View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced several upcoming events, including volunteer tree seedling planting
at Villa park, open houses at Rosebrook and Oasis park, a kick-off event for
Roseville Alzheimer's efforts; and a "Car Fit Check-up" for seniors as a joint
effort of the Police and Fire Departments.
Mayor Roe also
announced the reinstatement of Roseville University, the popular educational
opportunity for Roseville residents to see how local government works. Mayor
Roe noted that the program had been reformatted to more individual sessions
between May and November rather than a series, with more information and registration
available on the City's website. Mayor Roe reviewed the various sessions and their anticipated schedule, encouraging citizens to sign up and attend.
Etten announced the upcoming clean-up at Villa Park, Reservoir Woods and South
McGehee thanked City Manager Trudgeon for reinstating and revamping the
Roseville University, and suggested marketing it to Cub and Boy Scout Troops,
as well as High School Civics students, for their attendance as an option to
attending a City Council meeting.
concurred that the program should be promoted to those groups.
Laliberte thanked City Attorney Gaughan for his annual Ethics Training for staff,
City Councilmembers and Advisory Commissioners; with Mayor Roe concurring that
it was a good and informative presentation again this year.
In his role as a
Member of the North Suburban Cable Commission's Board of Directors, Mayor Roe provided an update, noting that CenturyLink's application for a second franchise serving the nine member communities had been received by the Commission, and would come before the Commission this month for consideration, with a report from Commission staff and their recommendation as to whether to pursue an agreement. If that occurred, Mayor Roe advised that the next step would be initiation of franchise agreement negotiations, and if that proceeded as well, he anticipated that it would come before the City Councils of those nine member cities in late summer or early fall.
McGehee questioned the status of Comcast.
advised that Comcast was still involved, but the CenturyLink proposal would be
a competitive franchise. Mayor Roe noted that Comcast's merger with Time Warner continued to be delayed, creating the necessity for the Cable Commission to extend the current franchise agreement under the same contract terms for another two years, as previously acted upon by the City Council.
Donations and Communications
7. Approve Minutes
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 April 6, 2015Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 17, line 29 (Etten)
read: "violations remaining.remaining. [including adequate smoke
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
8. Approve Consent Agenda
Deny Appeal Submitted by G & G Management, LLC
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this one item
being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated March 23, 2015.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11216 (Attachment A) entitled, Resolution
Governing an Appeal by G & G Management, LLC, Regarding Rental License
Classification Pursuant to Chapter 908 of City Code;" denying the appeal of staff's administrative ruling for rental licenses issued for 175, 195, 221 Larpenteur Avenue W; 1722, 1725, 1735, 1736 Woodbridge Court; and 1720, 1735, 1740, 1745 and 1750 Marion Street.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Roseville Deer Population Discussion
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly summarized
this topic as previously presented to the City Council and public testimony
heard at that time, with a recommendation by the Park & Recreation
Commission on March 9, 2015 for a wildlife management plan/ordinance for Roseville.
Mr. Brokke provided a brief presentation on the history of the deer population
issue and deer inventory and previous discussion as detailed in the attachments
to the RCA dated April 13, 2015. Mr. Brokke advised that Ramsey County had a
deer population inventory for the last decade; noted varying opinions about
whether or not to control the deer population or reviewed other mitigation options.
Laliberte sought clarification as to the DNR's rationale in their carrying capacity criteria for a 9-15 count deer herd.
responded that this was based on a standard habitat criteria guide used by the
Mayor Roe noted
that base criteria would be considered as part of any ordinance in determining
whether or not to pursue a hunt.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Brokke identified those neighboring communities
with or without a controlled hunt of some type in place. Mr. Brokke advised
that the Cities of New Brighton, St. Anthony, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and
Arden Hills did not have an ordinance; while the Cities of St. Paul, Little
Canada, Shoreview and Maplewood did have an ordinance. Mr. Brokke further
clarified that the City of New Brighton was currently studying the situation
similar to the process for Roseville; and while the City of Arden Hills did not
have an ordinance, they were under the auspices of Ramsey County through their
ownership of the TCAAP property, but not a specific City policy.
In terms of
surrounding communities and how they participate in conjunction with Ramsey
County, Mayor Roe questioned how they functioned in managing their deer
inventories within Ramsey County.
responded that all or most of Ramsey County communities participate in the deer
inventory and other communities were coming on board if not previously involved
in the inventory process. If there is a Ramsey County park within a community
providing a mechanism to do so, Mr. Brokke advised that Ramsey County would
handle herd management, otherwise it was up to individual city jurisdictions.
his review of protocol for public testimony, Mayor Roe noted that previous
public input had been received by the City Council in the recent past, as well
as formally at a public hearing at the Parks & Recreation Commission
level. However, Mayor Roe advised that he did not want to discourage
additional comments tonight, but clarified that previous comments had been
provided to the City Council as part of their review process as well.
Toogood, 601 Terrace Court
noted that he had the opportunity and privilege to testify before the Parks
& Recreation Commission, as well as the City Council, and expressed appreciation
for the thorough job done by staff, the Commission and City Council in
researching this issue.
While having no
new information to offer, Mr. Toogood advised that he served as the volunteer
point person for his neighborhood and had just today received two contacts from
residents about the deer population. Mr. Toogood opined that there appeared to
be continued support for the City Council to act on the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Toogood stated that he was here to represent a large group of those residents hoping the City Council would adopt two ordinances: one outlawing the feeding of deer and another indicating if the ratio of deer exceeds a certain point after a two year monitoring period, steps be taken to harvest a portion of that herd.
underlined his unique position that he liked deer and enjoyed seeing them,
while also recognizing concerns of many of residents who had spoken to him,
testified or written to the City Council voicing various aspects and their many
McCormick, 2612 North Wheeler Street
expressed appreciation for Mr. Brokke's presentation; and sought clarification on how the DNR established .77 acres to determine carrying capacity for deer habitat for Roseville. Ms. McCormick also questioned the map showing areas of deer populations at Langton Lake Park and Reservoir woods acreage, and only representing less than one square mile, seeming inaccurate from her perspective. Ms. McCormick asked who established the carrying capacity, and suggested a joint effort of the Parks & Recreation and Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission would be helpful.
3061 Woodbridge Street
advised that he enjoyed deer, with his property backing up to Lady Slipper
Park, and would not dispute the actual deer population. However, Mr. Bull
expressed concern in language for the proposed ordinance, especially the carrying
capacity per square mile. In his review of nine years of statistics, Mr. Bull
noted he had observed an average of 45 deer, with no complaints documented
until 2014; and asked that the City Council take those numbers into
consideration at the higher capacity of 45 versus reducing carrying capacity to
9 - 15 deer.
Mr. Bull stated
that his biggest concern was the definition of wildlife and feeding
restrictions as indicated in the model ordinance, and what impacts that may
have on feeding song birds, hummingbirds, and/or koi fish. Mr. Bull asked that
any future ordinance restricting necessary management do so without impacting
other areas not needing that management, opining that feeding deer by some
residents was creating the actual problem in this area.
As a bow hunter
for over forty years, Mr. Bull expressed concern that a deer could be shot with
a clean shot and still wander off, and he did not want to see wounded deer
wandering into residential yards. If a decision is made down the line to
authorize a hunt, Mr. Bull recommended it be done with a sharp shooter versus a
bow hunt to avoid these issues.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
opined that while some people fed deer directly, others did so inadvertently
from the overflow to the ground from their bird feeders. When short of food,
Mr. Callaghan stated this was very attractive to deer, and while we ask
residents not to feed deer corn, deer were just as happy with bird seed, but
that was not discouraged.
In his personal
review of the City of Shoreview ordinance offered as a model ordinance for
Roseville to consider, Mr. Callaghan expressed his shock that no one had yet
taken that to court, as he observed many legal issues with it and suggested a
careful review of that language by the City Attorney. As examples, Mr. Callaghan
noted there was no definition of wild animals, where bow hunters can hunt deer
and how to protect private property and trespass concerns.
Even though the
City may discourage feeding deer, Mr. Callaghan opined that the City was not
good at enforcing its ordinances or appeared to him to be very selective about
who received enforcement. Mr. Callaghan opined that the Community Development
Department appeared to already be overworked and couldn't handle enforcement of its current ordinance due to a shortage of personnel, and questioned how they could enforce additional ordinance.
stated that he would not recommend this ordinance.
Since the City
Council made a decision last year that someone didn't have to follow a current ordinance because they were grandfathered in, Mr. Callaghan suggested that everyone in Roseville should be considered grandfathered in to this particular ordinance and not need to comply if that rationale was to be consistent. If there was a distinction, Mr. Callaghan suggested the City provide a distinction if there was one since that City Council decision of a year ago.
3141 Sandyhook Drive
stated that they had deer going through their yard on an almost daily basis, a
herd of approximately five deer. As fifteen year residents, Mr. Frank noted
that this was not the case during the first ten years, but all of a sudden in
the last five years, there was a regular path for the deer.
expressed concern for a new family with a two and four year old child having
recently moved into their cul-de-sac, who when playing outdoors would be no
match for large deer, and who could potentially be in real danger and without
protection from the deer. While not considering deer wild animals and not
anticipating that they would hurt anyone, Mr. Frank noted how tame the deer
appeared to be to people in their neighborhood, showing little if any fear.
3161 Sandyhook Drive
agreed with the previous speaker's comments about the rarity of seeing deer in the past compared to his observation of groups of them from 5 - 13 in the park across the way, and observing a group of five crossing Owasso Boulevard just this afternoon. Mr. Rhode supported the position provided by Mr. Toogood for getting an ordinance in place to provide management in the future. Mr. Rhode addressed deer hunts by adjacent communities, as well as the Ramsey County Grass Lake Park, posted annually for a hunt each fall. As some of the surrounding communities began thinning the herd in their areas, Mr. Rhode suggested the deer are relocating elsewhere.
2430 N St. Albans
stated that she loved feeding and seeing deer and saw no bad effects from them
at all; and while there may be getting to be too many, she still enjoyed it and
could see no reason not to continue feeding them.
Pat Carline (Jane's husband)
noted that the reason they started feeding deer was to give them an option
other than their garden produce and landscape plants, with spraying those
plants not working. While thinning the herd may be needed, Mr. Carline noted
that many residents moved here because of the wildlife, opining that it was
neat to have them feed at their house, even with the security light coming on
whenever they arrived in the yard. Mr. Carline stated that he would have no
problem if the City chose to thin the herd, but he didn't plan to quit feeding them, as they did many wildlife species in their yard. Even though they could be forced to put a stop to all of it, Mr. Carline opined that he didn't think that was necessary and was actually a plus for Roseville. Through feeding the deer, Mr. Carline estimated that it had reduced the loss of their plants by about 95%.
1857 Huron Avenue
thanked the City for doing so much research and listening to residents; and
spoke in opposition to any hunt. If the issue was one of public safety with a
documented number or increase in deer/automobile accidents, Ms. Seigler sated
she would not oppose a hunt, but there had been no such issue found therefore
negating a hunt. Ms. Seigler opined that the majority of the community did not
have a problem with deer, and noted the less than ten complaints received annually
before 2014, and only 14 received in 2014, all within two weeks of each other.
Ms. Seigler noted that deer are seeking food about the same time people are
also expressed concern with the carrying capacity, questioning the method in
estimating whether or not it was time for a hunt or not within a two year
timeframe. In reviewing the entire Ramsey County map, Ms. Seigler noted the
heaviest deer population appeared to be bordering within a mile, and noted areas
where there was deer habitat prior to 2014 but no longer evident. Therefore,
Ms. Seigler questioned the logic in using the city limits to determine deer
habitat ratios, since it was a broader county issue between the I-604 and I-35W
stated that a lot of residents disagreed about what to do about deer, but
everyone cared about their natural resources; and asked, as the City made decisions
for the future of the City, that it be cognizant of that concern for natural
spaces and cautioned them to not create additional problems for residents
and/or wildlife as it pursued development projects.
2653 Matilda Street
noted that this was Minnesota, not someplace defunct of wildlife, and opined
deer were not a major problem, referencing recent Horticulture Society information
by Mr. Callaghan in his comments at a previous meeting. Mr. Eckert suggested
trying to address and eliminate problems on an individual basis without
violence or killing, suggesting that the course to follow, similar to the
teachings for children to deal with their problems more productively, as well
as in this case in dealing with the deer.
thanked those providing comments.
clarified that the City was not intending to adopt an ordinance tonight, as it
was in no position to do so yet as language had not been developed for adoption.
Mayor Roe advised that possible Council action tonight may be directing staff
and advisory commissions to create draft language for Council consideration for
a non-feeding ordinance, or something related to a wildlife management plan in
either or both cases, or to recommend consideration of a hunt concept as one
option. Mayor Roe advised that the City Council, during tonight-s discussion, may provide guidance as to what they wanted or did not want to see in any ordinance they requested.
Mayor Roe asked
for a staff response to those questions brought forward during public comment.
capacity and how acreage was established for Roseville at .77 acres how and
which commissions were involved
advised that the carrying capacity had been established in working with the DNR
and Ramsey County as they reviewed the community and identified specific
areas. While Roseville could add to that, Mr. Brokke noted that this was the
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke advised that the habitat identified for potential for
carrying capacity was all public space, and not private property.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke noted the location included in RCA
materials from March 9, 2015 that identified the number and type of calls
tracked over the years, and increased scrutiny as calls escalated in 2014.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if complaints escalated after public meetings
with those coming forward in support of that public awareness or whether they
were natural complaints rather than duplicate in nature from the same people.
From 2004 to
2013, Mr. Brokke advised that many times the complaints were generated by the
same people reminding staff to address the deer population, but in 2014, staff
had begun to better monitor the number and types of calls parallel to their
tracking of deer inventory and more sharing of information from residents with
McGehee opined that 2014 was probably an unusual year for wildlife due to the
heavy snow and snow cover. Councilmember McGehee noted that the DNR had
actually asked people to feed deer that winter, and increased deer populations
could also figure into the picture as it did for all wildlife. Compared to the
overall population of Roseville, Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't view fourteen complaints as indicating a major problem.
opined that the framework provided by the Parks & Recreation Commission was
a good one, and suggested using that to pursue this recommendation. As for
feeding restrictions, Councilmember Willmus stated that he supported doing so
with a further definition or exception for target species. Councilmember
Willmus advised that one thing he struggled with during past discussions
included the regional issue, not just specific to Roseville, and measures being
taken by other communities to the north, south and east, and the need to be
cooperative in controlling or reducing numbers throughout the region.
feeding, Councilmember McGehee advised that she had a problem with the
ordinance in general, opining it was premature and that any targeted feeding
ordinance would be hard to enforce as deer herds and any wildlife were
typically and continually on the move between and among communities. While the
City of Roseville may have an inordinate deer population now due to crowding in
other communities, if the City of Maplewood as an example thinned their deer
herd by 200 as per their budget, it may also impact the Roseville deer population.
Councilmember McGehee suggested a better approach would be to undertake an
aggressive educational program encouraging residents, even though they like
feeding deer, in order to keep the herd at a reasonable number and not need to
authorize a hunt to thin the herd, it should provide individual incentives for
residents to take care of their own properties, whether or not they favored a
hunt. Councilmember McGehee stated that she had made several mistakes herself
with wildlife and plantings on her own property, and had suffered the
consequences accordingly. With the value placed by this community on natural
areas and wildlife as evidenced in several community surveys, Councilmember
McGehee reiterated her support for an aggressive educational program to alert
residents to options available with motion sensors, sprinkler systems, or other
options that would serve to address this problem. Councilmember McGehee agreed
with the speaker tonight addressing personal responsibilities and non-violent
intervention, opining that this would prove a perfect place to use that
opportunity. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a rather minor problem
affecting a small area of the community and could easily be alleviated by
encouraging them to make their neighborhoods less friendly for the deer
population, ultimately dispersing them to other communities.
Etten stated he would be in favor of a feeding ban, and while taking people's comments to heart, he continued to support a ban, whether deer, raccoons, or other wildlife, it affected neighbors as well. Councilmember Etten noted the need to clearly and reasonably define wildlife through adjustments to model ordinance language and Ramsey County ordinance information as well, providing rationale for why such a feeding ban was in the long-term interest of deer and the natural park system balances for all animal species within that system. Councilmember Etten opined that the carrying capacity limited to 15 - 19 may be too severe and need adjustment from DNR defined areas, but still indicate some thinning of the herd. Councilmember Etten spoke in favor of the two-year study proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission before any thinning and allowing time to determine how a feeding ban may impact that population, as well as providing time for the City to make a thoughtful decision for the benefit of all.
Laliberte expressed her appreciation of the work of the advisory commissions
and public input in making these decisions. Councilmember Laliberte opined
that one of the problems in considering this ordinance was how specific it
should be without getting out of control, noting her concern with the enforcement
aspect and how to punish those not complying without establishing a tattletale
based mentality, opining that was not where she wanted to go as a community.
Councilmember Laliberte noted her preference for personal responsibility to ensure
the quality of life was maintained for residents holding either position; and
suggested addressing specific problem areas rather than the entire city.
Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to provide deer habitat maps and information
from surrounding communities, and how or if Roseville-s infiltration of deer may or may not be affected by those communities having hunts. Councilmember Laliberte reiterated that her main concern was in how to write an ordinance that was enforceable while not causing one neighbor to tattle on another.
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte's concerns in drafting the ordinance, Councilmember Willmus noted other communities have drafted such an ordinance, and therefore he had no concerns in that regard. Regarding the logic of the ordinance creating a tattletale scenario, Councilmember Willmus noted that throughout the entire city code, if that was a concern, it would negate and strip the code accordingly. Councilmember Willmus opined that the framework and schedule laid out and recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission was a good one, and while he might differ in theory with Councilmember Etten in some areas, he spoke in support of proceeding with the steps for an eventual controlled hunt of some form as a future consideration.
Laliberte opined that the DNR carrying capacity of between 15 - 19 seemed extreme to her. Councilmember Laliberte, in reviewing the area shaded and making up the .77 square miles for deer habitat in Roseville, found that problematic as well.
McGehee seconded the discomfort with such an ordinance as expressed by
Councilmember Laliberte and how it would be structured and work in reality.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she was fine with the two years of
monitoring, but would not be prepared to fast track a program at the end of that
timeframe without embarking at that point on further review, and would not support
having the guns loaded and ready if and when this ordinance went into effect.
Councilmember McGehee agreed that one problem she had with such an ordinance
was that it wasn't particularly enforceable, while something could perhaps be
brought forward that would better do so. Councilmember McGehee reiterated her support for more education versus law and punishment, opining that people on both sides of the issue could benefit with their individual attention to the issue and community control by those actively feeding deer at this time. Councilmember McGehee further reiterated her preference for the City having an aggressive education campaign and see where things stood in two years based on that campaign and what happened with the City of Maplewood's control efforts. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte in questioning the DNR carrying capacity calculations, noting that since the complaints were only up by four, and resulting in 15-20 deer since those complaints were documented, to her it seemed to result in a tempest in a teapot.
Etten asked staff to report to the City Council on how effective neighboring
communities were finding their ordinances, and whether they were finding their
levels of enforcement appropriate or other findings. Councilmember Etten
opined that the City of Roseville was not attempting to go out on a limb, and
expressed confidence that an ordinance could be drafted that would work.
Councilmember Etten stated that he didn't see this as being a tremendous problem for the City, but also considered having such an enforcement mechanism in place and readily available was important by initiating a feeding ban to determine if that affected the deer herd. Without such a mechanism in place, Councilmember Etten noted that nothing would or could occur if that wasn't evident, while allowing a timeframe to determine if the feeding ban was working, with the hunt available as an option if found necessary.
Laliberte spoke in support of a feeding ordinance if it made sense and did not
serve as a burden on all members of the community in an attempt to favor only a
few. Councilmember Laliberte agreed to the importance of an education component,
offering her support to that proposal (page 5) for a deer clinic similar to
those held about coyotes as a way to deal with the issue.
stated that first, he agreed about the need to be careful on the definition of
wildlife related specifically to a feeding ban, which he supported even while
noting that although he understood residents may enjoy it, the City Council was
tasked with the responsibility for the broader community, and this affected the
entire community. On the other side, Mayor Roe noted that he could do everything
possible to stop things in his yard, but if the neighbor did not adhere to that
same enforcement mechanism, the City had to address it. Mayor Roe opined that
it came down to actual language and the definition for pets and wildlife in accordance
with city-issued pet license definitions and state statutes as to what could or
could not be kept as a pet. Mayor Roe advised that he had been toying with the
idea of a ratio for Roseville relative to the surrounding area, but was not
sure of how to define those borders, since he had taken into consideration the
point raised during public comment that the problem didn't respect city borders. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested it may be prudent to look at ratios in smaller areas of the community versus the overall city or region, and compare that as part of the trigger calculations for the control method used. Mayor Roe advised that he was supportive of a city wildlife management plan, not necessarily part of the ordinance, but something more detailed in how best to approach this, and referenced as part of a future ordinance. If the City considers looking at a bow hunt, which he had no opinion on at this point,
Mayor Roe suggested a review of existing language in the City's bow and arrow ordinance for consistency with what would or would not be allowed. Mayor Roe stated that he would support ordinance language returning to the City Council addressing all of those areas.
McGehee seconded directing staff to work to create ordinance language for City
Council consideration for a feeding ban and wildlife management plan, including
an annual education component and defining the trigger for consequences if the
feeding ban was found ineffective, as addressed on page 5 of the March 9, 2015
Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendations to the City Council; amended
to include involvement with and by Public Works Department and enforcement
agency staff in development of the draft ordinance language; and including a
community educational component.
Trudgeon clarified Councilmember McGehee's intent that the Public Works Department was her preferred department to involve as opposed to the Parks & Recreation Department.
McGehee responded that was her intent to provide a broader environmental
perspective in addition to parks staff.
suggested that would not limit review to the Parks & Recreation staff only,
but provide a broader staff issue in accordance with language of the motion.
Etten noted other recommendations on page 5 that the Parks & Recreation
Commission had provided and sought clarification if all or which pieces were
considered part of the above-referenced motion.
Laliberte clarified that she was not opposed to anything on that list, with the
addition of education as a new item; and in recognizing that the creation of a
citywide comprehensive deer management plan that may take longer, she would
prefer to see this ordinance sooner.
clarified that an ordinance would require creation of a wildlife management
If he was to
support this motion, Councilmember Etten clarified that he would support the
complete recommendations of the Parks & Recreation Commission as previously
presented on March 9, 2015, and detailed on page 5 of their report, in addition
to his support for adding the community educational component.
McGehee noted that staff may need some direction from the City Council
regarding the hunt, and questioned how they could do so.
suggested that be part of the discussion and added to their initial recommendations.
Etten noted that page 3 of 5 addressed that specifically.
Laliberte clarified that her intent was for the motion to include all of the
recommendations as a preliminary to moving on to the next step in determining
the type of hunt that might be used.
Etten noted that most other things were not allowed in the State of Minnesota.
Mayor Roe suggested
that fine of detail did not need to be addressed by the body tonight.
Etten cautioned this City Council not making presumptions for future City
Councils in a few years.
Laliberte stated that she could not vote on specific language until she
actually had that language in front of the body.
Willmus spoke in support of specifically including Parks & Recreation staff
discussion, the consensus of the body was that any and all staff should be
involved as applicable.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Trudgeon advised that staff would start working on the draft language, but
sought further clarification from the City Council on their expectations for
delivering that product. Mr. Trudgeon noted that it would take a considerable
amount of time to work through some of these issues, and given current issues being
processed as well, advised that staff was taxed in a lot of directions to meet
community expectations. Mr. Trudgeon suggested drafting ordinance language,
but questioned the process itself and input during that process.
Laliberte stated that she was open to receiving draft language and receiving
additional public input, and had no timeframe in mind other than addressing the
comments of the Parks & Recreation Commission and cycle they referenced in
making a decision on feeding bans and/or a hunt. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that her only concern was to time things properly to address the issue
Mayor Roe noted
that, since ordinances are forever, the timing would eventually catch up with
McGehee noted that there was no direction being received by staff from the City
Council that would affect their other workload this spring (e.g. budget and
other pressing issues); and opined that she would leave it to staff to bring
things back to the City Council in a timely fashion, understanding that nothing
was going to be resolved in the next few months.
that this was something that was of heightened interest in the community right
now, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would like the City to continue
working on it and not set it aside for a few months, but continue to chip away
at it, again sooner rather than later.
At the request
of Mayor Roe as to whether he considered that timeframe to be one or two
months, Councilmember Willmus responded that he could agree to that,
emphasizing the sooner rather than later aspect.
opined that the Parks & Recreation Commission should see this again before
it was returned to the City Council, noting their upcoming meeting schedule and
other community events as well as their joint meeting with the City Council in
June that could provide a sufficient timeframe to bring it forward, allowing
staff several months to work on it.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke confirmed that the Commission would also be holding
their own meeting in June in addition to the joint meeting with the City
Council, allowing another opportunity for their review.
Laliberte agreed to that timeframe, expressing her preference that staff have
sufficient time to work on it in a well-thought-out manner to leaving citizens
with the perception that the City was going down a road but then not actually
doing so. Councilmember Laliberte opined that this would provide a good
conversation for the joint meeting.
recognizing the City of Shoreview ordinance was provided as an example, Mayor
Roe noted the availability of ordinances from other communities as well, and
suggested they be reviewed and their better aspects be used to improve language
for the Roseville ordinance.
Trudgeon duly noted that request.
thanked the public for their participation in this discussion.
Discuss Leaf Collection Program
recognized soon-to-be-retiring Public Works Director Duane Schwartz,
recognizing that this may be his last City Council meeting and therefore taking
the opportunity to thank Mr. Schwartz, on behalf of the community and the City
Council for his work and years of service to Roseville in various capacities,
as well as his well-researched presentations to the body.
preliminary to 2016 budget discussions, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was
bringing forward the leaf collection program for consideration and in light of
future CIP equipment needs in 2015 and 2016. Details of the program included
in Mr. Schwartz' presentation were provided in March 2015 meeting minutes of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (Attachment A).
noted items for discussion by the City Council included the high impact of this
limited-use program on existing resources making it difficult to contract a
program of this magnitude to a landscape maintenance contractor, the specialty
equipment required, and alternatives available for residents. With expectations
for hours of labor required given current typical users of the program
estimated at between 500 to 600 hours, Mr. Schwartz reviewed other options now
available for residents compared to in the past, including backyard composting,
mulching mowers, lawn services, hauling to recycling centers, placing curbside
for trash hauler pickup, which may be fee-based, or hauling to a Ramsey County
yard waste site.
noted staff's recommendation, as detailed in the RCA, would be to consider discontinuing the program and focusing those resources on other unmet needs (e.g. tree trimming, storm water infrastructure maintenance on pipes and structures and ponds, sign maintenance and additional regulations for replacement of signs, negating the need for these equipment replacement monies in the CIP fund, and patching more streets throughout the City as needed).
As noted in
Commission meeting minutes as referenced, Mr. Schwartz noted their general
consensus was to discontinue the program, while there was some concern about
whether participants may increase significantly with more and/or better marketing
of the program.
As requested by
the Commission, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had reviewed the senior
discount utility program to determine if there was any relationship with
seniors using the program, he reported that staff did not find an inordinate
amount of seniors using the program, but users seemed to be diverse among the
general Roseville population.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that elimination of this program would
free funds up for purchase of other equipment in the CIP.
McGehee opined that seniors probably had more difficulty bagging leaves; and
questioned if there was an opportunity for the City to assist them in finding
vendors or contractors available who have a leaf vacuum machine; or providing
them with a list of those people to call. Noting that most yard services like
to contract for a full year, Councilmember McGehee opined that they may be
willing to accommodate this more specific pick-up service if they knew
Roseville residents were going to lose the City program or if residents had the
availability of that information from the City. Councilmember McGehee advised
that she continued to use the service personally, but could do without it, even
though the difficulty was in bagging the leaves.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that CIP equipment costs for
this program were built into the 2015 and 2016 CIP budgets, with some slated
for replacement in both years.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Schwartz advised that, while it may be possible
to defer equipment replacement for another year, it remained an unknown with
increasing repair costs already having triggered their replacement at this
time. Mr. Schwartz opined that the equipment could be used again for the 2015
season with some maintenance work, and was ready for this season, but was
dependent on how much money the City Council was willing to put into repair
Willmus expressed his concern in reducing the impact on the storm water utility
fund to continue supplementing this program; and personally offered his support
to staff's recommendation in discontinuing the program. For those residents who have participated, Councilmember Willmus noted there were vendors specializing in spring and fall clean-up; and with staff's list of alternatives available, he suggested putting that out as an educational piece for those users.
Etten offered his overall support for staff's recommendation as well, suggesting that the program be continued in 2015, while providing that education to the community and users of the program during that timeframe to alert them that this was the final year of the city program. Councilmember Etten urged caution in how the City provided lists of vendors without the perception of providing a recommendation of those vendors as well, especially when those vendors
were not licensed by the City. Councilmember Etten noted that the NYFS had a senior chore program and suggested that information also be made available as part of those educational efforts, and suggested staff and legal counsel work through how those vendors could or should be listed and the lines to be drawn. While it would be a nice thing to do for residents, Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern about the lines needed and his liability concerns.
recognized the good point made by Councilmember Etten in the Northeast Youth
and Family Services (NYFS) as a charitable organization providing this program,
suggesting other groups as well such as scouts or faith communities that could
also fill that gap. Mayor Roe noted that another option may be for those
organizations to offer sign-up opportunities for leaf pick up and/or hauling as
needed, which could serve as a fundraiser for those groups depending on how
Willmus stated that he envisioned listing possible vendors or groups not unlike
what the City did for those offering tree services.
Etten clarified that the City licensed those vendors, and it would be hard to
license this broad of a group.
suggested that the City could provide educational information to residents
about what questions to ask potential leaf pick-up vendors, and what information
to get before choosing one.
McGehee consulted with City Attorney Gaughan and suggested a call could go out
to vendors and/or organizations to provide their name to the City to add to the
City website if interested in providing this service, which should provide no liability
to the City as it would not be vouching for them.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to include an appropriate disclaimer as well.
McGehee suggested the City would provide advice for residents wanting this
service from a vendor the ways to vet a vendor, in addition to that
disclaimer. Councilmember McGehee advised that she was also in favor of adding
an additional year onto the program if the equipment would hold up in order to
avoid springing this on residents immediately if they're still using this service. Councilmember McGehee suggested including information about this being the last year the program would be offered as part of the annual post card notice and alerting them to vendor information available on the City website for their reference to allow residents to consider their options now to get that in place for 2016.
In order to
avoid incurring capital costs, Mayor Roe opined that it only made sense to
discontinue the program given the few participants and to avoid continuing to
subsidize the program with the storm water fund, since it was not all paid
through user fees. Mayor Roe noted the need to have further discussion about operating
the program in 2015, as the unusual costs due to weather and seasonal changes in
2014 may not happen again in 2015.
Laliberte noted that the City's communication team and their efforts have much improved, and the program has not been marketed as well in the past as much as other things. Councilmember Laliberte opined that if notices announced that this was the last year for the service, the subsidy may be less than normal.
clarified that the additional cost in 2014 was weather-related.
Councilmember Laliberte state that her prediction was that there would be more
users in 2015.
there were other services and programs provided by the City that were also
subsidized, Councilmember McGehee opined that one more year for this program
even as subsidized should not create any problems, and costs should not be any
worse than 2014. Councilmember McGehee encouraged the communications team to
be brought on board.
sought any objection to directing staff that the program would be discontinued
after one more year, and that it be well communicated to residents. Hearing no
objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that as the direction of the Council.
McGehee thanked Mr. Schwartz for his many years of service to the community.
Discuss Pavement Maintenance Strategies
Marc Culver provided a presentation to the City on the current pavement
indexing system, the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and issues found in Roseville and around the State of Minnesota with delamination of the pavement on local roads.
reviewed current pavement maintenance strategies with review using the Pavement
Condition Index as a model, whereby roads were periodically rated and
inventoried for cracks, potholes and other distresses; and their condition calculated
and rated using the index. Mr. Culver advised that the condition index was
continually projected based on the last rating, time elapsed, and maintenance
history tracked. Using current indexing, Mr. Culver advised that the budget allowed
for rating approximately 13 miles per year, and it takes approximately 10 years
to rate local roadways throughout the entire community.
reviewed the current maintenance program and timeline for a typical Roseville
Seal coat year 2 or 3
2nd application of seal coat year 9 - 11
3rd application of seal coat year 16 - 10
Mill and overlay (2") with condition index 35 - 60
Full depth m & O with condition index under 30
Annually crack and joint seal ahead of seal coat projects
Program goal is to maintain an average condition index of 75
advised that another factor and new reality to consider was the delamination
problem being experienced in the area, with distressed pavements from the top
layer peeling off in strips. Mr. Culver noted that this was being found exclusively
on roadways with a seal coat application; and the current theory in the industry
was that moisture was being trapped by the seal coating and eroding the wear
course (top layer of pavement). Since it was a difficult thing to duplicate in
a laboratory setting, Mr. Culver admitted that the definitive cause and a
complete range of pavements affected remain an unknown at this time, but the
biggest issue seen to-date is delamination in early stages followed by a rapid
acceleration at that point. Mr. Culver noted further research was needed to determine
if this issue was exclusive to Minnesota pavement mixes only, and determining
how and where the problem is in the interaction between the pavement mix and
provided recent photos of this issue in various areas throughout the City, as
well as a map showing the street segments affected and showing the City's potential exposure. Based on the City's potential exposure, Mr. Culver reviewed the new reality of a future condition index curve as the backlog increases from current assumptions as index levels reduce from 70 to 60 within the 2014 to 2034 timeframe.
advised that staff's recommendation, supported by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) at their March 24, 2015 meeting, would be to suspend the current seal coat program, and shift the current allotted seal coat funds of $220,000 to the annual mill and overlay program to accelerate this corrective action, and starting in 2015. Mr. Culver noted that staff and the PWETC further recommended an annual review of that proposed suspension to re-enact it if and when the issue seemed to be resolved. Mr. Culver admittedthat staff remained unsure when the City would stop seeing the delamination distress; and clarified that typically staff remained a strong proponent of the advantages of performing regular seal coat applications. Mr. Culver advised that it should be known within one to two years if the delamination was going to stop, but probably not before then. Mr. Culver noted that typically, the City got a longer life from seal coating than for this current delamination issue.
asked if there were adequate records of the chemical composition of underlying
pavement and sealcoat for each area of delamination on Roseville roads.
responded that those records were available through as builts for the roads
regarding the mix used and type of seal coat oil used for Roseville as well as
other communities experiencing the same problem. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT
had reviewed that data; however, he repeated the problem in attempting to
duplicate the conditions in a lab setting to define what is causing the
McGehee suggested staff and the PWETC examine the specific relationships on
streets in Roseville to determine locally which mix was causing the issue in an
effort to predict where the delamination may next occur versus guessing where
best to do mill and overlays, basically the City's own research project.
Mr. Culver advised that the problem was being observed on all City streets
during the particular timeframe; and advised that mix designs since then have
changed dramatically, allowing ongoing research and analysis on mix design and
any delamination patterns affects.
sealcoating, Councilmember Willmus asked what information staff would look for
that would satisfy them that the issue had been resolved.
advised that if pavements paved in a certain year were already found not to be
demonstrating stress beyond years 16 and 17, and if the same experiences were
found by consensus in other communities as comparisons were made with them on
their mix designs and experiences, staff would consider that the problem had
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver advised that Ramsey County does not
sealcoat and they use a heavier mix, as well as doing mill and overlays more
frequently than municipalities. Mr. Culver also noted that they have heavier
traffic in both volume and loads on their roadways, while the City looks at a
full mill and overlay at year 25, the County does so in a shorter timeframe due
to that heavier wear and tear. To-date, Mr. Culver advised that he had not heard
of Ramsey County experiencing this delamination on their roadways, which industry
experts and staff were attributing to their lack of sealcoating activities.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver reported that staff anticipated
suspending sealcoating indefinitely at this time, but hoped it would be only
for a 3-4 year timeframe as new pavements were monitored, since most of the distresses
were found in mixes applied in 1999 - 2000, and within 2-3 years, a determination
should be evident.
Laliberte questioned the impact to patching costs in time and materials.
advised that he was unable at this point to predict an accurate annual amount
or increase, since time and resources were spent in sealcoating to extend the
life of pavements and reduce the need for crack sealing and patching. However,
since staff was currently spending an extreme amount of time and effort in
patching those delamination areas, there may be some balance.
Laliberte stated that, at some point, the City Council would need some idea of
that increase in time and patching, and if a 3-4 year suspension was
anticipated, the budgets would need to be reviewed for that impact. Since the
PWETC had discussed this at their meeting, Councilmember Laliberte asked for a
copy of their meeting minutes.
apologized for the inadvertent omission of those minutes as part of the RCA.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, switching funds to mill and overlay from sealcoating,
Mr. Culver anticipated an additional one mile of roadway for that treatment
annually. In responding to whether there would be any of those funds to match
through leveraging state aid dollars, Mr. Culver advised that the City received
an annual allocation of MSA funds of just over $1 million. However, Mr. Culver
noted that those funds were exclusive to use on state aid roads, representing
approximately 20% of the City's local system.
current backlog, Councilmember Etten asked if Mr. Culver anticipated returning
to the City Council at some point seeking significant dollars to address that
backlog and/or change the current indexing rate in the future.
responded that, in the next few years, a more detailed discussion about that
backlog and additional funding needed for the PMP would be appropriate and
Mayor Roe noted
that one of the remaining things to address in the 20 year CIP funding planning
was the PMP; as well as analyzing if steps being taken were making the problem
worse and if so how to turn that around. Mayor Roe clarified that the additional
$220,000 would be used most exclusively for two inch mill and overlay versus a
full mill and overlay, with Mr. Culver responding affirmatively.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, to support suspending the current sealcoating program, and shift the
current allotted seal coat funds of $220,000 to the annual mill and overlay
program to accelerate this corrective action, starting in 2015 with a periodic
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe noted that discussion annually of the PMP
budget would provide sufficient checks and balances to monitor this program.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:30 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:38 p.m.
Twin Lakes Discussion of Next Steps
Development Director Paul Bilotta provided an update from this discussion held
at the March 23, 2015 meeting. Mr. Bilotta noted that the RCA provided a
projected timeline (lines 21 - 28); obviously subject to change as indicated or
As a first step
tonight, Mr. Bilotta noted representative text defining "big box" uses based on staff's review of codes from other cities and sources (lines 29 - 75) and several examples. In order to provide anticipated text changes in a timely manner, Mr. Bilotta advised that preliminary interviews had been held with code writing consultants, since the City did not maintain sufficient staff to keep up with those text changes.
schedule to discuss Langton Lake Park with the Parks & Recreation
Commission in August, Councilmember McGehee asked if there were any current
developments hinging on the park at this time or foreseen between now and August.
responded that staff was not currently working with any developers for that
property (e.g. PIK property). Councilmember
McGehee asked that, should something come forward that would impact that
discussion, staff move the timeframe forward accordingly.
questioned the "TBD" timing for Item 5 regarding the Terrace Drive subarea design and incentive study.
advised that the "to be determined" designation was simply due to upcoming strategic planning exercises planned by the HRA, and staff not wanting to commit them to a time until they reviewed and updated their priority list.
in general were opposed to big box, Councilmember McGehee noted the
unsuccessful efforts to-date in trying to limit it, but ways were found to
circumvent the ordinance. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important
to have a definition everyone understood and that was enforceable to ensure big
box development that ended up costing the City more than the taxes it generated
was not permitted.
box, Councilmember Willmus opined that one item needing discussion was to
determine what was or was not big box, with a subsequent discussion on whether
or not it was going to be allowed. Councilmember Willmus advised that he was
not ready to make a blanket statement that everyone in town is opposed to big
box, as he did not believe that was an accurate statement. Using the examples
of Target and Best Buy, both big box retailers and both having started in
Roseville and having their roots in the community, Councilmember Willmus opined
that a more legitimate discussion would be to define big box in areas that it
may be suitable and where it is not suitable.
upcoming strategic planning efforts of the HRA and future joint meetings of the
HRA and City Council, Mayor Roe suggested it may be prudent to have that joint
meeting before the HRA has their strategic planning.
Trudgeon clarified that there are several steps to be undertaking before the
joint meeting, and the timing was still being sorted out for next steps as the
HRA established their priorities going forward, but anticipated the timing in
May or June.
Mayor Roe urged
that those steps occur in that order as he suggested.
Noting that the
community had told the City Council in several ways that they have an
opportunity for input before the City Council is prepared to make their
decision, and given the discussion needed on the broader Twin Lakes area, not
just the subareas, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the dates for input and actual
decision dates were separate meetings. Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern
that sufficient time was allowed for the community to weigh in before decision
clarified that staff's intent with the timeline was to break the discussion into smaller pieces for everyone to better understand it going forward with the process. Mr. Bilotta opined that part of the derailment in moving text amendments forward in the summer of 2014 was due to complications from those discussions and lack of understanding by all parties on design standards and uses, causing the public to be unclear on what was happening in order to provide their input. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff intended to bring forward (May 4) the draft use table, providing a series of columns designating current regulations, whether there was a change proposed last summer, results of input received to-date, and where that was leading permitted and/or prohibited uses, and those areas appearing to have clear consensus between the City Council and community. Mr. Bilotta clarified that he didn't anticipate any formal City
Council action on May 4, as that information would not yet be put together, and the process needed to include bringing any consensus back to the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council on those items they felt comfortable with. Mr. Bilotta assured all that this process should allow for a lot of opportunities
for public input.
Laliberte clarified that she was not opposed to getting started and making the
decisions, but she just wanted to be clear and not have the public get caught
As a practical
matter and based on past discussion, Mr. Bilotta advised that it was staff's intent to hire a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consultant as the process was introduced. Mr. Bilotta noted that this may involve a new column for the use table to accommodate that in certain areas where the use may be acceptable with a PUD versus a Conditional Use, especially those uses that have served as public lightening rod issues in the past. One of those issues noted by Mr. Bilotta was the public's sensitivity to height for new developments.
Mayor Roe sought
clarification on staff's intent for the use table and whether it would be for the entire area or broken down by subareas.
responded that staff would initially bring it before the City Council based on
current conditions; and from that discussion anticipated uses defined from one
subarea to another. As a result, Mr. Bilotta stated that he saw the result of
that being the concept and development of subdistricts in the Community Mixed
Use (CMU) designated zoning district (e.g. CMU-2) depending on how uses come
forward. However, Mr. Bilotta advised that he was not presupposing anything at
this point, and suggested starting with a general discussion first.
From his point
of view, Mayor Roe asked that the starting point be some synthesis by subareas,
providing a broad discussion overall in that same discussion, but broken down
versus jumbling them all together, which could create more wheel spinning.
Mayor Roe stated that he was supportive of the initial discussion on May 4 and
subsequent decisions or direction coming out of that first meeting. After
that, Mayor Roe advised that he anticipated neighborhood or community workshops
to obtain their feedback prior to a public hearing at the Planning Commission
level, in an effort to keep the public in touch throughout the process. As
mentioned by Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe noted that the process for this
line of discussion needed to ensure the public was not surprised by the process,
a key for what the City Council was attempting to accomplish.
duly noted this direction.
Etten advised that he agreed with the points brought forward, opining there was
significant discussion needed about the various zones. Councilmember Etten
expressed appreciation for the timetable developed by staff over the next few
months, as well as discussion points without formal Council action dates
identified. Councilmember Etten spoke in support of addressing zoning by
subarea versus the general Twin Lakes area, allowing everyone to zero in on particular
areas. While many things will end up at the Planning Commission, Councilmember
Etten noted that also allowed for additional input; however, he clarified that
he was not looking for any immediate or final decisions early on in the
McGehee offered her agreement with the comments of Mayor Roe, supporting breaking
down discussion to permitted or not permitted uses per subarea. Based on use discussion
in the past, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was necessary to figure out
how to move more uses in those subareas. Councilmember McGehee stated that she
was having a hard time envisioning or understanding the columns and permitted
uses, and how to mold that into a way that was visibly understandable while
addressing each subarea in that table of uses.
noted that, until City Council discussions were held, staff had not yet
scheduled any community meetings; and since there was no City Council
Worksession scheduled in May, there may only be a short time on May agendas to
have that discussion. Therefore, Mr. Bilotta anticipated meeting with neighbors
in June to receive their input.
Mayor Roe noted
that the table of uses would probably include columns for each subarea for what
it is now, what was considered or discussed before, feedback received to-date,
and a proposed decision.
suggested seven tables, one for each subarea.
Mayor Roe note
that there were also advantages of having the subareas all on one document
versus seven different documents.
advised that staff could present both formats.
Willmus echoed the sentiments for columns and maintaining a flexible schedule;
opining it was important to identify some decision points.
Willmus opined that it would also keep the public and City Council on track and
accountable; and emphasized the need to finally take the step to make
Laliberte expressed appreciation to look at the subareas in order to digest it
better; however, she also expressed concern in not attempting patchwork zoning
by not viewing the big picture as well.
ensued on the time available at the May 4 meeting for this topic in
consideration of other agenda items; and the availability of brownfields grants
as part of a consultant in that area of expertise.
voiced her appreciation for the schedule established by Mr. Bilotta, especially
during summer months to allow the public to be aware of and participate in that
process. Ms. McCormick also expressed appreciation for Mr. Bilotta including
examples of big box to spur discussion and not just look at variations of big
box, but to define it as well.
of context, Ms. McCormick stated that she looked at businesses and mapped
footprints of buildings in the Twin Lakes area, and when talking about big box
in general, it meant different things to different people, whether square
footage or a national brand, citing examples of various uses compared to
smaller restaurant uses. Moving forward, Ms. McCormick noted that early on in
the input session, previous discussions included visual preference surveys, and
asked that be considered in the future.
In defense of
the neighborhood concerns raised last summer, Ms. McCormick opined that there
tended to be a perception that things were too complicated for residents to
understand. Ms. McCormick sought to defend residents stating that was not so;
and the reason for the confusion was due to various and overlapping discussions
on rezoning and text amendments, and which amendments had been voted on and
which had not yet been determined.
expressed appreciation for having an opportunity to provide input and thanked
the City Council tonight for making it clear that they had heard the public and
will continue to offer opportunities in the future to hear those voices, a
comments that were made regarding the complexity of the issues, Mayor Roe
clarified that those comments had been intended to recognize the complexity for
the City Council as they struggled with the list of uses and difficulty getting
everyone on the same page.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming agendas; duly noting the request of Mayor
Roe that the Forestry Coordinator position referenced on the upcoming Consent
Agenda should be moved to an action item allowing for discussion.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:07 p.m.