeting; and provide
direction to the PWETC on their recommendations; at which time it could be seen
how the process moves forward.
Member Felice expressed her
personal appreciation of the members serving on the PWETC, opining that there
were some people with tremendous skills and background which helped the
community become sustainable with their forward-thinking. Member Felice
exhorted the City Council to make it possible for those members to continue
serving in their capacity on the PWETC as long as they were willing to do so.
Mayor Roe referenced the City
ordinance regarding terms and reapplication to serve.
Vice Chair Stenlund suggested
that, if the City Council was promoting recycling, it needed to specify use of
those products itself, whether they cost more or not.
On a personal note, Vice Chair
Stenlund expressed his pride in serving on the PWETC; and thanked fellow members
for their various perspectives and expertise, bringing a richness to the body.
Vice Chair Stenlund also personally thanked City staff for their support of the
PWEC.
Mayor Roe, on behalf of the City
Council and community, thanked the PWETC as well.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:35 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:43 p.m.
11. Public Hearings
12. Budget Items
13.
Business Items (Action Items)
b.
Issue Recycling Contract Request for Proposals (RFP)
A bench handout was provided, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, entitled, “Attachment A – Proposal
Content Checklist,” as an attachment to the draft RFP.
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz briefly provided a background of this issue and past City Council
direction, as detailed in the RCA dated June 17, 2013 and attachments. Mr.
Schwartz advised if the City Council did not approve the draft RFP presented
tonight, the process itself needed to continue moving forward to meet RFP
timeline, vendor selection, cart delivery and expiration of the current
contract at the end of 2013. Mr. Schwartz suggested several information points
to initiate tonight’s discussion. Mr. Schwarz noted that Recycling Coordinator
Tim Pratt was also available to address any information as needed, given his
substantial work on the process and RFP to-date.
Three (3) Year versus Five (5)
Year Contract Term
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of leaving the contract open to see how responses were submitted.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of all bidders provided both a three year and a five year bid to avoid
confusion between the vendors and terms bid.
While agreeing with Councilmember
McGehee’s preference, Councilmember Willmus opined that with the Best Value
Procurement process, it would be beneficial for the base RFP to include a three
and five year term option; with the value added component also included as a
consideration.
Mayor Roe suggested considering
any value added components to the Best Value.
Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten
concurred with having a three and five year bid from all vendors to allow
better comparison.
Mayor Roe indicated the council
direction to staff was, since there appeared to be no divergent opinion, to
include at a minimum the three and five year terms and allow for other terms
for consideration.
Cart Purchases/Ownership
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this seemed a sticky point from her perspective, if a contract allowed a vendor
to leave the carts versus reverting back to the vendor, especially if carts are
broken and the City ended up owning them. Councilmember McGehee questioned if
and how many other communities had tried this approach.
Mr. Schwartz opined that he
thought most communities purchased carts and owned them long-term, or the
vendor owned them. Mr. Schwartz advised that the intent was to extend the
community’s investment in the carts over the first 3-5 years; and if the City
purchases them as an upfront investment, that the vendor provide roll-out
plans, maintenance and other ways to get the vendor involved in their
maintenance through a number of options. Mr. Schwartz advised that he was not
sure if the City required that the vender return the carts over after the five
year period, if the community would realize any benefit.
Mr. Pratt advised that he was
unaware of any communities having had that requirement; noting that carts were
constructed much better than in the past and averaged a ten-year lifecycle,
with some manufactures actually offering a ten year guarantee on their carts.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
if a vendor required a cart that worked with its equipment, and was required to
maintain it, and at the end of the contract was required to give it to the
City, but still had based its bid on that built-in cost for the cart, how could
that be considered a transparent process. Councilmember McGehee stated that
she much preferred to not have City ownership of the cart and let each vendor
come in with their new carts, and if not the next vendor, to pick them up.
Mr. Pratt clarified that in some
cities that happened, but currently there was a cost savings seen for a city to
own the cart, and if another vendor came in they would factor in the cost of
the cart. As an example, Mr. Pratt reviewed the history of the City of
Brooklyn Park when they moved to single sort in 2002/2003, with the City buying
carts, and after five years, uncertain of how this would play out. When the
City went out for bids the second time, they thought vendors would drop their
bids to reflect that they didn’t’ have to purchase and provide carts; however,
it was found that all bids included the cost of purchasing carts, with vendors
under the impression that they didn’t need to provide those cost savings to the
City, but needed their bid to come in at a certain rate. Mr. Pratt advised
that similar examples of prices actually increasing were available from other
communities. Mr. Pratt advised that it was staff’s belief that if the City
owns the carts, they will see a cost-savings long-term for Roseville residents
for second and subsequent contracts.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, staff estimated the upfront cost for cart purchase at $45 to $60 each
to be $500,000 to $700,000.
Mayor Roe noted that the proposal
provided that the cost get built in and amortized into the contract.
As to how the City could fund the
purchase, Mr. Pratt, in consultation with Finance Director Chris Miller,
suggested a small internal loan amortized over five years in addition to using
available recycling funds.
At the request of Councilmember
Etten, Mr. Schwartz advised that it was the intent to make it part of the
contract, that whoever owns the carts, the vendor would be responsible for
their maintenance and storage, and to roll-out carts, since the City had neither
the staff nor storage space to do so. Mr. Schwartz confirmed that it would be
the vendor’s responsibility to replace and pick up damaged carts.
Councilmember Willmus opined that
he would like to see the draft RFP come back with cost differentials included;
with Mr. Pratt responding that this was the intent of the current language,
suggesting that it may need more clarification if that was not obvious.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte,
Mr. Pratt clarified that that no vendors would need to factor in cart purchase
at the end of the first contract period, whether three or five years, even if
it is a different vendor, as the City would specify the cart’s design.
Mayor Roe expressed concern that
the City get in a position or risk with cart ownership in ending up with
obsolete carts as technologies continue to change.
Mr. Pratt advised that the cart
designs were pretty standard.
Mayor Roe indicated the council
direction to staff was that the RFP further clarify that the bid included pricing
both with and without purchase of the carts by the City so vendors could not
pick and choose.
Single Sort, Dual Sort, or to Allow
Either
When campaigning, Councilmember
Laliberte stated that she continually heard residents seeking single sort,
assuring that they would recycle more; and also hating any non-compliance notes
in their bins, creating a source for ill will.
Mayor Roe noted that it may not be
possible to bid the RFP both ways, opining that some vendors may not offer
single sort; and it was dependent on which approach provided the best cost for
the City.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Pratt advised that there were some legacy contracts out there, but
typically most vendors were no longer bidding dual sort but switching to single
sort.
Councilmember Willmus opined that
he had a problem even continuing dual sort, since it seemed like a bait and
switch with the public, since this caused the City to revert to where it was
five years ago, when survey information clearly indicated that the community
wanted single sort; along with the PWEC recommendation in 2005 unanimously
supporting single sort. Councilmember Willmus stated that he was interested in
looking at single sort.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she was perfectly happy with that, since the City had no intention of offering
both options, and since the important thing was to get evaluation feedback on
the quality of materials being received in single sort was now possible, she
wanted that at least on an annual basis.
Mayor Roe noted that there were current
industry standards to address that.
Mr. Pratt provided an example of
MERF materials and the percentage per vendor of total materials received,
materials rejected, residual rate, and recycling rate. Mr. Pratt noted that,
in the City of Roseville’s pilot program, people were sometimes attempting to
put things, such as window frames, in the carts, which were not recyclable.
In recognizing that the tons
collected and amount of recyclable materials, Mayor Roe noted that residual
items would have gone into a landfill anyway; and while the percentage is one
thing, the total was also important.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, part of
the evaluation process may include a visit to the MERF facility by the
evaluation team to get a better idea of how they’re handling things.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Pratt advised that the percentage of materials not recyclable was typically
mandated to be sent to a specific landfill.
Mayor Roe opined that
understanding that part of the process was important.
Based on community interest and
support, Councilmember Etten opined that the RFP should go out with only the
single sort option.
With no divergence of opinion,
Mayor Roe indicated the council direction to staff was to only request
proposals for single sort for the RFP.
Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten
expressed their interest in the RFP coming back to the City Council for one
more review at a future meeting with more detail and revised based on tonight’s
discussion and direction.
Additional RFP Items/Discussion
Points
Councilmember Willmus questioned
Sections 4.17 and 4.29, 4.34 (pages 9 and 11) and how they tied to Section 7.01
(page 29) specific to the type of plastic materials being recycled and
contamination concerns (e.g. plastic bottle pumps; high melt point of certain
ceramic items, and coated paper packages).
In Section 7.01, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that facilities were specified for all materials to be
recycled.
Mr. Pratt clarified that Section
4.34 (page 11), excluded plastic designed “6” unless Styrofoam.
Regarding Section 4.46 for zero
waste events, Councilmember Willmus questioned if this should be included as a
standard in the RFP or just as a value added.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that it was
only included in the definitions, and didn’t have any impact.
In Section 5.04 (page 17),
Councilmember Willmus questioned the language in that section specific to dual
sort that not needed removal.
In Section 5.07 (page 19)
regarding residual items at the MERF and tagging, Councilmember Willmus
questioned if different vendors had different ways of handling those items and
whether it was necessary for the City to designate it similar to how Eureka
Recycling handles it, or leave it open for vendors to inform the City how they handle
it.
Mr. Schwartz advised that there
were different ways for vendors to track them, many electronically for
preprogrammed issues. Mr. Schwartz offered to further review that section to
make it more generic, while still requiring them to report contamination
issues.
Mr. Pratt responded that all
vendors have identification tags.
Councilmember Etten advocated for
making that section more generic; and questioned if the tracking was done
curbside or at the end location.
Mr. Pratt responded that there
were several typical ways, including cameras on the trucks as the carts were
dumped to record content; as well as providing a location of the pick up
through a GPS system, with some tagging done curbside for obvious contaminants.
If moving to single stream,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if tagging went away, even with onboard
cameras.
Mr. Pratt responded in the
negative, noting that the City still wanted to have a provision in place to
notify people of contaminants in the education process.
Consensus was to make language in
that section more generic.
In Section 8.04 (page 32),
Councilmember Willmus suggested that revenue sharing should be a value added,
questioning if it should even be in the RFP, as other vendors may have
different programs.
Mr. Pratt clarified that Section
8.05 (starting on page 34) addressed a percentage of revenue sharing as an
option. Mr. Pratt further clarified that if that option was included in a bid,
the City was specifying the terms for that revenue sharing, in knowing the
value of those materials, since there was the possibility that someone could
come up with using specific markets and pricing. Mr. Pratt advised that it was
vital that the City set the bar for those market prices, allowing vendors coming
in to know what the true value is.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
why that could not be accomplished through the value added side.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
vendor could potentially do so if there was less specificity, but probably
could be highlighted more in the general specifications.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
concern, whether revenue sharing was done or not, that the RFP be comparable;
avoiding one coming in with an offset of revenue sharing and another without
that offset; and questioned if all vendors offered revenue sharing.
Mr. Pratt responded that revenue
sharing was quite standard now.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
everyone should then submit their bid accordingly.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the proposals should be comparable as long
as the vendor provided revenue sharing by percentage.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Pratt reviewed how various vendors tagged or identified their
revenue sharing programs, some on a flat cost to offset and some getting a
percentage as currently done in Roseville. Mr. Pratt advised that the last
time the contract went out to bid the City used a consultant from Ramsey County
to evaluate the revenue sharing component, as they calculated it on the market
average for the last twelve months for each commodity. Mr. Pratt advised that
Ramsey County had offered the assistance of their consultant again to perform
those calculations.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Pratt confirmed that this service was at no cost to the City.
Mr. Schwartz noted that revenue
sharing had some risks, especially with a contract with a lower rate and lower
revenue share; and advised that Finance Director Miller had provided some
analysis on this, but it was hard to predict.
Councilmember Willmus recognized
that, as commodities, they were hard to predict.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mayor Roe noted his preference for the actual cost, as long as it was very
well-defined during the evaluation process.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned
if vendors provided incentive programs for compliance, such as points, coupons,
discounts, or something that the residents could personally receive.
Mr. Pratt advised that those
programs cost more, and at this time, there were only a few offering them.
Councilmember Laliberte advised
that her only concern was that they were not precluded.
Regarding the mandate that RFP’s
have to be submitted on recycled CD’s or paper (page 46), Councilmember Willmus
expressed his inclination to not include that as a mandate.
Mr. Pratt advised that some
members of the PWETC may disagree; with Councilmember Willmus responding that
it was his perspective to remove that mandate. Mr. Pratt advised that it had
been removed last time.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that
it was not mandated in other RFP’s and suggested it not should be specified for
this one alone.
Councilmember Etten agreed; and
questioned if anyone actually took the time to determine if the RFP was
submitted on a reformatted CD or not.
Mayor Roe indicated that the
consensus was to remove that mandate from the RFP.
Regarding evaluation of criteria
and weighting (page 47), Councilmember Willmus suggested that the pass/fail
side needed more articulation; with Mr. Schwartz advising that the bench
handout provided the value added provided that evaluation. Councilmember
Willmus expressed appreciation for that clarification.
In conclusion, Councilmember Willmus
noted, that since there appeared to be a consensus for single stream, he
questioned where the cart versus bin discussion came in; and questioned if it
should be left open.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had heard no one wanting a bin, but all seemed to prefer a cart.
Councilmembers Etten and Willmus
concurred.
Direction provided by consensus
was to only consider carts, not bins.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
fins assessed (pages 34-36) and whether they were reasonable or not; opining
that they seemed unreasonable to her unless there were examples to share; and
questioned where staff obtained those figures.
City Attorney Gaughan responded
that a point to keep in mind was that liquidated damages in this or any
contract were put in place because parties recognized that a particular breach
or failure was difficult to assign a value. Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised
that it was typical for everyone going in to accept the assigned value; with
all parties recognizing it’s impossible to arrive at an actual figure. Using
that comment as a preface, Mr. Gaughan advised that what was appropriate for
one community may not serve as a benchmark for other communities.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Pratt confirmed that there had only been one occasion in the last ten (10)
years where these damages needed to be assessed.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Gaughan confirmed that they were only in place, by mutual
agreement upfront, so a value didn’t need to be determined at a later time
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Pratt reviewed how and when assessments were conducted for
properties missed multiple times by a hauler; and recourses available and
typically used with the vendors in seeking resolution.
In Section 5.21 regarding seasonal
park use and those facilities listed in the RFP (page 23), Councilmember Etten
questioned why two of the City’s heaviest used spaces (Central Park Lexington
and Victoria West), were not included in the list; and how those facilities
included in the list were arrived at.
Mr. Pratt advised that Parks &
Recreation staff were consulted, and this was the list they provided for the
RFP. However, he offered to consult with them again. Mr. Pratt clarified that
HANC was not as heavy of a user as the Wildlife Center.
Councilmember Etten asked that
staff bring the list to the attention of the Parks & Recreation Department
again and determine if there should be other facilities added to the list to be
included in the RFP.
As part of that discussion, Mr.
Schwartz noted that, if a facility was not on the list, those recyclables were
brought back to the City campus, and were still recycled with other materials
at this site.
Regarding materials processing and
marketing (page 28), Councilmember Etten questioned the rationale in mandating
that materials go to markets in the Upper Midwest, opining that this created
problems when the industry may have facilities in several areas of the nation,
and requiring shipping to process or manufacture those materials. As an
example, Councilmember Etten referenced the recycled material used for his
deck. Councilmember Etten suggested that the RFP not specify that the
commodity be used in the five-state region.
Mr. Pratt advised that the PWETC
considered added value to have materials recycled locally; noting that all of
the materials recycled could be processed within the area, with most of those
facilities complaining that they couldn’t get enough raw materials.
Mr. Schwartz suggested adding the
word “preferable” to the RFP language.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned
the rationale for including Item “O” (page 36) dictating smoking behavior.
While Councilmember Willmus
suggested that this was based on smoking behavior of vendors at ballfields, Mr.
Pratt advised that it was actually the result of a vendor picking up recycling
in a multi-family facility’s garage, and smoking in the halls of this
non-smoking facility. Mr. Pratt clarified that it was a community value
specifying that preference.
In Section 5.02 (page 13), Mayor Roe
suggested review of language related to vehicle standards, repeating in the
next several paragraphs, and those that were dictated by state and/or federal
rules rather than the City specifying those requirements.
Mr. Pratt advised that those
redundancies were probably due to cutting and pasting, and advised that he
would review them and clean them up.
In number 7 (page 14), Mayor Roe
suggested that the specific tools for cleaning up spills did not need to be
dictated, simply “appropriate tools.”
In Sections 5.16 and 5.17 (pages
21 and 22) referencing scavenging and ownership, Mayor Roe suggesting removing
duplicate language.
In Section 6.07 (page 27), Mayor
Roe suggested revised language that “… initiatives may include [but are
not limited to]…”
Proposed Evaluation Team
Mr. Schwartz provided the proposed
five (5) member evaluation team consisting of Mr. Schwartz, Finance Director Miller,
Mr. Pratt, one PWETC member; and a staff member of the Ramsey County
Environmental Health Department.
The team was approved by
consensus.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, directing staff to return with this item
for the July 1, 2013 special meeting agenda.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Classification and Compensation Study Policy Recommendations and
Implementation
Human Resources Manager Eldona
Bacon reviewed the current policy and staff-recommended changes for City
Council consideration, as detailed in the RCA dated June 167, 2013. Ms. Bacon
noted that, whether the existing 97% plus merit pay compensation plan stayed in
place or the proposed new compensation plan was instituted, there would be a
need to allocate over $320,000 in additional funds.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon
noted that these were some substantial numbers in a difficult budget year; and
suggested that, if the City Council was interested in pursuing, they consider
implementation first. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was offering only one
suggestion in the RCA, and opined that it was important for the City Council to
determine which percentage and a policy to which it wanted to aspire; and then
determine options for moving forward. However, Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that
the first focus should be where to land on a policy and then how to get there.
Mayor Roe reiterated the available
policy options including those recommended by staff, and also setting the
policy to be the current status quo, or setting another level besides the
current status quo or the staff recommendation. In any event, Mayor Roe opined
that it was important to set a policy first, and then figure out implementation
in light of current budget constraints.
Councilmember McGehee offered her
support of that basis as a framework, opining that a compensation study was
asked for and received, and needed to be done since the last one was
accomplished in 2002. Councilmember McGehee opined that her only concern was
the ten (10) cities used for comparison and whether they were appropriate.
Councilmember McGehee further opined that finding eight (8) positions currently
out-of-line was very problematic for her; and expressed her personal preference
that those be brought into at least a minimal percentage with other positions.
Councilmember McGehee stated that there should be some acknowledgment by the
City Council that they asked for and received this study; and to confirm that
the City Council valued its staff. Even though this was a difficult budget
year and there were tough choices to make, Councilmember McGehee opined that
the City’s hard-working staff should not be disregarded; acknowledging that the
City was certainly not over-staffed.
Ms. Bacon, in an effort to not mislead
anyone, advised that there were other more substantial under-market positions
beyond those eight (8) positions presented; and if the City Council chose not
to take into consideration the recommended 4.6% increase to pay plans, without
the merit pay component, those listed were only after implementation of the
4.6%; and there may be other positions currently 20% under market.
Councilmember McGehee asked what
dollar amount would be required to make at least equity among classifications
for current non-exempt staff at 95.4%.
Mr. Bacon advised that those had
not been calculated and it was not in line with current City policy; with Mr.
Trudgeon clarifying that the information was not immediately available tonight.
Councilmember McGehee advocated bringing
those positions in line comparable to everyone else.
Councilmember Etten opined that
the 97% number meant something; and he supported getting rid of that as the
City policy, even while recognizing that the City didn’t currently, and may not
in the near future, have funds to fund it. Councilmember Etten opined that it
sent a poor message to staff to retain that 97% as a policy and not achieve it,
even though it should be the goal for the City Council in the next few years.
Councilmember Etten acknowledged that the City could not fix this in 2013, or
probably the next two (2) years, in addition to COLA; and while not yet ready
to fix this in the short-term, he could not support the policy of 97%.
Councilmember McGehee concurred.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he didn’t look at from a perspective of whether it was insulting or not;
opining that this was an organization, and there was a pay range in place for
this particular organization. Councilmember Willmus noted that different
cities had different circumstances and compensation packages for their employees.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he was really struggling with this, since
every time it came forward, there was a different number. However,
Councilmember Willmus acknowledged that while he didn’t have an answer, he
agreed with Councilmember Etten that this is certainly something difficult to
say; but questioned how a 100% policy could or would be implemented.
Councilmember Laliberte admitted
that she was struggling with this as well; and the original intent had been to
achieve equity between union and non-union employees, which was setting the
City up for failure, since they would always be chasing union negotiations and
waiting for the next compensation study to confirm that the City wasn’t at
100%. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she struggled with defining it that
way versus providing good wages and a good work environment. To consider
making financial adjustments in this particular year with recent legislative
limits, Councilmember Laliberte opined would be very difficult to do. However,
in the upcoming Department Head budget discussions, if the City Council heard
departments address their priorities and whether this was more important or a
higher priority than adding a volunteer coordinator, or this or that particular
program or service, Councilmember Laliberte stated that this would provide a
better context for her. While appreciating receiving the Human Resources
perspective, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she still needed to hear
those department priorities, based on a flat, decreased or increased budget and
levy and how they would respond.
Mayor Roe noted that the reason
for the compensation study was to determine where the City fell in the market
place in an effort to avoid attrition of employees. Mayor Roe suggested that
the City Council keep in mind that it would be very difficult to implement this
in 2014, even if done in three (3) stages. Mayor Roe suggested that one
option, in 2013, would be to use reserves to avoid bumping against the levy
limit. However, Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Laliberte’s suggestion
to have the discussion in the context of Department Head budget discussions,
similar to that of the CIP funding crisis addressed several years ago; with
operating costs reduced to apply to capital funding, with everyone taking a hit
and solving CIP funding. Mayor Roe noted that the City’s employees were one of
its most important areas of capital; but spoke in opposition to borrowing ahead
or using reserves as a way to defer the hit.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with the comments of Mayor Roe, specifically in the context of budget
discussions. Regarding the possible use of using reserves for funding,
Councilmember Willmus opined that he was willing to look at that provided there
was a more in-depth conversation and that it included a discussion of reserve
ratios.
Mayor Roe cautioned using reserves
requires the City to do that each year until revenue became available, creating
the same sustainability problem currently being addressed.
Councilmember Willmus referenced
former Councilmember Pust’s comment that there was a reason for organized labor
in certain areas; opining that this was one of them.
Mayor Roe noted that this still
didn’t address or avoid the cost.
Councilmember Willmus concurred;
however, he noted that it made sense to step back and look at potential funding
mechanisms, as suggested by Councilmember Laliberte and Mayor Roe in the
context of the broader picture.
Mayor Roe suggested that the one
thing needing to be done was for the City Council to establish its policy;
recognizing that it didn’t mean that it could be accomplished overnight, or
that an immediate plan would be available to do so. If not acted upon tonight,
Mayor Roe suggested that the policy be discussed and established in the very
near future moving forward, as suggested by Interim City Manager Trudgeon.
For clarification, Ms. Bacon
reviewed the discussion that there was some City Council consensus to achieve
the 97% or beyond and eliminate the merit piece to the program. If that was
the consensus, Ms. Bacon advised that this made approximately $35,000
immediately available that would reduce the $44,644 and get closer to the 97%
mark if the City Council wanted to move in that direction.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with everything discussed with the exception of using reserves to fund
anything. Councilmember McGehee expressed her willingness to abandon the merit
pay based on staff recommendations; however, she didn’t have any clear
direction on what the policy should be. Councilmember McGehee stated that she
was fine in using the $35,000 from the merit pay to offset the projected cost
to the tax levy; and was happy to do that tonight.
At 10:00 pm, Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
extending the curfew by ten (10) minutes to 10:10 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Regarding Councilmember McGehee’s
suggestion to take action tonight to eliminate the merit pay component, Interim
City Manager Trudgeon cautioned that this action should not be taken without
the other components addressed, since it provided the only available option for
the City’s top performers. Mr. Trudgeon strongly suggested that the City
Council not take that action tonight, even if they were of a consensus to move
in that direction.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the
Department Heads would come to the upcoming budget meetings prepared to talk
about this component as it relates to the overall operations of their specific
department. Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Mayor Roe on the need to focus on the
policy, wherever it ended up, at which time strategies to achieve the policy
could be determined. Mr. Trudgeon opined that it appeared everyone was being
realistic about the time needed to reach a goal, and if that goal could be put
on paper and ideas formulated, it would be a great first step, while
recognizing that it would not be possible to come up with the money overnight.
By consensus, staff was requested
to provide more details on those positions where there were significant
inequities; and a dollar amount to bring them up to 95%.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested that a
draft policy be discussed at a future meeting, using staff’s three (3)
recommendations as a starting point for modification.
Even though Interim City Manager
Trudgeon will not be available that evening, Mayor Roe suggested putting this
item on the July 8, 2013 meeting agenda to facilitate Ms. Bacon, who will be
present for further discussion on the City Manager Search process. After
further discussion, Mayor Roe noted that this would allow for department budget
discussions before that meeting as well.
By consensus, staff was directed
to provide numbers of those outlying positions and dollar amounts to bring them
within an equitable status of other positions; and to provide a draft policy
for debate based on a proposed policy of 100%.
14.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Consider Setting Additional Council Meetings for the Purpose of
Discussing the 2014 Budget
A bench handout was provided,
polling possible dates of individual Councilmembers for Department/Council
Budget meetings.
After some discussion, there were
some additional conflicts, and some adjustments to individual schedules, with
staff directed to further refine the three (3) potential dates for discussions,
as well as adjusting current meeting agenda items to facilitate those
discussions.
By consensus, staff was directed
to provide those potential dates as an action item at the next regular business
meeting.
15.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
16.
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
17.
Adjourn
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:13 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; Etten;
and Roe.
Nays: None.