View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Retreat Minutes
February 18, 2015
Roll Call Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 12:00 p.m. and introductions were made
around the table of Councilmembers and Department Heads; before turning the meeting
over to Facilitator Craig Rapp.
Present: Mayor Daniel Roe and Councilmembers Robert
Willmus, Lisa Laliberte, Tammy McGehee, and Jason Etten; City Manager Patrick
Trudgeon and Department Heads: Police Chief Rick Mathwig, Fire Chief Tim
O'Neill, Finance Director Chris Miller, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz,
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, Community Development Director
Paul Bilotta; and Facilitator Craig Rapp.
Review Discussion from Tuesday Session
Mr. Rapp briefly
summarized yesterday's meeting based on the organization's culture and value
propositions accomplished through a SWOT analysis to identify organizational
and community challenges, in preparation for further defining and refining
strategic priorities and identifying desired outcomes and indicators. Mr. Rapp
advised that the efforts today will be to finalize those key outcome indicators
for moving forward.
Identifying Organizational and Community Challenges (continued)
Priorities (Challenges) Summary
identified from yesterday's meeting and receiving uniform agreement were:
Housing and Redevelopment
Aging Infrastructure - Infrastructure Sustainability
was identified; however, Mr. Rapp stated that he was unsure if it received
unanimous agreement; and that was "Determining Priorities/greatness" which he
had taken the liberty to restate as "Organizational Evolution," which
from his perspective would include an organizational value proposition,
service, delivery and quality.
McGehee opined that, through accomplishing the four uniform priorities, the
City would have gone a long way toward effective governance, at which point
organizational evolution would naturally follow as the City moved forward from
confirmed his understanding that the desire was to incorporate "civic engagement"
in all areas, even though it was called out as a separate strategic priority in
the list. Mr. Rapp expressed concern that, if not calling it out separately,
its impact may be lost; but by saying it was a target priority in all other
categories, the outcomes specifically addressed the governance concept,
allowing the freedom to relate civic engagement in all those areas and
providing a greater opportunity to elevate certain things to their own status
versus including them under one umbrella.
McGehee responded that she didn't consider those things were precluded, but she
personally thought civic engagement had to be a piece of that and if the various
targets (e.g. tax base, work with Metropolitan Council, etc.) included an
obligation to educate the public and work with them to make sure they also
understood the targets and were on board with those targets. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this would create a much better process than the current
one, which often got the City into trouble, with the City sometimes inviting
public participation and educational efforts, and other times simply cramming
things down their throats.
Mayor Roe opined
that he found the list provided by Mr. Rapp to capture yesterday's discussion
by not making one thing more important than another or combining them and losing
emphasis in each area.
Laliberte concurred that while "civic engagement" would certainly play into
everything the City did, it wouldn't necessarily be addressed unless separated
"organizational evolution," Councilmember Etten stated that he struggled with
that term, as the City struggles with upcoming Department Head turnover due to
retirement, and the City's need to look at its service delivery progress in
relationship to what it was great at. Councilmember Etten questioned if that
was "evolution" or "refocus," since to him evolution meant something different
than finding what the City was great at.
In focusing on
the current control model and desire to move toward a customer intimacy
approach, Mayor Roe stated that was key in his mind. Mayor Roe opined that it
made sense that the organization had to evolve to deal with that concept, and
other suggested other questions would and should get answered as part of that
Mr. Rapp opined
that, if the terminology changed from "organizational evolution," a member of
the public may not immediately understand it, while theoretically they could
understand the remainder of items listed. As an example, if determined that
service level was a priority and concepts were defined on how to deliver those
service, Mr. Rapp noted that the operational excellence would be impacted by
the role of innovation and other tools.
Laliberte opined that she found that whole category difficult based on
categorizing them from yesterday's perspective of value propositions and
culture and where those two categories differed. As an example, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that there was a huge interest in being customer intimate, but
questioned how anyone would want to accomplish that at the expense of the
McGehee seconded the comments made by Councilmember Etten, opining that rather
than the term "evolution," she would prefer organizational "priorities," to
determine how the City wanted the culture to work rather than working toward
questioned if organizational "excellence" would be preferred versus
"evolution," allowing the City to determine its own level. Mr. Rapp
questioned if the organization itself and delivery of service by the
organization could be separated or if it was about prioritizing what the
organization did, improving and/or fixing how it was done, or what their intent
McGehee opined she thought priorities would be a group discussion of the City
Council and Department Heads to make that determination, including succession
planning, and what it meant to bump up service levels in different
departments. Councilmember McGehee further opined that she thought it would be
trying to establish some understanding of priorities and a cost benefit
analysis in making those changes, and thereby causing City Manager Trudgeon to
determine the internal structure of groups working across departmental lines.
Mr. Rapp noted
key words that he continued to hear during this discussion: priorities, excellence,
focus and evolution, and effectiveness.
Development Director Bilotta noted that even when there was a desire to cut a
program or service, it continued on because it was done last year. With a
limited amount of resources, Mr. Bilotta noted the importance of defining
and/or redefining where to put those resources - staff and finances.
Mr. Rapp noted
that he continued to hear that prioritization issue a number of times, and
suggested changing language from "organization" to "resource prioritization" to
more clearly define the intent.
Mayor Roe opined
that may make it too narrow.
McGehee agreed that was too narrow; and resorted to her category from
yesterday, "determining priorities as broad versus specific organizational
Mayor Roe stated
he had a problem with the word "priorities," as he found it created confusion
with projects undertaken versus how things were done, and balancing resources
accordingly, which were actually two different things.
Etten concurred with Mayor Roe's observation.
Mayor Roe noted
it may just be a terminology issue: how we do things or make calls on what to
do and how.
clarified that the term "organizational evolution" defined the challenge or
strategy, with the next step, as comments were indicating, determining what it
involved. In lieu of this discussion, Mr. Rapp suggested changing
"organizational evolution" to "organizational effectiveness" as a priority;
and asked whether that encompassed enough to include succession planning to
service levels, while prioritizing what was more important including the value
McGehee opined that this put the connotation on the culture piece, and moved
the culture back to a control model rather with organizational excellence.
responded that it was designed for that, but all cultures ultimately wanted
effectiveness and excellence.
suggested it could be flipped.
Mr. Rapp opined organizational effectiveness seemed broad enough that it would
then allow the City to define what it means from their context.
Laliberte expressed her support for "effectiveness" versus "excellence" or
evolution." Councilmember Laliberte stated that it was obvious the City wanted
excellence, and as noted yesterday by Mr. Rapp, the question was "Why are we
doing what we do'"
Where We're Going - Establishing Strategic Priorities
Strategic Priority List
What We Want - Identify Desired Outcomes
provided some definitions and examples of strategic priorities gleaned from his
work with other communities including various categories that may apply, some
common to all communities but others differing in each community, and specific
each of the above strategic priorities, Mr. Rapp led in defining important and
desired outcomes offered by individuals in the group and as shown below.
Variety/diversity - housing, redevelopment, commercial
Prepared for change
Growth of tax base
Living wage jobs
Fulfills community needs (public assistance)
Public safety considerations
Cost benefit ratio understood at the frontend
Process: consistent, transparent
Etten suggested using League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) references as a
refresher/primer to make sure Roseville was following that process each time
Thorough, fully-informed analysis
Laliberte noted that while staff and Councilmembers were having ongoing
conversations throughout the analysis and performing their due diligence, the
community may not be aware of that, creating the need for a transparent and consistent
Acceptance of decisions (team based)
Equipment, facilities, and in-ground
Accommodates change without extreme dollar fluctuation
Long life cycle
Matches community needs and values
suggested a division on infrastructure issues is in the near term, or their performance
period, with an emphasis on rehabilitation, maintenance and sustainability
versus expansion and upgrading quality. Mr. Rapp noted it was not an either/or
situation, but a review of the City's biggest challenges.
Mayor Roe noted
that the twenty-year capital improvement program (CIP) had already allowed a
lot of areas to be addressed. However, he noted the need to focus on some things
without designated funding to-date (e.g. pathways).
McGehee referenced Community Development Director Bilotta's comments on
amenities, and suggested looking at creating amenities where opportunities
arise (e.g. development with sufficient land to build attractive retention
ponds versus a lift station with a fence, or a handicapped bridge versus no
Address Current Deficits
Adapting to change
Performance Measurement (e.g. program and service level
Prioritizing our resources
Providing adequate funding
Willmus sought clarification from Finance Director Miller on what was intended
by "performance measurement."
Miller responded that, if the City's desire is to move toward customer
intimacy, how it would measure if it was reaching that goal. Mr. Miller questioned
if the intent was to start small and build from there; and in determining the
services provided by the City, deciding if they were allocating resources
Willmus suggested this involved program and service level prioritization, which
was then added to "performance measurement."
Laliberte noted centralized communications efforts recently implemented, and
asked staff if they saw other areas needing the same efforts.
Development Director Bilotta responded that there may be areas to centralize,
or others needing to be decentralized, depending on their application.
Mr. Rapp noted
that this could be combined with "Deploying our Resources" as effectiveness and
Measurement," Councilmember McGehee questioned if that division and
organizational efficiency and organized customer service didn't fall under the
purview of the City Manager to organize and experiment in decentralizing, while
his management of that organizational structure or performance for the City
Council was in determining the community's satisfaction level with that process
by which it was governing the City.
Efficient and effective structures and resource use
Councilmember McGehee opined this was more up to the City Manager
Laliberte opined that the City Council was saying it was important, and it was
up to the City Manager to sort it out.
McGehee disagreed, opining that it was different in this instance, since it
spoke more to organizational effectiveness.
Mr. Rapp stated
that he didn't see a distinction, and under a Plan B form for municipal
government, the City Council had its role as the governing board and provided
guidance to the City Manager as the government's staff leader. Mr. Rapp noted
that the City Council provided the City Manager with expectations, guidance and
resources, but anything having to do with the organization ultimately came back
to the City Council to determine if the City Manager was using those things
given to him.
McGehee opined that historically, the City of Roseville had problems with the
City Council stepping in the role of managing staff; and stated that she
constantly liked to remind everyone that this is the direction, but the
performance measurement piece was needed for the City Council as well.
clarified that he was not talking about micro-management, but some level of
oversight while not stepping over that line.
Laliberte noted that yesterday's discussion had proven how important and
valuable leadership was.
Leadership, including Succession Planning
Trudgeon addressed his definition of leadership innovation in how the
organization approached things, as well as how it empowered those within the
organization to be leaders.
What We Want - Identify Indicators
At this point,
Mr. Rapp reviewed the next step in taking the identified outcomes to determine
success indicators as they related to that specific priority to address a
particular strategic challenge. Mr. Rapp advised that, in the end, he was
looking for 2-3 key outcomes in each priority area to provide desired outcomes
for each strategic priority.
provided a variety of examples of this exercise to identify key outcome indicators,
clarifying at that point targets would be identified for each of those
indicators or aspirational things to work toward. Mr. Rapp noted that some of
those targets would not be set today without additional research and
As a result of
this exercise, Mr. Rapp advised that he would take the key indicators and
prepare a one-page matrix for the City of each of the five strategic
priorities, their key outcome indicators (KOI), targets, and strategic
initiatives to reach the goal. Mr. Rapp noted that the goal of today would be
to get a draft form of that matrix, from which staff would develop and draft a
final column (Strategic Initiatives) for the City Council to review and
consider prior to finalization. Mr. Rapp noted that there were variable
timeframes for the performance period for the strategic plan, suggesting it be
more than one year.
suggested a two year plan be provided to ensure the City Council could meet
reiterated that over that next two year period, the matrix consisting of five
priorities, three outcome indicators, and 15 targeted definable outcomes would
need to be undertaken and monitored as to their progress. Mr. Rapp opined that
was a lot to take on, but assured participants it was doable, and if they were
important priorities to the group, they would be motivated to accomplish those
15 targeted items. Mr. Rapp opined it would be even more hugely successful if
used on broad-based priorities for the budget process, taking the
budgeting/resource allocation and aligning it with priorities established by
indicated, if that exercise was successful and pulled all together, it would provide
a one-page reference sheet for the group to use during and as part of the
budget document. Mr. Rapp stated that his goal was to help the group
reinforcement this process and provide them with an accountability system to
attain its targets.
Mr. Rapp divided
participants into five groups, with one Councilmember in each group, and
choosing a strategic priority, then the appropriate staff person for each group
according to the topic. Group breakdowns were as follows:
Councilmember McGehee and City Manager Trudgeon)
Councilmember Etten and Community Development Director Bilotta and Police Chief
Roe and Fire Chief O'Neill)
Councilmember Willmus and Public Works Director Schwartz and Parks &
Recreation Director Brokke)
Councilmember Laliberte and Finance Director Miller)
break-out, Mr. Rapp responded to a written public question left by an audience
member earlier in the morning, questioning his definition of "community." Mr.
Rapp stated that he used that term in its broadest context and as it applied to
any and all stakeholders involved with the City or Roseville (e.g. anyone with
ties to Roseville, having investment property in Roseville, a life-long
resident, or any agency or other Roseville stakeholder).
this exercise at approximately 1:00 p.m., with Mr. Rapp reiterating the goal of
this step was to define a general theory of governance and how it worked. In
clarifying this process, Mr. Rapp suggested the subgroups consider the
following ownership and roles of stakeholders:
Council: owns purpose, direction, success definition and accountability
owns action plans, methods and performance
perspectives, creation and accountability
suggested it would serve better to put out clear, outcomes/expectations or purposes
by the City Council, and leaving it up to staff to work the rest out as
indicated. Therefore, Mr. Rapp asked that the subgroups try to refrain
themselves from problem solving and stick to strategy only, rather than getting
bogged down in the "how."
Finalize Key Outcome Indicators
provided by each subgroup, listing their interpretation of Key Outcome Indicators
Engagement (Subgroup: Councilmember McGehee and City Manager Trudgeon)
Connection; Transparency; Authenticity; Communication; Proactive;
Timely/early; Process; Broad/inclusive; Valued
Outcome Indicators (KOI)
Some percentage (90%) expressing satisfaction with the process, not necessarily
the outcome, but the process itself through responses to the periodic community
McGehee added that the big emphasis was on satisfaction, whether done pre- or
post-survey and specific to the process itself.
Rapp clarified that if the KOI was community satisfaction was the indicated target,
it should be refined to stipulate large projects or issues with a clear
definition of how to define how you intend to define that 90% satisfaction rate
(e.g. the Community Development Department creates a community engagement
process and the Police Department has a separate process for their work or is
the intent for a comprehensive satisfaction level').
he considers civic engagement, Councilmember Willmus noted the often-missed
demographic in Roseville was renters or those new to the community and not yet
aware of the process and how things are done, causing them to not be participatory
in that process. Councilmember Willmus questioned what outreach or KOI was
available to account for that missing demographic.
McGehee noted she and City Manager Trudgeon had talked about several things,
including communication efforts that could come down to the level of leaflets
distributed in target areas.
Rapp suggested that what Councilmember Willmus was suggesting was actually a
Participation in reaching a currently underserved percentage or segment of the
Roe concurred that this was a key to community satisfaction.
Manager Trudgeon noted the KOI was to make opportunities for volunteers, not in
numbers but in the variety of opportunities by offering a variety of different
ways for people to be a part of and work with the community.
McGehee added that, at one point, City Manager Trudgeon made the distinction
between community satisfaction and its participation on major projects.
Councilmember McGehee noted that historically, volunteer opportunities have
been specific to several departments, but opined that one thing that had been
overlooked was how to engage people in the community in their areas of
expertise or talents, saving staff time and also involving them in community
efforts. Councilmember McGehee provided several examples, including organic
collections with four residents already coming forward offering their broad
background and interest. Councilmember McGehee suggested the City Manager
could call them in on an informal basis to research background information and
best practices used by other communities, or ask them to perform the research.
Through this process, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City was not
engaging them or putting the City in the position to ask those volunteers for
the spirit of coming up with a meaningful outcome, Mr. Rapp questioned what the
KOI was for engaging volunteers and getting useful information, whether using
volunteers in established city programs, or using volunteer s or volunteer
hours donated. Mr. Rapp questioned what the City would find the most meaningful
Roe opined that he wanted to maintain areas with historic volunteer activity;
but also get more volunteers and hours donated in non-traditional areas, or
broadly expanding volunteer participation outside the traditional Parks &
Rapp encouraged more comments, noting this was the group's chance to focus over
the next two year period.
McGehee opined that she wanted some different characteristics of volunteer
Laliberte questioned how broad this volunteer effort was being viewed, opining
that volunteerism went all over the community, whether or not it was tied to
the City itself, but including civic and community engagement. Councilmember
Laliberte questioned if the City was attempting to do anything outside just
helping fulfill its own needs.
Roe questioned how broader volunteerism could be measured (e.g. churches,
community organizations, etc.).
Rapp suggested that was a central question for all participants, as they owned
this over the next two years, "What is your focus for volunteerism?" and how
big or small it was intended to be, and what was a meaningful outcome they were
seeking to achieve and how to measure that outcome. Mr. Rapp stated that he was
hearing "increasing participation in targeted areas."
McGehee opined that the area she was referencing was not included.
Roe opined the only outcome was to increase volunteering and volunteer opportunities.
McGehee opined that it needed to be defined first.
Roe suggested identifying everything not now being provided by volunteers.
Rapp suggested, if the KOI is "volunteer opportunities," an increase from one
percentage to another by the end of two years, and measuring that actual
increase. Mr. Rapp questioned if that KOI achieved the desired effect by
simply volunteering, did it advance the quality of life or achieve a goal other
than creating more opportunities, or what the meaningful end measurement was about
volunteerism to get the City where it wanted to go.
Willmus suggested some sort of metric be plugged in for each department such as
for the internal operations within the organization as they related to
volunteer positions by department (e.g. clerical assistance).
Etten questioned if that was any better than simply increasing volunteer
numbers or hours. Councilmember Etten noted the investment by the City in the
Volunteer Coordinator position for the purpose of improving volunteerism and making
it more rigorous in new areas, with the overall goal to get more volunteers involved.
McGehee opined that she'd like to see 3-4 small targeted opportunities for
either brainstorming ideas or general purpose research on topics coming before
the City Council.
Etten opined that is very specific for this type of broader exercise.
McGehee stated that she was attempting to get to the definition.
Rapp suggested that the KOI was volunteer hours, with the TARGET being to increase
the number of volunteer hours by 25%; and staff then identifying strategies to
achieve that and meet the needs of the organization via survey needs, or
whatever the next step is in solving that. Mr. Rapp asked if this was a
Laliberte opined that, with that description, and using Councilmember Willmus'
route as an initiative, it could free up staff to do what they were trained to
do, by putting volunteerism into certain places.
Community satisfaction - ___% satisfied with process
Volunteer hours - increase volunteer hours by ___ #
Participation by ____ demographic population(e.g. renters)
and segments of community (e.g. Karen immigrants)
Priorities: Variety/diversity - housing, redevelopment, commercial; Prepared for change; Reinvestment; Growth
of tax base; Proactive; Job creation; Living wage jobs; Fulfills community
needs (public assistance?); Public safety considerations; Cost benefit ratio
understood at the front end).
growth in SE Roseville
Target: % change in homestead versus rental housing
Rapp asked for clarification of the purpose of this target if intended to
influence the outcome to provide more stability.
Development Director Bilotta responded that it was in support of the
homesteading position; and through inspections push single-family rentals back
toward owner-occupied housing to keep certain areas of the community from
becoming saturated with single-family rental housing, observed as a slowly
increasing trend in some areas of the community and impacting other aspects.
Etten concurred, noting that, as the country came out of the recession trending
was toward rentals; and from the development side, there were potential impacts
not only on investment in individual homes, but rental homes becoming a larger
component of certain quadrants throughout the community, creating a lower
investment in housing in those areas.
Rapp clarified that the KOI was trying to achieve the target as the outcome,
knowing the trend is not the outcome.
Bilotta clarified that the KOI was to reduce the decline in homeownership.
Roe clarified home ownership vs. rental; and questioned if that was inherently
a bad thing or if it was an attempt to deal with happenings in neighborhoods
and types of housing stock.
Bilotta responded that, at the point when the symptom got to a certain percentage
of total rentals, it historically created additional problems in the home
ownership market not being as attractive in those areas of the community.
Rapp suggested a more affirmative way to be found to state the intended KOI,
whether that was to achieve a balance in segments of the neighborhood, in the
broader community or neighborhood specific, or by defining the percentage of
preferred housing stock to avoid declining housing values.
McGehee noted the proliferation of single-family homes turning into rentals in
Bilotta clarified that the concern was with single-family rentals versus
owner-occupied homes and not referencing apartment buildings.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the Community Development
Department had looked at the issue city-wide, and that the concern was that Roseville's
single-family housing stock maintained its attractiveness to homeowners in
relation to rental/investment properties.
Laliberte opined that one addressed existing housing stock, and one move-up
housing and initiatives or goals to rezone and identify developers to create
new opportunities. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she did not
see how her interpretation affected this target.
Willmus opined that, ultimately you were trying to achieve sustainability of
existing neighborhoods versus the more transient, short-term or transitional
housing, through reinvesting in those neighborhoods. Councilmember Willmus
noted this may involve facilitating redevelopment of certain areas in a
neighborhood, and looped back to Councilmember Laliberte's comments in looking
for an indicator that encouraged or fostered that type of housing in Roseville:
owner-occupied, single-family, or medium density residential (MDR) type uses.
Bilotta stated that such a scenario got into "how," to be developed later, such
as adding 25 more owner-occupied units or somehow increasing that proportion
through reinvestment targeting housing programs available to the City for those
properties, making the property more attractive for ownership versus rental.
Roe opined that the nexus wasn't necessarily between rental and ownership, but
to make sure neighborhoods were attractive and well-maintained, and the "how"
could be either comparing average values or the amount of investment being
made, or somehow tie that in. Mayor Roe admitted that he was not simply
tracking renter versus owner-occupied as part of the whole picture.
McGehee opined that it seemed as we came out of the recession, people wanted to
move up, and it was more cost-effective for them to rent their homes rather
than selling at that time when values were low. However, Councilmember McGehee
opined this trend might correct itself over time.
Chief Mathwig added that this was also a public safety investment, as nationwide
data indicated more police calls to rental homes than owner-occupied, with a
corresponding reduction in police calls based on home ownership.
Rapp clarified that the target established and being monitored created the
impetus for the programs being created. If the City said their KOI was
"homestead housing and change," with the TARGET to balance that in all
neighborhoods, Mr. Rapp asked how that led up to the right kinds of initiatives
and programs relative to housing and neighborhood stabilization.
McGehee opined that if homestead housing fell, it was incumbent on staff to
come up with a variety of programs to target specific neighborhoods.
Roe opined that he did want to tamp down current trending toward rental housing
versus home ownership for those just entering the housing market. Mayor Roe
noted that rental housing values were trending consistently with non-rental
single family homes at this time.
Willmus concurred that this was a trend, and that it was cyclable. However,
Councilmember Willmus noted that it created management problems when housing
stock intended for one use moved into another type of use; and confirmed that
it was a proven fact that single-family properties tended to be more stable.
Roe clarified that he was referring specifically to single-family rentals, not
Rapp questioned if there could be a reversal in that trend and still have the
community experience declining property values; and whether property values
were the indicator or if there was some other indicator of the market or
Roe responded that if single-family properties were on the downward trend, the
desire was not to have everything else trending up. However, Mayor Roe clarified
that those choosing renting were just as attractive as Roseville residents as
those owning housing stock.
Rapp questioned if the next step in terms of market value would be programs including
code enforcement and continued diversity in housing that fed into that attractiveness
model, which could perhaps still be achieved with another indicator.
a public safety standpoint, Mayor Roe suggested targeting residents continuing
to be interested in rental property; and how to monitor that.
Mr. Rapp suggested tracking valuation increases of owner-occupied homes
compared to rental homes to keep them within a target range of each other, and
based on observed deviations, push resources to one side or the other.
McGehee opined that she'd still be happier with some target tied into
homestead, and referenced the recent Dale Street Project and neighborhood comments
that they wanted owner-occupied stock surrounding them.
Homestead and rental; owner-occupied value, and rental value
Etten expressed his amazement at the number of and interest in duplexes in
Roseville, which he attributed to a symptom of the modest upkeep for owners.
Councilmember Etten stated that this suggested the need to make sure housing
stock included not just individual single-family homes, but also included MDR options
Willmus opined that he didn't attribute this to identifying any particular
market segment at all, but thought Roseville was still missing certain types of
Roe opined this sounded like another indicator and shouldn't be lumped in with
Laliberte stated that she was struggling with this stage of the exercise, as it
seemed that at each stage the discussion veered farther away from the initial
SWOT. While originally talking about move-up housing stock, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that the conversation was now moving toward reinforcing the housing
code enforcement program already in place and very successful versus
identifying yesterday's discussion about housing diversity and the City's lack
of some types of housing stock.
Roe opined there were more indicators in this section of housing and redevelopment.
Director Miller opined that he would find it of a huge advantage to see the
work done by the subgroups two hours ago, as well as that done 24 hours ago
next to this part of the exercise to help connect the dots. Mr. Miller noted
that what was now being reviewed had been distilled down several times, and
seems to be causing the discussion to flounder indicating that the group had
lost its way.
Development Director Bilotta noted that his subgroup had struggled with the
whole KOI and how to define the number of units and what move-up housing or
median housing was.
Director Miller suggested it would be clearer if seen from his subgroup's work,
admitting that his subgroup struggled mightily in defining their own KOI's.
Rapp recessed the meeting at approximately 2:26 p.m. and reconvened at
approximately 2:38 p.m.
the break, Mr. Rapp clarified that most important step at hand is getting the
KOI's correct. Mr. Rapp advised that the targets may or may not be fully
fleshed out; and he would summarize everything accomplished, including a table
and summary of all of the SWOT and information contained in the flip charts
from various subgroups and the group as a whole in his draft report.
that, Mr. Rapp reiterated that he would work with City Manager Trudgeon and
staff to facilitate a half-day session to develop initiatives or key pieces to
bring before the City Council to help achieve the City's strategic priorities.
Mr. Rapp recognized the frustration and normal desire at that half-day staff
session. If he found the group sliding into that minutia again, Mr. Rapp
advised that he would refocus discussions to avoid losing continuity.
the move-up housing topic as an example, Councilmember McGehee questioned if
they would then be on sheets for staff and they would return to the City
Council with that issue for decision-making to set priorities.
Roe asked that "indicator' be defined, using the example of Councilmember
McGhee for move-up housing, whether it was intended as specific or not. Mayor
Roe noted that the housing & redevelopment priority talked about variety
and diversity, which may be the desired indicator, but suggested it may instead
be related to work force housing.
a two-year time period, Mr. Rapp suggested housing in particular tended to have
a longer time horizon than that, providing an optional target specific to
housing variety. If the indicator was defined by the City Council to monitor
housing variety with a target to achieve balance across the board or by a
certain percentage, Mr. Rapp suggested that would be the target. As an
example, Mr. Rapp suggested 20% move-up housing by 2020 as a target, whether
achievable in the two- year program or balanced with other options.
Willmus noted that the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan would suggest
Rapp concurred that in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update and any new
zoning, the City could start focusing on which housing options would receive
initiatives, which would also provide an idea of the timing for the target over
a longer time horizon.
Willmus opined that, while the end use may be beyond two years, in order for it
to happen or even be a potential, proper zoning and guidance was needed to be
in place to accomplish that.
Roe opined that in itself that was a strategic initiative.
Willmus concurred, opining that it was actually working the process backward to
get to a strategic priority.
Roe opined that he saw this priority category (housing and redevelopment) as
inclusive of growing the tax base, picking a target, as well as defining
percentages for rental and owner-occupied and other housing options.
Market value growth in SE Roseville
creating ways to grow that
Redevelopment Area and living wage growth
defining what is living wage growth
Roe noted the need to address what all went into that.
Rapp suggested it included the desired housing income and what it wanted to
achieve and how to articulate that desire.
Housing - increase the number and minimum home value of
50 units MDR residential housing in next 2 years
McGehee opined that more specificity was needed as to whether it was intended
as $350,000 per unit.
Roe questioned if there needed to be a distinction about owner-occupied units
or rental units.
McGehee suggested owner-occupied, 50 units, and valued over $350,000.
Willmus noted that $350,000 was the low price point for detached townhome
Rapp questioned if there was a distinguishing piece for move-up housing.
Etten suggested care was needed in tossing out home values to avoid offending
those in lower valued homes and not diminishing their importance in Roseville's
Willmus concurred, but noted that this did represent a missing segment in
existing Roseville's housing stock.
Roe concurred, expressing concern that whether that value of housing stock was
seen as a net plus or minus to the community, the intent was not to diminish
the importance of those living in lower valued homes.
Focus on commercial/residential properties in SE Roseville
and attempt to increase market values in that area
Create move-up variety housing by increasing the number of
additional units available at a minimum price point of $350,000
Create living wage jobs specifically in the Twin Lakes
Etten suggested going back to the Weaknesses/Threats section related to housing
diversity and existing and aging housing stock, including concerns with public
safety and tax base, and other considerations all boiling back into that. Therefore,
Councilmember Etten expressed his personal reluctance to leave off that aspect,
but instead suggested having a fourth KOI addressing the rental aspect
especially based on the community's little developable space for new housing
Roe opined that he liked targeting the value increase and tracking of
owner-occupied and rental housing within a certain range.
Willmus noted there may be certain areas of town that reinvested and changed
housing stock types.
consensus, the participants added a fourth KOI as follows:
While recognizing it would take longer than two years,
start now to remove homestead from residential housing values; creating a
target for both of those housing types by developing a work plan during that
two year period and initiatives to begin that process.
Consistent and transparent process; Constructive; Clear decision-making; Timely
decision-making; Decisive decision-making; Respectful; Forward looking; Thorough,
fully-informed analysis; Acceptance of decisions (team based)
made and stick
Every action item that comes to the City Council has a resolution at that
Roe noted that this may indicate that an item is discussed at several meetings
prior to action, but when coming forward for action, it occurs at that meeting
without further delay.
Rapp suggested that the indicator may be "decisions or action items" with the
target being "tracking City Council actions."
Every item under consideration includes an indication as to where the decision-making
process is at.
McGehee referenced Councilmember Laliberte's desire for a continuum that every
project had a schedule with a checklist for a clear understanding of where it
was at to ensure transparency.
Laliberte opined that it came into plan with communication tools, documents at
meetings, communication about meetings and when/where they were being held;
whether public comment or a Public Hearing was being held at the Planning
Commission or City Council level, and announcing or noting on the agenda packet
at which stage it's at.
90% of the time you will conform to the agreed-upon City Council process.
Etten noted that there was a very defined process by Minnesota State Statute
for land use cases.
Laliberte noted that typical residents were not aware of that process.
Etten concurred, noting the need to make the process more transparent for the
Rapp suggested that the target was to have a process that the community could
Roe noted that everyone, whether City Council, staff or the community, had a
different definition of community as previously discussed, and using a different
example than land use, such as the reorganization of the Fire Department, there
should be a process for everyone, including the public, to understand at what
point it was at, perhaps through a web page associated with the process, or
using a thermometer graphic with a process line.
the target is to monitor process transparency, Mr. Rapp suggested using Mayor
Roe's "Transparent Process" as the target, each Request for Council Action
(RCA) could include a check box indicating at which point the process is currently
Roe suggested instead that it could be like the Twin Lakes Engagement meetings,
as residents see the steps where the project is at currently.
McGehee noted the significant issues in notification for transparency and
consistency, on large development project, and often what is perceived from one
informational meeting to the next or what actually the prevailing perception of
what actually transpired is.
Rapp opined that, if he as a staff person was to be held accountable to achieve
the target, a graphic on an RCA at every venue or every meeting would provide a
clear continuum of the process and whether I'd fulfilled it and/or met with the
satisfaction of constituents. Mr. Rapp opined that this seemed to be a rather
low bar to meet.
the land use stages and required meetings noted by Councilmember Willmus, Mayor
Roe opined that the bigger challenge of the target was not a checkbox, but how
the process itself was defined ahead of time. Mayor Roe opined that this was
the big and key part of the processing missing at this time.
McGehee concurred, opining that it was an overarching issue with community
engagement and a big thing.
Target (as suggested by Mr. Rapp and approved by consensus): A process will be
published for every major project or issue, as defined by the City Council or
for ALL projects and/or issues as determined.
Laliberte opined that it still wasn't going to fix the problem of a resident
not paying attention to or engaged with happenings in the community, and then
attending a meeting only at the last stage at the recommendation of their
Roe opined there needed to be a process and communication of that process
throughout; first by developing the process and then continuously communicating
Rapp suggested if the target is 95% satisfaction post-decision on the process
used, it was literally trying to make sure people were contacted and the
process was open.
To have 95% of the people involved saying the process was adequate or fulfilled
Rapp advised that the initiative would be to create a process for every item
with the communication plan then getting into details. Mr. Rapp advised that
by unleashing the creativity of its staff, the City Council could make sure it
was being held to that standard to ensure it happened.
Laliberte suggested that it became more of a strategic initiative of community
that was the case, Mr. Rapp questioned if that indicated it should come off "effective
governance" and go back to "community engagement."
McGehee opined "no," that this was more of a sign-on to the process with
satisfaction with the process but also needing to define that process and the
City Council signing off on it to make sure it was consistent.
noted earlier discussion included targeting a certain percentage of satisfaction
with the process, and opined that it had taken over as a strategic indicator.
Rapp clarified that it was already a different strategic priority listed under
2016 elections with incumbents who don't quit out of frustration and/or new
candidates coming forward for openings.
Roe questioned if the intent of this included respectful acceptance of decisions
and construction criticism.
Development Director Bilotta advised that the concern was that it would build
attractiveness of serving on the City Council.
Laliberte and McGehee opined that they didn't feel that was a problem.
Roe noted that only three citizens ran for two open Council seats in last
Laliberte opined that she preferred a key indicator that would help the body in
day-to-day meeting conduct and decision-making, not something that was only
needed every two years at election time.
Rapp noted key discussion focused on respect, forward thinking and constructive
Roe agreed that this was the subgroup's intent.
(undefined at this point
Rapp noted another community had asked their staff and advisory commissioners
to generally and/or selectively rate and monitor City Council meetings by video
or in person and rank the City in terms of their respectful comments or how
they perceived the meeting. However, Mr. Rapp noted that this was subjective.
Director Miller asked if it was always necessary to have a key indicator for
Rapp responded that the theory of this is if effective governance is important
enough to focus on, then there had to be a way to define City Council actions
to fix or improve a particular target through transparency and how to measure
it. As an example, if respectful conduct is important, if we don't define how
to measure it, Mr. Rapp indicated it was not likely to have any attention paid
to it or any attempt to change or improve it. If something was put in writing,
such as achieving a 70% compliance rate for respectful behavior, Mr. Rapp
suggested this provided a way to account for progress at the end of a year.
his own situation with his staff, Finance Director Miller opined that most of
their behavior or culture was ingrained with no clear indicators, but communicated
out in the open and staff held accountable. While the objectives are written
down, Mr. Miller stated that there was no measurement of what percentage of
time staff met those goals, but the value statements were written down for the
department. However, Mr. Miller advised that he didn't measure them quantitatively,
but they were the expectations for the culture and work environment he wanted
to create in the department.
Rapp questioned if a measurement would be the number of violations observed in
staff interaction with customers, providing quantitative versus objective
Miller responded that this wouldn't hold him back since he had predefined instilling
that culture within his department.
Laliberte noted it could relate to a lack of individual decorum.
Roe noted that it was necessary to hold each other accountable as a group, and
some way was needed to define issues at the end of the measurement period.
Miller questioned what the punishment would be for noncompliance.
on his experience and conversations held with staff, Councilmember Willmus
suggested that if indicators were in place, you would be able to account for and
be aware of that type of occurrence earlier on.
Miller advised that his department had that indicator in place, but it was not
Rapp recognized the many layers to this target, but suggested an ideal of having
a limited number of measurable outcomes (e.g. 15) that in a perfect world,
every quarter's performance report would provide a snapshot of that status.
Even though it's an objective accountability measurement, Mr. Rapp noted that
it was deemed important enough for participants to list it as a KOI, and a
simple target would be to quantify how that measurement was compared to
Roe suggested an indicator could be that at a certain percentage of meetings
over a certain period of time, the group was above the threshold that everyone
agreed to and conducted their business well. Mayor Roe suggested a "thumbs up"
or "thumbs down" measurement may be adequate, or a consensus of the body on a
At the end of the year, 80% self-judged their behavior as respectful.
Rapp noted this would force the City Council into a discussion about their individual
and corporate conduct.
Roe noted that it was worth saying that it was not just the City Council and
staff, but also attending the meetings who were not always respectful.
Chief Mathwig suggested input from community advisory commissions, as well as
internally among Department and Councilmembers, that would allow them to
address if from their perspective and observations of public meetings,
providing a 360 degree evaluation.
Willmus suggested that the advisory commissioners could debrief after a Council
meeting and provide a measurement based on their perspective at their joint
meetings with the City Council.
Interactions within the Leadership Team
80% of public meetings judged respectful
Etten provided an example from his experience with his peers in the education
Rapp suggested a quarterly, informal meeting with a score card of areas the
participants struggled with. If the goal is to improve respectful conduct, Mr.
Rapp stated that would be a way of not letting things fester too long without
McGehee questioned how other groups managed to have convenient social times
without televising those discussions.
Rapp suggested that the Council reconsider and adopt a policy on those meetings
that they televised and those not televised.
Roe suggested other means may also be available for that type of discussion.
Rapp opined that the more participants were willing to put in writing and
commit to changing, the more likely they would be to accomplish those outcomes.
Roe concurred, noting that it would serve to grade the municipal governance
across the board, since everyone was in it together and everyone was responsible
for that good performance.
City Council decision-making
Councilmember Willmus and Public Works Director Schwartz and Parks & Recreation
Long-term planning; Equipment, facilities, and in-ground; Accommodates change
without extreme dollar fluctuation; Innovation; Reliability; Long life cycle; Matches
community needs and values; Address Current Deficits
Identify unfunded needs
Mr. Rapp opined that this target was
actually step 1 and should go into the initiative column. Mr. Rapp suggested
that a more measureable target may be what percentage made sense for high
priority or full funding over the next five years.
& Recreation Director Brokke noted that CIP funding needs over the next 20
years had already been identified.
Rapp questioned if that was sufficient and well-defined enough.
Willmus noted that originally the City had looked at a much shorter term within
a few years to identify those needs and put some measures in place to track
Rapp admitted that, for two years, it was a big task, but would result in coming
out with a prioritized list and result in a good, measurable outcome within two
years; and beyond that 2 year timeframe, identification of full funding for all
Etten expressed confusion, asking if this list wasn't already available and
updated annually. Councilmember Etten recognized that there were two different
priority lists for pathways, which remained at tremendous demand in the community,
but asked what additional measurement was necessary beyond that.
Works Director Schwartz advised that it would identify and target unfunded
McGehee observed that in other communities they use a five-year timeframe to
ensure the commitment is there, stating she was unaware of any other city using
a 20 year plan. Councilmember McGehee opined that by looking out so far into
the future, some things got pushed off; and she would prefer to focus back into
serious funding for a shorter time period.
Roe cautioned that if you don't look out far enough, you don't see upcoming
problems, which had already been discussed. Mayor Roe noted that the City was
already aware of two areas that were unfunded: roads and pathways, and suggested
focusing on an outcome to fund those areas at a minimum over the next few
further discussion, it was the consensus that the KOI was:
list, with identified funding stream, allowing the needs to be identified as
the first step; then identifying funding sources; and then how to prioritize
the list. The KOI within the two-year timeframe would be to fund the CIP for
all identified infrastructure, equipment and other CIP needs.
Etten clarified that the picture should be completed for the City's larger
needs that are in high demand.
Rapp suggested the target may be to adopt a comprehensive infrastructure plan,
with the outcome being the strategy to accomplish that.
Identify City condition standards and an index for each successful
Rapp suggested a "how" or Indicator may be "Monitor infrastructure conditions
and the target: based on industry standards for each.
McGehee noted the existence of the City's Asset Management Program; and
suggested a target may be completion of that data input and use across the
board, or a way to feed results from the program back into the CIP funding
Works Director Schwartz clarified that the data in the program is used to feed
back to the CIP and identify city condition standards for users and funding.
Mr. Schwartz noted considerations included at point they should be replaced
based on community expectations, industry standards, life cycle costs, etc.
Rapp noted that having those standards would not be a simple matter, and the
City Council would need to discuss the costs and implications of changing
current replacement cycles (e.g. pavement index condition standards).
Willmus opined that was something to be determined by the broader group.
Roe suggested an indicator within two years would be for the City to establish
a policy for maintenance of that standard index.
Rapp suggested the target be: Adopted standards for each infrastructure category.
% satisfaction via community surveys and community engagement
Manager Trudgeon noted that this also fed back into the community engagement
aspect; with Mayor Roe noting that they all eventually tied in together.
Rapp suggested it was good to keep it there to create a standard.
McGehee observed that the project had already been started with the community
survey, but needed to be further refined to ensure specific infrastructure
questions and specific feedback was received by carrying those questions on
consistently in each survey.
As noted above during discussion.
Councilmember Laliberte and Finance Director Miller)
Intimacy; Inter-departmental cooperation; Adapting to change; Performance
Measurement (e.g. program and service level prioritization); Prioritizing our
resources; Providing adequate funding; Efficient and effective structures and resource
use; Leadership, including Succession Planning
suggested this indicator be broadened to "stakeholder satisfaction" whether
internal and/or external.
Laliberte concurred, but questioned how to judge that internally.
Mayor Roe noted
that was a good point, and questioned how to measure customer satisfaction
versus citizen satisfaction.
Mr. Rapp noted "operational effectiveness" would incorporate all groups touched by that
Willmus suggested that ultimately, you come back to the citizens, whether the
Finance Department was struggling in working with another department or
directly with citizens; opining that either way it still impacted the citizens.
advised that he was thinking in the terms of discreet functions (e.g. development
applications and/or permitting processes) and how various stakeholders, whether
citizens, developers, architects, engineers, or other stakeholders - as
consumers of the services provided - found that service, with others ultimately
touched by that service.
with the citizen, Councilmember Etten suggested exit surveys of those receiving
services, while not being scientific by nature that would help provide a 360
degree evaluation of how a specific department was serving, with feedback
possible from different or a variety of groups. Councilmember Etten opined
that then the statistically valid community survey would be just one other
piece of the picture under this strategic initiative.
discussion, the consensus was to change the indicator to: "Gauging
Stakeholder Satisfaction" with the target as a certain percentage of satisfied
stakeholders through establishing strategic initiatives and providing ways to
Citizen Expectations to Resource Allocation (Programs and Services)
% of resource allocated to highest priorities
Laliberte advised that the intent of this KOI would to ensure adequate funding
was in line with prioritizing resources. Councilmember Laliberte personally
observed that at no point had the City taken community survey results and those
priorities and tied them back to the financial allotment of staff and/or
programs/services, actually connecting and aligning those community priorities.
McGehee spoke in support of that concept.
Laliberte clarified that this was about citizen expectations as taxpayers on
this point, narrowing the picture even more as to who's expectations were trying
to be met.
Mr. Rapp noted
that this would create a vehicle for adoption of the City budget to allocate
resources, and budget decisions would need to be aligned with some validated
data of citizen expectations, with the outcome that the decision was really up
to the City but aligned with citizen expectations.
opined it would be a challenge to measure and allocate funds to the highest
priorities since there was a different level of costs associated.
Mr. Rapp suggested
the participants brainstorm that challenge now.
McGehee noted in the budget process early on, there could be a reminder that
the budget was based on survey expectations and apply it across the board or
tie to specific budget allocations.
Councilmember Etten stated that he would need to look at the survey within that
framework and whether enough information was available to the average taxpayer
filling out the survey to determine which programs were core, vital or
preferred for the entire community with the City Council and staff simply
serving as a pass through for those community preferences. At this point,
Councilmember Etten opined that the community survey asked relatively broad
questions and questioned if that broad information could be boiled down to
actual reductions or increases on an item by item or department by department
approach. Councilmember Etten suggested a goal for this indicator may be to
take the more generic information and create a specific document to meet that
Mayor Roe noted
that the group struggled mightily with that during the last budget cycle.
Laliberte agreed, but opined citizens were not necessarily going to indicate or
rank things until they became aware of problem areas (e.g. no awareness of road
conditions until they're bad).
suggested the community survey question may be whether or not a respondent was
satisfied with or not satisfied with the way the City was allocating resources.
Etten opined that the questions could get specific in some areas; however, some
specificity was not available (e.g. performance of a particular staff member)
if the survey was going to be used as an instrument to drive the budget.
Councilmember Etten questioned if a respondent would have the necessary depth
of information to make such a decision.
McGehee opined that her perception of the last community survey was that
citizens felt strongly about roads and keeping pathways clean year-round, and
while those were not quantifiable when doing a budget, they came up and were of
note in addressing budget priorities from a broad, not more narrow approach.
Mr. Rapp suggested
the target was: Resource allocation reflects citizen priorities, without a
percentage being listed; at which point the City made the decision based on
the most current data available from various information sources.
Willmus stated that he wanted to somehow connect resources to taxpayer
expectations, opining that the current priorities were not actively serving all
of the City's taxpayers.
Laliberte concurred; however, she also recognized the comments of Councilmember
Etten and the fact that all segments of the organization did not touch
residents in the same way, making it meaningful across all of those segments,
yet each of those segments still being important (e.g. IT).
Willmus opined that what staff did on a daily basis had impact on taxpayers.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to get feedback from the business community as taxpayers as well as
Development Director Bilotta noted that there were other ways to look at this
impact, such as the sanitary sewer system managed by the Public Works
Department. Mr. Bilotta stated that the sanitary sewer system was not
generally on citizens' minds until it failed. Mr. Bilotta noted that some
citizen expectations may be low based on their lack of awareness or information
on various areas, but the City needed to educate them and work on raising their
awareness of the value of what the City staff did on a daily basis.
questioned if Mr. Bilotta meant that resources could be allocated toward
educating the public, to which Mr. Bilotta responded affirmatively.
suggested the desired outcome was for a prioritized plan. Mr. Rapp drew
the focus back to the organization's effectiveness as being what it is, with a
legitimate part of that seeking agreement from stakeholders. Mr. Rapp
questioned if the part about resource use or prioritizing resources was about
that effective use of resources or the cost of services to taxpayers, and
whether they should be effective and efficient for low cost or if resource
allocation should have a target that the cost didn't go up much every year and
how it tied into the KOI.
opined it was hard to measure some of the areas.
McGehee spoke in support of Community Development Director Bilotta's suggestion
to come up with a plan to evaluate allocation.
suggested it may be necessary to identify a way to measure it in order to
Development Director Bilotta responded that it would be similar to the Finance
Commission's efforts on ways to make the budget more transparent. Mr. Bilotta
suggested the target could be: "Prepare a plan or adopt a plan for better
linking resource allocation to citizen expectation."
suggested it may be a way or means to adopt it.
suggested there may be several techniques to accomplish the same end.
Mr. Rapp noted
that realistically the best that could be achieved within a two year period
would be to develop a process.
Director Miller asked if the intent was to adopt an actual plan and how to link
it by a formula or mechanism or just having being aware or make a conscious
effort to link the two.
opined that there needed to be some measurement of whether or not it's been
accomplished. Mayor Roe noted that this has always been a struggle throughout
the budget process, how to allocate funds based on priorities.
If the desired
outcome is to have a budget or resource allocation that reflected stakeholder
needs, Mr. Rapp suggested simply stating that. KOI: Resource allocation
reflects stakeholder expectations with the target: being to align
allocations and expectations based on available information and data, by
developing a plan within the two years.
Laliberte opined that at no point would be a perfect system, and as a body, the
City Council would still need to make decisions based on their level of
information compared to that of survey respondents from their municipal experience,
as long as they remained reflective and kept in mind the expectations of its
Mr. Rapp opined
that the targets were aspiration, and making on-the-ground decisions would
always be necessary or addressing something that may occur during the middle of
the year, since change always happened, making some of those expectations no
longer realistic, but still keeping the aspiration in front of the group. Mr.
Rapp noted that this would require periodically refining reality to match the
environment, and educating and making the public aware that the goal was not
lost, but was being addressed within the reality of the budget, and when not
lined up exactly still making them aware that you did the best you could based
on that reality.
the following was approved:
Adopt a budget that
reflects stakeholder priorities
establish initiatives on how that happens and where it comes from as
established through the strategic initiatives.
process for identifying participants and resources to address problems and
opportunities (Project Teams)
(unidentified at this time)
Director Miller stated that the intent of this identifier was to grasp interdepartmental
cooperation and identifying participants in play, with the key word being
"process in place" and how to address that.
Laliberte concurred, noting that the intent was a reaction to attempts to be less
silo-oriented and more collaborative.
questioned what the desired outcome was, with Councilmember Laliberte
responding to more effectively solve problems; and Mr. Miller responding to
address organizational needs and not limit thinking.
McGehee stated it went back to staff's and Councilmembers' desire to move away
from the top-down mentality and have more open interdepartmental collaboration.
Director Miller noted that it required a conscious decision whether the process
was individual or collaborative, which made a difference in how best to solve
addressing problem solving, Mr. Rapp suggested a KOI stating: More collaborative
decision-making," or "improved problem solving," both which was more of a
Laliberte clarified that the target was "effective problem solving" and
recognizing that collaboration was not prudent on every issue that came along.
problem solving was the desired outcome, Mr. Rapp opined that it needed a way
to monitor its success to indicate improvement or not.
As an example,
Councilmember McGehee referenced streetscaping, with one group planting trees,
another performing maintenance, and if the groups were collaborating it would
maximize efficiency for maintenance and survivability, or the best outcome
versus how it was currently set up.
responding that he did not see that as problem solving, but advocating a change
or prioritizing resources.
Laliberte stated that it involved efficient and effective structure and use of
suggested the struggle with this KOI was because there wasn't a good
measurement for problem-solving.
clarified that the struggle was with it as an outcome indicator.
Mr. Rapp opined
that it was more applicable to organizational effectiveness and how to measure
those assets and deploy resources in the most effective manner. If running the
business, Mr. Rapp stated he would be concerned with the effectiveness of the
organization itself: what customers thought, the cost per unit, and life
cycle. Mr. Rapp opined that this was missing here.
Laliberte opined it could be more of a performance measurement as with other
outcome indicators; with strategic initiatives to get at those structural
Mr. Rapp agreed
that "asset utilization" or something around efficiency or operations could be
a target, with each department having developed one core efficiency measure
by the end of the two-year period (e.g. response time for Fire or Police
Departments, efficiencies in snow plowing for the Public Works Department)
or other ways to measure the effectiveness of operations and establishing a
core to look at. Mr. Rapp opined that this would be more meaningful in terms
of measuring effectiveness.
McGehee opined that the examples given by Mr. Rapp were of a silo mentality,
and noted the desire was to encourage interdepartmental collaboration.
If so, Mr. Rapp
suggested coming up with targets inviting the collaborative approach,
instructing effectiveness and efficiency.
suggested a measurement could be by encouraging breaking of silo thinking,
where doing so made sense and at the end of two years, provide examples of how
and where it worked.
Laliberte noted previous discussion about duplicative communication functions
resulting in a more streamlined approach, and suggested other may be additional
opportunities. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she saw Roseville as
becoming an example of multi-departmental work at some point in the near
Willmus opined that he saw a clear nexus between this and quality of life
issues in getting at the bigger picture.
addressing the financial side, Councilmember Laliberte noted the consideration
of whether resources were being used well and accomplishing the desired
Willmus questioned if it could be tied into something easily measured and put
into a metric, such as "if we have greater departmental cooperation, it will
lead to a higher quality of life (e.g. land use issues)."
suggested the KOI as: "monitor operational effectiveness;" with the target:
"adopted effectiveness measured in core service as defined" by those business
or service delivery measurements used.
McGehee opined that was not what she was seeking, but as stated by
Councilmember Laliberte a more collaborative effort, even though it may not be
an observable measurement.
By setting a
target for it as he suggested above, Mr. Rapp opined that it invites staff
discussion to look into all ways to accomplish it, hoping that it included collaboration
across the lines and how to best do so. Mr. Rapp noted this could also
involved benchmarking Roseville against other communities and searching out
Mayor Roe noted
it also could involve collaboration among other units of government or
By putting too
much emphasis upfront on describing the "how," Mr. Rapp cautioned that it
didn't allow staff to proceed in assessing how and where they could accomplish
Laliberte spoke in support of Mr. Rapp's measurements, and while maybe all
goals wouldn't succeed, some additional ones may come forward in the future.
In the context of collecting tax dollars, Councilmember Laliberte supported
this way to say that at the end of the two year timeframe, the City was more
efficient and used equipment, materials and people in the right way and in the
right places. Councilmember Laliberte opined that those details were best
figured out by staff for the most part.
concurred, opining that it got to all the areas, while allowing the City
Manager to define the most cost-effective way to accomplish the various goals.
McGehee questioned how this fit with the huge interest she'd heard from staff
in moving toward collaborative versus silo problem solving,
Laliberte responded that it would be their choice to do so or not.
McGehee noted that was missing in the wording.
Etten noted that it would be a performance measure included with prioritizing
resources and effective use of those resources, based on staff's leadership
abilities, tying in a lot of those goals with the current wording of "interdepartmental
review of this issue, Mayor Roe noted it wasn't necessarily a cost issue per
area, but how things were process, what was done well or efficiently, and how
to have the ability to measure that effectiveness and efficiency.
asked Department Heads what it would take to get this information together
without it becoming a monster project and their expectations of the effort in
Director Miller suggested starting small and building from there by coming up
with some type of performance measures that could be easily compiled without a
lot of labor-intensity from staff. Mr. Miller opined that his greatest fear
was staff taking time to compile the data on performance measurements that
would subsequently have not influence on City Council decision-making nor see
any adjustment allocation for resources.
Etten opined that cost was not the only consideration in whether or not to make
something a higher or lower priority, but needed some other filter after this
Director Miller opined that it made it easier to have a reason why to measure
data for performance and easier to institutionalize if compiling that data and
presenting it to the City Manager and City Council resulted in it being used in
a productive way.
suggested identifying five things being done to satisfy stakeholders that could
be easily measured and start at that point to track trends over time to see if
they are or could be managed better.
Laliberte clarified that this goal was not intended to make more incremental
work for staff.
Director Schwartz advised that their department had been tracking those things
for years, and all their staff time was attributed to various areas, so coming
up with the information should be straightforward and not an extra burden.
However, Mr. Schwartz agreed with Finance Director Miller that it had to be a
Development Director Bilotta noted that the data received may not be the same,
recognizing that the Public Works Department had some complex tracking
software, while other departments (e.g. Finance or Community Development) may
need to quantify the data on the number of licenses and/or permits and over
time, different information may come out of each department. However, Mr. Bilotta
stated that his department could jump into it slowly without a lot of extra
time being required.
suggested always remaining focused on the objectives, if measuring whether or
not they're achieving the desired outcome.
Mathwig advised that in order to do performance measures in his department,
cost may prove difficult to define as the department itself had many layers to
it and all were measured differently, whether the number of traffic stops,
citations written, and record technician time involved for the traffic
enforcement division; the time required for training and or maintenance for squads;
or other divisions. While the oversights were already being done, Chief
Mathwig opined it would be difficult to put a figure to them. When looking at
performance measurements. Chief Mathwig advised that their achievements were
addressed in the community survey, as an example, with the satisfaction or lack
thereof for residents feeling safe in their home, while shopping at Rosedale,
or while driving down the street, all subjective.
Etten recognized that each responsibility may not have an associated fee as
with other departments; and questioned how the information would be made
available in many areas.
McGehee concurred, opining that she wasn't interested in a lot of that
information, stating that she found the satisfaction survey fine for her use.
Councilmember McGehee opined that if staff told her they were happy and since
it was the City Manager's job to keep them happy, while looking for
efficiencies and encouraging staff to work together as applicable, that was
enough for her.
agreed with part of that perception; however, he suggested identifying a target
of two initiatives within the entire organization where costs could be consolidated
where they were currently spread out in several departments, or identifying
several projects with cross-department efforts and cost savings that could be
achieved in doing so.
Laliberte suggested centralized supply purchases as an example.
summarized the KOI as identifying two areas or programs/services versus
creating a set of measures, clarifying that it constituted an outcome.
Trudgeon stated that he struggled with performance measurement, noting past
attempts and questioning if there was any value from those attempts. Mr.
Trudgeon opined that what was important was for the organization to change what
they were doing, but questioned if it was important to have a report card, and
opined that he was hearing from participants that it was not necessary. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that staff already looked at this issue and it was reflected
in their budget documents; and clarified that he would much rather focus on
In terms of
examples then, Mayor Roe suggested that over the next two years, staff identify
several instances where it was possible to achieve more efficient operations,
however that was accomplished.
McGehee opined that collaboration should not be only for operational
effectiveness or efficiencies, but to get a better handle on issues through
brainstorming at the staff level. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would
be happy for City Manager Trudgeon take on as a goal to have more collaboration
as part of staff's weekly meetings and work toward more of those efforts and return
to the City Council with two things that resulted from that brainstorming or
staff-initiatives of where they had worked together.
Trudgeon questioned if that was more of a City Manager performance goal.
agreed, but opined it could still also be an organizational goal.
discussions about top-down organizations and silos, Community Development
Director Bilotta opined that moving forward
with a more customer-focused outcome desire, he saw that naturally occurring.
Mr. Bilotta opined that the City Manager and Department Heads were already
doing it in their roles (e.g. SE Roseville groups being formed and integration
of other groups), and the only missing element was that they weren't written
Trudgeon stated that he was still struggling in how to quantify it.
yet listed under this category, Mr. Rapp expressed his surprise that
effectiveness and efficiency improvements were highly desired as identified by
participants, but there was nothing to respond to that desire yet.
Development Director Bilotta argued that Item #2 will pick up some of that
given the Roseville population, opining that staff didn't need to worry about
not being efficient.
Etten concurred, opining that residents considered staff and the City Council
to already be efficient as part of the current culture.
Mr. Rapp opined
he believed in proving that as opposed to it only be anecdotal.
Laliberte referenced discussion yesterday that indicated a desired move from
command/control to a more customer intimate model; and advised that this was
what the subgroup was attempting to come up with beyond the silo approach.
suggested that at the end of two years, perhaps the group could agree that the
City was 80% more customer intimate.
advised that the City would know through its interaction with its customer base
and it would be reflective of its bias toward that point, providing customer/stakeholder
feedback as part of the target.
Finalize Key Outcome Indicators and Summing Up Review and Reflect
In wrapping up
today, Mr. Rapp advised that he would summarize today's discussion and noted,
and meet with the City's key leadership to provide participants with full
report and matrix, including the full SWOT and applicable appendices.
Mr. Rapp advised
that he typically used the SWOT questionnaires and individual top three
priorities as a double-check based on upfront work and results of working
together as a group. Mr. Rapp advised that it was typical that the results
were similar to those initially listed, and offered to include them as part of
Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Laliberte expressed their interest in comparing their individual
SWOTS with the group results, hoping to find agreement from the majority as one
of her ultimate goals of this retreat. Councilmember Laliberte asked if the
group could agree to eliminate what they couldn't agree on, and while
understanding it would eventually become part of the how and strategic
initiatives, it would be good to say out loud what the end result looked like.
distributed his list of goals entitled "Highest Priorities" as outlined by City
Councilmembers and staff.
Based on their
review of the document, Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Rapp agreed
that they did a good job of hitting most of those issues.
Mr. Rapp noted
this indicated a lot of common thinking of participants, and that the subsequent
five priorities covered the territory quite well.
Laliberte noted a question asked of her by resident Lisa McCormick of what the
City wanted to be known for, or a tagline or brand. While sometimes that can
be communicated well, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was difficult
without identifying what the City wanted to be known for.
questioned if that was related to the vision comments provided in the group
Miller opined that it might, but noted that most cities like Roseville would
come up with a list, but stated that the unique part of this was what
distinguished Roseville; why you live, work and/or play in Roseville rather
than anywhere else.
questioned if the group was skirting the value proposition form the customer
intimate model, opining that it was a big step to go from a command/control
model to the customer intimate model; and questioned if it was linear or three
different and separate foci. Mayor From his perspective, Mayor Roe indicated
that his first question would be what the City government wanted to be good at;
and his second was what the community's image was using a maximum of two words
for that description.
suggested it would be asking what a great community was versus what was its
greatest service, noting that it may be a broad definition as addressed by Finance
talked about Roseville's existing park system, City Manager Trudgeon questioned
if the vision was already out there.
McGehee opined that to be a good city, there needed to be balance, caution with
the tax base, and engineering in place for all amenities. Councilmember
McGehee further opined that Roseville had shopping amenities, senior housing
and healthcare, but needed to address move-up housing as requested by its
residents. Councilmember McGehee opined that she was less interested in a
brand for the community that with a good, solid community with a good
functioning form of government with a good park system. Councilmember McGehee
noted some areas needing improvement, including living wage jobs and increasing
the tax base to support community amenities (e.g. trails, pathways, parks) so
they can be afforded by those living in the City's housing stock.
Councilmember McGehee stated that was more in line with community expectations,
with comments repeatedly heard that residents didn't want Roseville to be
another Edina or St. Louis Park.
Laliberte stated that she in turn didn't want Roseville to become a Brooklyn
Park or Fridley either.
Trudgeon stated he wanted Roseville to be great at better communication with
its citizens, which staff was striving to do in every service and program, with
land use issues often being the first response areas. While that goal may not
be tangible, Mr. Trudgeon opined that he wanted Roseville to be great across
the board and crossover among all areas, with that being his take-away theme.
Mr. Rapp thanked
participants, opining that everyone really worked hard, and should be proud of
their efforts over the last two days. While the outcomes may stretch each individual
and the overall group, Mr. Rapp suggested it would be a good trip, and everyone
should buckle up.
Trudgeon thanked Mr. Rapp for facilitating this retreat; and for the benefit of
participants clarified the next steps would be receiving Mr. Rapp's draft
report, then filling in the gaps, and bringing it back to the City Council for
discussion with eventual adoption at some point, even though there was no firm
timeline for that adoption.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the draft report
would be posted on the City's website when available.
expressed his appreciation for the initiatives offered by staff, and the atmosphere
created at this retreat and hopefully in the future that if there were great
ideas, there should no reason to be shy in bringing them forward.
agreed with Mayor Roe's comments.
expressed his appreciation for the participation and vigorous engagement of the
Mayor adjourned the
retreat at approximately at 4:44 p.m. and thanked everyone for their