View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
August 8, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Councilmember Willmus arrived at
approximately 6:08 p.m.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon clarified that agenda item 12.b did not require a public hearing; and
therefore requested the item be moved to Business/Action Item 14.a, amending
other items listed in that agenda section to Item 14.b and 14.c accordingly.
McGehee requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Etten, McGehee 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.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Willmus arrived at this time.
announced upcoming Playground Builds at Upper Villa and Central Parks; a film
festival celebrating women voting, so-sponsored by the League of Women Voters
and the Human Rights Commissions with the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview;
and a community information sharing meeting of the Cedarholm Clubhouse
Replacement Advisory Team.
Mayor Roe also
announced the Human Rights Commission's celebration of unsung heroes working to build an atmosphere of fairness and equal treatment in Roseville, and recognition of those heroes through a citizen award, with information on how to
Trudgeon provided an update on upcoming Discover Your Parks events at Reservoir
Woods and Maplewood Park.
In her new role
as a board member of Metro Cities, Councilmember Laliberte reported on recent
policy committee meetings and specific highlights of those held and those upcoming
in updating and revising policy for 2017 legislative sessions.
Trudgeon noted that he also served on the Metro Cities Housing & Economic
Development Policy committee and briefly reported on their activities.
Donations and Communications
Donation from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation
As detailed in
the Request for Council Action dated August 8, 2016, Police Administrative
Lieutenant Lorne Rosand recognized the recent donation by Firehouse Subs Public
Safety Foundation of an automated external defibrillator. Lt. Rosand advised
that a representative of the firm was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a last minute scheduling conflict at one of their restaurant locations.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of accepting a donation of one Cardiac Science
GF automated external defibrillator (AED) at an estimated value of $1,700.00
from the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation to the Roseville Police
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers thanked the foundation for their business's support of the community.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
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.
Approve July 25, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the July 25, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as
Page 1, Typographical Corrections (Laliberte)
Line 17: Change "that" to "the"
Change "include" to "notify"
Page 17, Lines 6-7 (McGehee)
read: "monoxide deters[.] [due to their personal sensitivities,}"
Page 13, Typographical Corrections
Line 1 (Roe):
Change "was" to "were"
(McGehee): Strike "that"
Line 10 (Roe):
Insert "[in]" before HDR-2
Line 33 - 34 (Etten): Change to read:
"Councilmember Etten stated that would alleviate some of his concerns; [and
agreed] [but still did not agree] with the setbacks for HDR-2,
which [were now] [are] often significantly less than"
Page 15, Line 40 (Roe)
Page 17, Line 43 (McGehee)
Page 20, Line 39 (Roe)
Page 21 (Laliberte)
Correction: Change "full" to "fall"
Page 22, Lines 7 - 9 (Roe)
read: "[Councilmember] Etten [moved]
Page 23, Lin 11 (McGehee)
Change "an" to "and"
Page 30, Typographical Corrections (McGehee)
change "topic" to "topics"
Page 32, Line 20 (Roe)
"amendment" to "language"
Page 33 (Laliberte)
Lines 7- 8:
Change to read: "and while [not] [she may not be] opposed
to it remaining"
Line 33 (Roe):
Do not strike "and"
Page 37, Line 31 (Laliberte)
Correction: Change "those" to "any"
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
82362 - 82551
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of new 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses and Renewal of a
Gas Station and Cigarette/Tobacco Products License for 2016-2017 as detailed,
dependent on completion of successful background checks.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services as noted in the RCA dated August 8, 2016, and Attachment A entitled,
"2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July 31, 2016.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11343 entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Authorize Entering into a Contract with Accela for a New
Permitting, Inspections, Code Enforcement and Licensing Software System
Roe noted the cost benefit analysis performed by staff at the request of a
member of the Finance Commission, indicated an annual savings of approximately
$40,000 in staff time spent on work tasks now needed with the current systems.
moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a standard agreement
for professional services (Attachment A) with Accela to implement a new
software solution for permits, inspections, licensing and code enforcement; and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the applicable documents.
Authorizing Entering into a Professional Services Agreement with
Economic Development and Public Financing Firm, Ehlers, Inc., for the
Creation of a Public Financing Application and Policy
moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a standard agreement
for professional services (Attachment B) with Ehlers, Inc. for the creation of
a public financing policy, creation of a public assistance application, and to
retain Ehlers, Inc. "on-call" for any future policy development or policy maintenance; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the applicable documents.
Extend Cooperative Facility Use Agreement with Roseville Area
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11344 (Attachment B)
entitled, "Resolution for the Extension of a Cooperative Facility Use Agreement with Roseville Area School District."
i. Approve Resolution Receiving Assessment Roll and Setting
Assessment Hearing Date for Victoria Street Project
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11345 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Declaring Costs and Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P-ST-SW-W-15-02 Victoria Street Reconstruction Project and Providing for Public Hearings;" establishing a public hearing on September 12, 2016 at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Approve Fairview Traffic Control Signal Agreement
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments.
way of additional information for public awareness, Councilmember McGehee noted
the total cost to the city for installation of this signal would be $224,610 in
addition to the electricity costs once installed estimated at $3,000 to $4,000
per year. Councilmember McGehee noted the cost to the city when initiating
signal installation versus Ramsey County installation.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of entering into an Agreement for Maintenance
of Traffic Control Signals Agreement No. PW2016-02M with Ramsey County Public
Works (Attachment A)
McGehee noted her ongoing objection to the construction of Twin Lakes Parkway
and future related changes that she opined would prove problematic.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Request to Amend City Code Section 1011.12 to Opt Out of the
Requirements of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.3593 Pertaining to Temporary
Family Health Care Dwellings (PROJ0017-Amdt. 29)
As detailed in
the RCA, City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this request to amend
city code (Section 1011.12) to opt out of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.3593
pertaining to temporary family health care dwellings to allow more review and
Roseville-specific flexibility with this type of housing unit.
Laliberte pointed out that this topic had been covered earlier today at the
Metro Cities meeting, and through a show of hands of cities choosing to opt
out, every city in attendance indicated that opt out option. Councilmember
Laliberte further noted that the League of Cities (LMC) representative
attending that meeting noted that, while this opt out process seemed
frustrating, it provided a better scenario than the current legislation was
requiring. Once the legislature becomes aware of these collective city opt
outs, the LMC representative cautioned cities to beware of future potential
attempts by the legislature to attempt a more firm position. Councilmember
Laliberte advised that the LMC representative was seeking anecdotal information
from each member city for their rationale in opting out for incorporation of
that information for the legislature if and when this issue came back up.
McGehee stated her opposition to the proposed statutory language in its present
form, opining it was ridiculous to have a six month time limit and one year
maximum in attempting to address mental and/or physical impairment issues that
typically took longer to resolve. As for addressing the aging population or
hospice or dementia situations, Councilmember McGehee opined that proposed
statutory language was not appropriate as stated. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her interest in the community discussion of these issues and the City's
proper structuring of city code language to facilitate a reasonable approach
for this temporary housing.
After staff and
the Planning Commission's analysis and study after opting out, and recommended
language to the City Council, Mayor Roe noted one option at that time may be to
decide to opt back in to the state legislation. However, Mayor Roe referenced
the City of Roseville's current accessory dwelling unit provisions in city
code, and suggested that may be an option in revising that existing language.
Laliberte noted the state requirements that current municipal ordinance could
not simply use is existing accessory dwelling or recreational vehicle language
to address this temporary dwelling unit issue without amending it to adapt the
concurred, suggesting the city might prefer adopting its own ordinance and
create its own process to support these temporary structures versus going with
state language as currently proposed.
recognized that community and advisory commission input would inform the city's
ordinance language going forward. However, Mayor Roe noted statutory
requirements that cities have to comply with State language unless opting out
by September 1, 2016 did not allow an opportunity to gather input or for more
in-depth consideration before that deadline.
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1507 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code to Opt Out of the Requirements of Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462.3593, Which Defines and Regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings (PROJ0017-AMDT29);" as
amended with correction of the spelling of "ordinance" on line 2 of the draft
Receive Presentation and Discuss Creating a Public Finance Policy
with Economic Development Representatives from Ehlers, Inc.
Community Development Director Kari Collins referenced the RCA as a preamble to
tonight's presentation. Ms. Collins introduced Stacie Kvilvang & Jason
Aarsvold of Ehlers, Inc.
provided a historical background of the Ehlers firm, a Roseville business
located on Cleveland Avenue, and a brief personal biography and specific
expertise of she and Mr. Aarsvold in the public finance field. With both of
them having experience from their previous employment with economic and
community development in the City of Brooklyn Park, MN, Ms. Kvilvang noted that
municipality had also followed a similar route as that of Roseville in moving
from a Housing & Redevelopment Authority to an EDA.
Ms. Kvilvang's presentation included a project overview for the newly-created REDA and initial requirements and development of necessary policies, and benefits in having the City Council directly involved in the REDA. Ms. Kvilgang reviewed those policies required by state statute subsequently informing the direction to staff on what projects the REDA would like to assist specific to development/redevelopment priorities. Ms. Kvilvang noted this would allow staff to weed out projects not meeting REDA goals; and for those projects that may be considered borderline, would allow staff to bring them forward to the REDA at a work session. Ms. Kvilvang noted this process and established policies would also provide developers with an understanding of REDA expectations.
reviewed business subsidies as per state statute and criteria, including tax
increment financing as it had evolved over a number of years and tax
abatement. Ms. Kvilvang noted twenty-three exemptions under those subsidies
that would be part of the consideration for policy development.
Ms. Kvilvang reviewed a spreadsheet of homework questions for individual REDA
members (attachments A and B) to submit to staff by August 17, 2017 to allow
collation of the information and prepare for the August 29. 2016 REDA meeting
and discussion at that time.
asked the REDA to consider additional information not included in the
you waive city fees (park dedication fees, trunk charges, water access (WAC) or
sewer access charges (SAC), building permit fees;
there any development you wouldn't consider giving assistance for" (e.g. doesn't meet city goals or for philosophical reasons).
clarified that this information would be anonymous, but provide an overview of
public financing preferences and best practice applications to develop a Public
Financing Policy for the REDA's review and consideration. With REDA subsequent
approval of a draft policy, Ms. Kvilvang noted the public hearing and comment
opportunity could then proceed.
Willmus asked for an electronic copy of the spreadsheet for completion; and
Councilmember Laliberte asked for a copy of tonight's Power Point presentation
ensued with Ms. Kvilvang, Ms. Collins and council members including
acknowledgement and separation of city fees as part of the potential subsidy discussion;
need for awareness of existing SAC fee deferment or loan programs offered
through the Metropolitan Council or city participation in those programs to
avoid making decisions in a vacuum; and identification of individual goals desired
and criteria definition as part of the process and for incorporation in future
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe suggested that existing policies used by
the city on past projects be considered "old" and that the City Council start fresh using consistent criteria to ensure the policy is relevant going forward. As an example, Ms. Kvilvang noted the many requirements in the existing tax increment financing housing criteria no longer applicable.
At the request
of Mayor Roe specific to the wage floor concept and a possible tiered approach
within a certain range that would apply to the level of assistance depending on
the range, Ms. Kvilvang cautioned not to overcomplicate it, but to simply use a
floor. Ms. Kvilvang advised that this still allowed for the ability to
negotiate but provided staff clear direction on what the REDA was seeking based
on whether or not it was seeking higher wage jobs as the key criteria for development
clarification purposes, Ms. Kvilvang noted that, for this exercise, salary excluded
benefits to keep the analysis and future reporting as simplistic as possible.
In response to
Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kvilvang agreed that the REDA select either minimum or
average wage for their criteria rather than categories; with the ultimate goal
being to define what was most important to the city.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating
Liquor License for The Grey Duck Kitchen and Bar, d/b/a The Grey Duck Kitchen
and Bar, located at 582 Rosedale Center, Suite #1010
detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request,
noting this establishment was located in the former Digby's Restaurant space.
Mr. Miller further advised that an applicant representative was unable to
attend tonight's meeting.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. for the
purpose of receiving public input on the above-referenced liquor license applications,
with no one appearing for or against.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller confirmed that
all applicants received server trainer information as part of the application
moved, Etten seconded, approval of The Grey Duck Kitchen and Bar's request for
an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License, located at 582 Rosedale
Center #1010, for the term of September 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
c. Public Improvement Hearing for Owasso Private Drive
Roe and City Manager Trudgeon followed public improvement hearing protocol, as
prescribed in Attachment A to this RCA.
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized the feasibility
report findings and history of the process to-date, as detailed in the RCA and
staff's presentation, City Council questions and staff responses specific to
the project included length of assessment deferrals for individual properties
continuing for the duration of that particular property owner's interest in the
property as defined by Ramsey County assessment standards and typically
triggered by transfer of ownership of a property at which time it no longer met
the hardship requirement for that deferment; clarification that the assessment
can be paid upfront to avoid interest rather than via 15 years of payments; and
verification that a vertical curb would be installed on the railroad track side
to provide separation of the paved drain system, but would not include a
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of receiving
public input on proposed storm water improvements on Owasso Private Drive.
Since tonight's meeting schedule was running ahead of schedule, at
approximately 7:14 p.m., without objection, Mayor Roe suspended the public
hearing and potential action to allow time for interested residents to arrive
at the meeting to speak to the issue.
Business Items (Action Items)
Request for Approval of a Recombination Minor Subdivision at
Roselawn Avenue and Chatsworth Street (PF16-023)
Roe asked for public comment on this proposed recombination minor subdivision.
No one appeared to speak for or against the proposal.
Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this simple proposal by applicants to
transfer the southernmost 20' of land from 974 Roselawn Avenue, the "donor" parcel to the northern side of 1896 Chatsworth Street, the "receiving" parcel. Mr. Paschke noted the request was detailed in the RCA and that staff recommended approval as conditioned.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the request to transfer the southernmost
twenty feet of the entire width of the property at 974 Roselawn Avenue to the
abutting property at 1896 Chatsworth Street; based on the comments and
findings, and subject to conditions as stated in lines 62 - 66 of the RCA dated
August 8, 2016.
McGehee thanked staff for working this out with property owners.
Roe noted this made an existing nonconforming lot into a conforming lot, also a
Stormwater Impact Fund
detailed in the RCA, Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer reviewed
the latest draft of the proposed Stormwater Impact Fund Policy for City Council
review and consideration.
McGehee sought clarification as to where the stormwater ultimately went if not
on a specific property, and whether that water was then moved to adjacent
properties due to additional impervious surface on that lot.
Freihammer reviewed best management practice (BMP) options available for
residential property owners to mitigate the stormwater on site or pay the fee
and have the city apply that funding to a larger regional project, or for a
project as close to the site as possible either within that stormwater district
or a larger stormwater district. Mr. Freihammer noted this could involve a
public system that the city would maintain or expansion of an existing system.
McGehee stated her difficulty in understanding the financing of this,
apparently asking a resident for a one-time fee for the city to ultimately have
the expense to create and install a BMP somewhere else as well as maintaining
it, with only that one-time minimum payment paid. Councilmember McGehee opined
that if the individual had to install a similar project on their own property
it would cost them potentially twice as much. In this case, Councilmember
McGehee further opined that the city ended up stuck with their runoff,
installation or construction costs, and maintenance of the BMP long-term from
that one-time calculation. Councilmember McGehee noted the frequent,
significant rainfalls of recent years, and questioned how those economies of
scale compared to all city residents paying for a stormwater mitigation project
versus the individual property creating the issue due to exceeding or not
meeting the city's policy for impervious coverage on their lot.
Freihammer clarified that the fee was based on a certain dollar amount yet to
be established per cubic foot; and based on the approximate cost to treat or mitigate
the calculated water flow from that individual parcel.
his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested the fee was justified to apply to a larger
city project, providing more economies of scale.
Etten referenced an earlier discussion he had with staff today, expressing his
personal concerns. As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the lot split
request that came to the City Council several weeks and long-term area flooding
and city responsibility to correct it still pending. With this policy
suggesting more latitude for stormwater mitigation in that area or even further
away, Councilmember Etten stated it became a policy issue for him. Councilmember
Etten suggested this be addressed separately for residential areas and
commercial areas. In commercial areas, Councilmember Etten noted there was
typically more structure to what they were doing to facilitate a larger
project, especially with their additional impervious coverage. Councilmember
Etten asked how and where the 30% maximum impervious coverage calculation came
in and what efforts were available to encourage not exceeding that percentage.
As another example, even on the minor subdivision granted tonight for the
Chatsworth and Roselawn properties, Councilmember Etten where was the city's
acceptable line; and whether or not there was a way available to mitigate
additional runoff or if and how the homeowner could or would consider other
options. As noted by Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Etten opined that
the city may be creating unintended circumstances in approving such an option
to pay a fee. However, Councilmember Etten suggested the policy may work for
commercial and/or infill situations.
Willmus asked staff what the driver was for this proposed policy.
Freihammer responded that numerous examples had occurred, both a mix of
commercial and residential areas, with one main commercial property actually
driving consideration of such a policy and currently in the preliminary permit
stage. Mr. Freihammer noted that property, as well as some others, found it
difficult to meet the city's stormwater requirements when there was no existing
stormwater system in which to discharge. Also with residential properties, Mr.
Freihammer advised this could provide an alternative for property owners as an
easier way to accomplish their requirements and an easier way for the city to
track BMP's and/or fees. Mr. Freihammer noted the city was just now getting
started on recertifying BMP's that were installed some time ago; and finding
some of those older rain gardens would be difficult to qualify for
recertification without the property owner having to completely rebuild them.
Willmus asked if this tool was made available if and when no on-site land area
was available to accommodate mitigation, would it allow the city to construct something
off-site to mitigate water flowing into that area in the first place.
Freihammer responded it would depend on the specific location, and if the city
had a project in the immediate vicinity that could be expanded to accommodate
that mitigation. Mr. Freihammer advised there were some areas where it was
difficult for the city to find a location nearby that might require stepping
out further and not significantly impact stormwater management or benefit that
immediate neighborhood having the actual issue.
that same line, Councilmember Laliberte noted even if the city banked the
monies received in a particular case, any larger mitigation project may cost
ten times the amount of the fee collected, causing the rest of the city's residents
to foot the bill for what needed to be done to address additional stormwater
runoff. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would find it helpful in the future
for the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (P)WETC meeting
minutes to be provided for reference in these discussions, even if it only provided
their hesitation or reasoning voiced during their discussions, if no formal
recommendation came forward. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she valued
that citizen advisory discussion, and having it included in agenda packet
materials was helpful in her deliberations.
Willmus stated his support of some of the underlying thought provided in this
draft policy, but further stated he didn't know if he had enough information on
the particulars and consequences regarding application of fees or setting
rates. Therefore, at this point, Councilmember Willmus stated he would not
feel comfortable moving forward with this policy; and was in agreement with
Councilmembers Etten and McGehee's concerns. If those concerns could be addressed
and resolved, Councilmember Willmus stated that may provide him with more
insight to move forward, but not at this point.
McGehee seconded the remarks of Councilmember Etten related to fees, especially
with a front-end fixed fee given recent and frequent significant rainfall
Roe clarified that the fees would be included in the city's annual fee schedule
for annual review, or even more frequently if determined necessary and at the City
Council's discretion. Mayor Roe further clarified that staff was recommending
that the fees be calculated on the cubic foot of stormwater mitigation
required, depending on each specific property - whether residential or commercial.
From his understanding, Mayor Roe noted staff's perspective was that this could serve as an alternative for a residential homeowner versus their installation and construction, along ongoing maintenance costs for a raingarden.
to impervious coverage calculations, Mayor Roe noted the city set a standard to
minimize impervious surface, but if someone was unable to stay under that
limit, they would experience a cost to exceed that maximum amount. However,
Mayor Roe noted there was also a cost to install a BMP and have it recertified
every five years if that was the option they chose rather than this option.
Mayor Roe noted that, either way, stormwater would still be mitigated either
on-site or through a more regional site, making some sense to the initial
logic. Mayor Roe noted the design standard would remain the same for City
BMP's under this proposed policy as with any others; and stated that standard could always be changed because of perceptions that heavier and more intense rainfalls are occurring. Mayor Roe noted it may make sense to have that discussion at a later point, but he wasn't sure the fee option was the appropriate place or way to do so.
Roe noted Attachment A, Sections 1, 2 and 3 addressing older residential
properties versus commercial and new residential properties, which he found
confusing. Mayor Roe sought clarification if Section 2 applied to all projects
or only certain ones, and suggested staff further clarify and refine the policy
language on that point,
Laliberte suggested having a conversation and developing a policy specific to
commercial properties, since residential properties were more complicated.
Roe stated he wasn't sure he wanted to segregate residential and commercial properties. While there is an issue with residential attempting some of these projects, without ongoing maintenance and not meeting recertification requirements, Mayor Roe stated the entire issue needed further discussion before one or the other type of land use was removed.
Etten agreed that was a bigger policy discussion; and while he was more
comfortable with the commercial aspect, he didn't mean to imply people could pay a one-time fee and get off without addressing the point source of stormwater. As noted in the recent subdivision denial he referenced earlier during this discussion, Councilmember Etten noted residents in that area referring to one home in particular that far exceeded the impervious surface percentage; and questioned how the city's requirements and restrictions allowed those things to happen. Councilmember Etten opined that those rules for residential properties needed reviewed, monitored and enforced. Councilmember Etten agreed that some of the current language is confusing, specifically addressing the age of a residential property (twenty years or older). Councilmember Etten stated he'd like to see this draft policy again, but just to address commercial properties; followed by a broader discussion for residential properties.
part of that broader policy discussion, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest
in the value added for recertification of BMP's or city cost to build and maintain infrastructure, and city responsibility versus that of individual
the commercial side, Mayor Roe reiterated his concern in considering the
commercial aspect separate from the residential, because commercial sites
actually create greater stormwater issues due to their extensive impervious
surfaces, and using this fee policy moves a greater amount of stormwater off
commercial sites for city treatment elsewhere than would any single residential
site under this policy.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to return with draft policy revisions
addressing points and issues raised and discussed tonight, and including PWETC
meeting minutes to-date where they considered this policy; and to include any future
or subsequent discussions they may have on the issue at their discretion.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration (continued)
Public Improvement Hearing for Owasso Private Drive (continued)
arrival of several residents in the audience, at approximately 7:41 pm, Mayor
Roe reopened the public hearing to receive public input on proposed storm water
improvements on Owasso Private Drive. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor
Roe provided a brief recap of the process completed so far to-night.
Torgerson, 337 S Owasso Blvd.
Mr. Torgerson thanked
the City Council and their planning/engineering department staff for the work
on this project. Mr. Torgerson spoke in 100% support of the project moving
forward; opining it would benefit not only adjacent property owners, but also
the city, watershed district, and anyone using Lake Owasso.
Peterson, 345 S Owasso Blvd.
observations from biking along the lake, Mr. Peterson noted some deterioration
in pervious materials used by the City of Shoreview, but gave them credit to
taking those positive steps.
opined that everyone along their private drive had looked at the proposed plan
for paver installation; and in their inspection of a similar project approximately
three years old, had found that material to still be in excellent condition.
maintenance of this private road that had been brought up at a recent City
Council meeting, Mr. Peterson clarified that due to the width of the private
drive, the city pickup truck came down the road and back up due to its width.
However, Mr. Peterson further clarified that the remainder of the road was maintained
by adjacent property owners, and was not considered a regular full-time city
snow route similar to a public road.
sated he had an independent environmental engineer friend look at the proposed
project, and had agreed with his preference for using the east side of his
parcel for the project from the road to the lake and requiring no full-time
maintenance. Therefore, Mr. Peterson advised that, even though an existing
easement is located on the west side of his parcel, and for the sake of his
neighbors, the neighborhood, and the lake, he and his wife were willing to
release or surrender access on the east side versus using the other easement.
Mr. Peterson opined this should prove a cost savings for the neighbors and the
city. After all, Mr. Peterson noted the goal was to save the lake and
neighborhood properties, and the erosion coming from the railroad tracks.
noted their property had already been surveyed several times, and tongue in
cheek suggested his only suggestion is to name the road after him.
On behalf of
the City and City Council, Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Peterson for this
consideration, and noted it sounded like he and staff were in agreement on the
east side of the property rather than using the existing easement on the west
With no one
else to speak, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:59 p.m.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11346 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Owasso Private Drive Storm Water Improvements;" clarifying that, as requested by
the property owners of 345 S. Owasso Blvd., access be on the east side of their
McGehee, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, thanked residents and staff for
initiating this project.
reminded residents that the assessment hearing would be held next fall after
actual costs were available upon completion of the project.
Consider Approval of Amended Agreement with Roseville Area
Community Foundation Regarding Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds
Patrick Trudgeon introduced former Chair of the North Suburban Community
Foundation, now known as the Roseville Area Community Foundation or RACF),
Tammy Pust (Roseville resident at 813 Millwood Avenue). Mr. Trudgeon noted the
details of this foundation and work over the last few years were provided in
Ms. Pust concurred
with City Manager Trudgeon's observation that the first conversations about this foundation and needed changes since its inception in 1991, had occurred in 2014.
Ms. Pust stated
she was appearing before the City Council on behalf of the foundation, or RACF,
and provided a background of what the foundation had been doing, opining the
City Council and Roseville public hadn't heard enough from them over the years. Ms. Pust led from that background into the proposed ordinance changes, and recognized other members of the foundation may be arriving during her presentation in support of this request, including the current Chairperson.
provided an overview of the foundation and statutory provision for all
municipalities, since the law was passed in 1990, at the cities' option to have a fund for 10% of lawful charitable gambling proceeds within the community to be given to other nonprofit entities in that community. Ms. Pust noted the City of Roseville had always delegated that provision to this foundation, formerly the North Suburban Community Foundation, with the name just changed as of June 2016 to the RACF and as filed with the Secretary of State. Ms. Pust provided the rationale for that name change, as outlined in the contract between the city and foundation as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and requirements that any grantee of those funds do work benefiting the city. After all these years, Ms. Pust advised that the foundation had determined it was best for the foundation's name to better reflect its purpose and history. Since grantees of these funds also serve the area school districts (Roseville and Moundsview), Ms. Pust noted those districts were not specific to the Roseville city limits, but didn't need to be excluded due to their geographical areas, thus the name change to Roseville "Area."
highlighted four specific main points for language changes in the MOU. Ms.
Pust noted the history of using a Donor Advisory Board (DAB) as a subcommittee
since 1991, with one amendment before now, to hear applications to the
foundation from nonprofits, and then making a recommendation to the full body.
While this process may have worked well for the last twenty years, and with tax
code requirements during that time, it required two different community bodies
to make decisions about who would be funded. However, Ms. Pust noted over
time, the federal tax code had gotten simpler, and no longer required a DAB.
Ms. Pust profusely thanked those members serving on the DAB, with some of the original
members serving until their retirement over the last 2-3 years; and advised
they had been given first right of refusal to be elected to serve on the RACF.
the contract language, with a DAB no longer needed, and the referenced
Roseville Chamber of Commerce no longer in existence, Ms. Pust noted the
interest in updating the MOU (contract) accordingly and based on how nonprofit
corporations run now compared to when the contract was originally drafted in
1991. At that point, Ms. Pust noted it was then suggested those changes be
followed through by the city and its ordinance language as well.
financial restrictions, Ms. Pust noted there were some areas with tighter
governance now and some less so, but the contract always stated a certain
amount for disbursement above and beyond the permanent endowment. However, Ms.
Pust noted some of that language was vague and the foundation struggled with
their ability to give out 50%, but if investments were poor, that requirement
didn't need to be followed. Ms. Pust noted that language had now been clarified with what the city's original intent had been, plus 75% of interest earnings. While the endowment fund may take a hit depending on interest earnings, Ms. Pust opined that was fine, as through the generosity of the community and great financial stewardship of the RACF, the endowment fund was just under $1 million. Ms. Pust noted the most important goal remained to get the money out to other nonprofits in the community.
Ms. Pust noted
that one item written to provide more flexibility was that the RACF could
charge the city for its services. While the contract always allowed for that,
even though it was a more complex administration fee, Ms. Pust noted the
contract now stated the RACF could charge no more than 3% for an administration
fee on an annualize basis. While the RACF could always charge up to that 3%,
Ms. Pust noted the previous tiers had now been removed to simplify things. Ms.
Pust noted it was no longer 1991, and as with other organizations, the RACF
needed to come into the age of electronic communication. Ms. Pust reported
that the foundation was just about ready to flip the switch on its new website
allowing nonprofits to apply for funding online. While that obviously cost more
in administrative funds, Ms. Pust noted previous costs only involved annual
audits and some very minimal administrative support; while this new era would
include web hosting fees and related expenses. While the RACF was always a
great organization, Ms. Pust noted the public would now be able to see what was
being funded, and remove its mark of being the "best kept secret in town," and
be able to fund that technology to provide more transparency.
reported that the last and, in her opinion, the best change was a contract
requirement for a City Council standing agenda item for the RACF to report annually
on its work over the year; and a list of those nonprofits seeking funds, and
those receiving funding.
earlier, Ms. Pust noted these contract changes were recommended for
incorporation accordingly in the city's ordinance language included in
tonight's meeting materials.
In closing, Ms.
Pust recognized the city for the number of organizations receiving funding over
the years. Ms. Pust noted the application cycles are quarterly, with clear
grant guidelines followed; and applicants able to apply no more than once
annually. However, Ms. Pust advised those grant guidelines and the process
were the next step for review and revision as well. Ms. Pust provided a brief
history of some of the nonprofit funding provided to-date, with the cap on
those funds allowed since 1991 to allow no more than $2,500. While that was a
lot of money in 1991, Ms. Pust noted it didn't allow for the same emphasis in today's economy; and was a discussion item for the RACF going forward. Ms. Pust advised that the nonprofits receiving funding represented a wide range, with some well-known and others not well-known. Ms. Pust advised that the RACF website would include pictures to showcase those organizations in the community; and noted the RACF would be seeking permission from the city to link their website to the city's site.
In serving as a
trustee for other funds, while this service is not the only thing the RACF does,
Ms. Pust noted it was the biggest thing the foundation did.
Specific to the
two major ordinance revisions, Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C, (lines
20-22), addressing exceptions for disbursements for police, fire and other
emergency or public safety-related services. Mayor Roe noted the reason for
adding that language was to mirror statutory language (Attachment A). While
this isn't done now, Mayor Roe noted this allowed flexibility if and when a future City Council may choose to manage those types of fund disbursements rather than having the foundation do so, since the city was responsible for managing those services.
Mayor Roe also
noted the addition of language on the draft ordinance, (Attachment C, Section
B, lines 33 - 36) addressing annual reporting. Mayor Roe advised this
paralleled language for the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA), a similar organization using funds collected through hotel and lodging taxes in Roseville under statutory requirements.
Mayor Roe's comments, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the intent of language referencing state statute and public safety-related services was that a sitting City Council would annually disburse those funds rather than having the foundation do so.
Mayor Roe advised
that was not intended at this point with the foundation disbursing 100% of the
funds for non-public-safety purposes; but as with statutory language, reserved
that flexibility and right for a City Council to do so.
Ms. Pust noted
that the foundation's current policy excluded disbursements for public safety purposes, and also noted that the foundation makes disbursements on a quarterly basis, so an annual determination on public safety disbursements from the City could be disruptive to the foundation's operations. Additionally, Ms. Pust opined that the City ought to fund public safety operations from other tax sources, rather than using lawful charitable gambling proceeds.
Laliberte expressed her agreement, thus her question on how to address the
reiterated the language simply allowed for the possibility, but that it wasn't mandatory and that the ordinance clearly stated the City's intent NOT to have the foundation be involved in public safety related disbursements, reserving that responsibility, if exercised per statute, to the City.
McGehee thanked the RACF and Ms. Pust and City Manager Trudgeon for working
through those changes. Since this was a shadow entity, Councilmember McGehee
welcomed their plan to link their new website to the city's website. Regarding the composition of the board, Councilmember McGehee asked how members of the community could find out if they were eligible to serve on the board and how they would go about that process. With the RACF's annual report to the City Council and clearer website availability, as well as a clear electronic grant application process, Councilmember McGehee opined there would probably be more community interest in the RACF.
Specific to the
Board of Directors for the RACF, Ms. Pust reported that, like any nonprofit,
the foundation elected its board of directors. In her conversations with Mayor
Roe and City Manager Trudgeon, and recognizing the city frequently received
more applications for its advisory boards than it had vacancies, Ms. Pust
offered for the foundation to be a recipient of the names of those applicants.
However, Ms. Pust noted that not everyone would or could be elected to the
board; and noted those serving took their service seriously and were constantly
looking for new board members as attrition and other openings occurred. For
those citizens interested in the RACF, Ms. Pust encouraged them to get their
names to City Manager Trudgeon to forward to the RACF. Since the RACF just
elected officers in June of 2016, Ms. Pust cautioned there probably wouldn't be much movement on the board until June of 2017 unless current members stepped down.
Mayor Roe concurred,
and again likened the RACF to the RVA as an independent entity with its own
board of directors; and with the opportunity for an annual report to the City
Council and public, suggested that would be a good time to make a pitch for the
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte regarding a City Council liaison to the RACF similar
to that of the RVA, Mayor Roe clarified that with his service on the RVA Board
of Directors that was totally happenstance, and not official in his capacity on
the City Council.
Ms. Pust noted
that City Manager Trudgeon had served on the DAB, and welcomed any City Council
or a designee to attend their meetings. Since the RACF was a nonprofit, and
not required to meet under open meeting law requirements, Ms. Pust advised that
it still did so since the foundation discussed community events and activities.
Since a number
of great people were already involved in the community, Councilmember Laliberte
asked if there was any potential for conflicts of interest if they were part of
the RACF but also applying for grant funds.
advised that a conflict of interest policy was in place for the RACF and all
meeting minutes duly recorded.
thanked Ms. Pust, and expressed appreciation for the annual report going
forward, as well as the online application format and public awareness of the
process, noting the benefit for the community. Specific with the public
safety-related service language, Councilmember Etten admitted he too was
questioning the need for potential city control over that, but noted he wasn't sure how strongly he felt about it.
On a personal
note, Councilmember Etten clarified with Ms. Pust that both the Mounds view and
Roseville school districts were included for future funding possibilities.
announced that the RACF's new website URL was: rosevilleareacommunityfoundation.org; and that it should be live soon as things transitioned from her past to the new leadership.
further clarified the intent of the proposed language allowing the city to make
disbursements for emergency services, as currently allowed in state statute,
and the ordinance language simply reflecting and acknowledging that ability.
However, Mayor Roe noted that the city wasn't going to do anything with those disbursements immediately or that it was seeking to develop a procedure to do so, but only that the ability was there. While he appreciated the concerns expressed by his colleagues, Mayor Roe agreed with Ms. Pust that the city was in a better position to fund police, fire and public safety services through other revenue sources rather than through lawful charitable gambling proceeds.
moved, seconded by unanimous acclimation of the City Council, approval of the
Second Amended Agreement related to the Roseville Community Fund (Attachment B)
under the Roseville Area Community Foundation regarding distribution of lawful
moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1506 (Attachment C)
entitled, "An Ordinance Creating Title 3, Chapter 304, An Ordinance Relating to
the Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds;" amended to reflect correction
of a typographical error in line 13 leaving a space after "Chapter 304."
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1506 (Attachment D)
entitled, "Official Summary of Ordinance No. 1506, An Ordinance Relating to the
City of Roseville Advisory Commissions;" amended to correct the title as follows:
"An Ordinance Creating Title 3, Chapter 304, An Ordinance Relating to the
Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds."
Call (Super Majority Required)
On behalf of
the public and City Council, Mayor Roe stated interest in hearing the first
annual report of the RACF.
residents interested in serving on a board such as the RACF, Mayor Roe also
noted the Roseville Historical Society as another area of service.
Ms. Pust concurred
with Mayor Roe.
Laliberte thanked Ms. Pust for her long-term efforts in working on this update.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Discuss recommendations Regarding Neighborhood Associations from
the Community Engagement Commission
Patrick Trudgeon referenced the detail provided in the RCA as recommended by
the Community Engagement Commission (CEC). Mr. Trudgeon referenced Attachment
B, outlining the CEC's report and specific recommendations regarding Neighborhood Associations (NA). Mr. Trudgeon reviewed each section, starting with line 112 of Attachment B, seeking City Council feedback.
"Affiliated" Neighborhood Associations (page 3)
As noted by
Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that no association
had come forward to-date asking for this "affiliation" status; and the criteria
provided were simply modeled from other communities with NAs.
issues came up in neighborhoods, Councilmember McGehee opined they rallied
quickly and had the ability to self-organize to present their views to the City
Council, often choosing their own spokesperson. Councilmember McGehee opined
that the city should not be involved in this matter, and favored NAs being able
to self-organize without interference and with no formal process requiring
bylaws and coming before the City Council for approval. Councilmember McGehee
further opined this was intrusive and unnecessary; nor was it necessary for the
city to define their boundaries and dispute them if and when someone may feel
left out. With existing block captains, NextDoor.com and other ways for a
community to self-organize around city issues, Councilmember McGehee pointed
out this had not arisen from the community wishing for such an idea.
Councilmember McGehee stated she was not interested in pursuing this.
Willmus stated he didn't see anything in this criteria that precluded neighborhoods from serving as NAs independent of this proposed process.
McGehee then questioned the need to have it in place.
Mayor Roe noted
this discussion was involving a portion of the document beyond that yet
presented by City Manager Trudgeon. Mayor Roe clarified that if a NA chose to
"affiliate" with the city, there were certain things the city would provide to
the group in exchange for that "affiliation." Mayor Roe agreed with
Councilmember McGehee's concerns with boundaries, opining those should be self-determined, and further stated he had no problem with overlapping boundaries of groups seeking further identify with a smaller area than the broader NA.
However, Mayor Roe stated the city should not make that decision, and also
expressed his concern in the city approving bylaws, suggesting there simply be a checklist for the NA to complete. Mayor Roe stated he did think it was good to require a NA to have bylaws to function well and avoid chaos.
stated he did have a problem referring to NAs as "affiliated" and suggested it
made more sense to call them "registered" to avoid any perception they were
Etten agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe, opining the city shouldn't get involved approving bylaws, but simply provided samples and let those organizations work for their efforts without city approval. As an example, Councilmember Etten noted his involvement in the larger Lake McCarron's Neighborhood Association, as well as in a smaller group functioning within that larger NA, both serving different purposes to build community. Councilmember Etten stated finding ways to assist neighbors in joining together was a good thing and benefited not only neighbors and the neighborhood, but the city as a whole, especially in more positive ways going forward versus being only a reactionary group. Councilmember Etten noted this provided neighbors to get to know about their neighborhood and city and make them more aware and involved. Councilmember Etten noted the block captain idea came from a public comment made in April when this was discussed; and suggested the city go to those contacts first to determine if there was interest in the registration process, and if so use that network as the starting point.
coming to register with the city as a NA, Councilmember McGehee questioned how
the city proved they represented those people.
responded that would be evidenced as per the criteria outlined by City Manager
Trudgeon. As with anything, Mayor Roe noted the city was depending on people
being honest and straightforward, thus the criteria proposed.
Willmus stated he had no issue whether a NA was referred to as "affiliated" or
"registered." Regarding boundaries, Councilmember Willmus asked Mayor Roe if
he saw any need for oversight or how to provide a realistic guideline to avoid
a boundary that may encompass the entire city or a good portion of it, or even
possibly extend beyond the city.
recognized it may involve some guidelines, but he didn't think it necessarily should be based on so many members per acre, and acknowledge that people may identify in different ways and accept that. Mayor Roe suggested including instructive language discouraging conflicts related to boundaries, but otherwise didn't see any issues.
statement that this NA idea had not been brought forward by the public, Mayor
Roe clarified that it definitely had been, and if not from the CEC, it had been
members of the public that got them thinking about it; and noted formation of
several other NAs over the last few years.
Trudgeon agreed with Mayor Roe, that prior to the creation of the CEC, the
Civic Engagement Task Force provided a recommendation to foster NAs and brought
that forward to the City Council, and subsequently turned it over to the CEC
with the goal of fostering more civic and community engagement. Mr. Trudgeon
noted this phase of the process was simply fleshing out the details.
boundaries, City Manager Trudgeon agreed it was a challenging issue, and noted
the City Council's discussion tonight mimicked those held by the CEC and its subcommittee. Referencing the City of St. Louis Park's model with the city pre-determining boundaries by map divisions, Mr. Trudgeon noted that had become clear very quickly that it was not something the city was interested in doing. Mr. Trudgeon suggested allowing those boundaries to be self-determined by the NA, and spoke in support of a soft approval versus hard approval of their bylaws. While the City Council may consider those boundaries, if requested to do so, Mr. Trudgeon those boundaries may fall naturally. With the bylaws, Mr. Trudgeon reported that the CEC felt it was important to have things set up properly for the NA to function and be successful, with the intent for rules of governance and the strong feeling that an annual meeting was required and open to the public. While this language in Attachment B may be too harsh, Mr. Trudgeon referenced and suggested the St. Louis Park "tool kit" and sample bylaws and checklist for minimum criteria as a best practice to follow and the minimum submission to the city to be "registered."
agreed with that point, at a minimum to provide bylaws for a NA, but not for
City Council approval, and only as an administrative function for staff to
accept that registration and provide that registration on the city's website. Mayor Roe opined that City Council Approval represented a whole level of politics, especially for a particular issue that may come before the City Council, and stated his lack of interest in setting up such potential conflicts.
Willmus agreed with City Manager Trudgeon and Mayor Roe.
McGehee reiterated that she saw no reason for bylaws or to be "registered,"
since at this point anyone could access an agenda or notice and represented no
specific public benefit for someone from city staff to talk to a NA, since that
option already existed.
Laliberte stated she preferred "registered" versus "affiliated" to serve as a
way of recognizing the NA and to receive an exchange of services versus those
NAs organically existing. Councilmember Laliberte also stated boundaries were
not for the city to dictate, and people may want to participate in multiple
areas or interest groups. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember
Etten that others could be blurred. Councilmember Laliberte stated she loved
the idea that NAs develop for positive reasons and not just because they're fighting about an issue, a development, or the city to be heard. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the goal in acknowledging a NA similarly was for the good of the community.
Association Expectations of the City (page 4-5)
McGehee referenced the last bullet point (lines 186 - 189) and meeting with the
City Manager annually. Again, Councilmember McGehee noted these items are
readily available to the community or any group or neighborhood asking. From
this language, Councilmember McGehee opined that the perception is that if you
or your small group isn't "registered," you are unable to partake of those
activities. Councilmember McGehee opined that any neighborhood group should be
able to use City meeting facilities at no cost, whether "affiliated" or not,
with no special break just because you're "registered." Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't see any check and balance in handing out these benefits; and would like to see evidence of a group and their acting as one versus someone stating they controlled a certain number of blocks in an area. While that may not happen often, Councilmember McGehee opined it could and referenced several cases in which she could see that happening. If a group wants to organize and the person in charge receives extra notification, Councilmember McGehee opined
she had a hard time saying why this should be so different. Regarding the St. Louis Park model, Councilmember McGehee stated St. Louis Park is not only a different and much larger community with a larger staff than Roseville, but also operates under a different system. Councilmember McGehee reiterated her statement that she didn't think this proposed NA process fit; and referred to recent community surveys indicating resident's attachments to their neighborhoods and providing sufficient community input without this type of structure in place.
Councilmember Willmus responded that this structure didn't preclude them from what Councilmember McGehee was suggesting they already do, but simply provided a mechanism for more opportunity and for further connection with the city. Councilmember Willmus stated his only question was pertaining to the bullet points on lines 181 and 184, noting the comments of Councilmember McGehee on notification, and something available for anyone checking the box. Councilmember Willmus stated he had some questions as to whether or not that was absolutely necessary.
Laliberte stated this provided a nice list of things that "could be" provided
to a NA, but in some ways she found it too broad and long with the potential to
tie up a staff person charged with doing this. Councilmember Laliberte noted
just tracking what grants were available and their specific purpose and parameters
was a huge task for a staff already overwhelmed. Councilmember Laliberte also
expressed concern with including NA information in the city newsletter, opining
that may prove difficult with the current every other month schedule that made
it hard to get all of the city's existing timely information out to the public that the city was obligated to provide. Regarding mailing, if the mailing was intended as a one-time, NA set up notice, Councilmember Laliberte stated her agreement, but not as an annual meeting notice. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted this at some point brought up the issue of boundaries, or where that mailing went and who received the notice.
Etten agreed with some of Councilmember Laliberte's points, noting his concern with being considerate of staff time in keeping up-to-date with grants. Councilmember Etten noted his interest in whether all NAs could become a collaborative group, not all inclusive, but in ways the NAs could work together for positive interaction with reasonable expectations. While the mailing may potentially be a good thing, Councilmember Etten noted potential funding sources for those mailings, whether a one-time starter mailing or other option, noting boundaries drove that cost. Instead, Councilmember Etten suggested a cost-participation cap for each NA that the city could support, but providing a specific source of and regulation of those funds. Regarding notifying a NA of things happening, Councilmember Etten stated his interest in continuing to inform that, and while things may not initially provide a perfect system, formalization for block captains was his preference with the goal to get more information out to neighborhoods and then ask those block captains to disseminate it to their community neighborhood. Councilmember Etten noted this provided another step and intentional effort for the city to reach and communicate with more people.
stated he didn't have much problem with lines 181 - 185 and agreed with staff not spending too much time on those steps. Mayor Roe stated his interest in the collaborative feedback among NA's on grants that didn't require city research; and agreed with the lack of room available in the city's newsletter for NA news as well as the additional staff time that would require. Mayor Roe agreed with the seed money concept for NA mailing leaving it up to them how they used it. Related to the notification process, similar to that used for land use issues, Mayor Roe noted this brought up the question of who provided the mailing list, suggesting that may be a service the city could provide, to determine what made the most sense versus an unlimited mailing. Mayor Roe agreed with the one-time only NA creation mailing.
discussion and clarification included the initial mailing would be for a
newly-forming NA to solicit for their membership in establishing as a group;
clarification of the results of a mailing and what constitutes a NA by
reporting the number to the city, without identifying members, just a head
count; and preference for NAs to maintain communication with the city with
updated meeting minutes or notes and a current tally of their membership on an
Laliberte noted her struggle in how to define members of a NA; while applauding
NAs that strengthened their membership among themselves and funded their
activities, opining that was the best case scenario from her perspective.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte, noting an example with the fence
issue earlier this year, with a cohesive group coming together around a
project, and continuing to get together around other projects and positive
things and without an established boundary. Councilmember McGehee opined that
certain personalities could make this idea problematic, and further opined how
much nicer it was to have neighbors arrive spontaneously, and receive any
additional information they requested from the city without the more formal
aspects being suggested.
clarified that he didn't have a perception that city recognition would give a group some special powers; and suggested Councilmember McGehee was over-representing who NAs represented. Councilmember Etten further clarified that the goal was not to empower anyone, but to bring people together to communicate and provide a vehicle for them to do so, such as a NA. Councilmember Etten noted this was not guaranteeing people extra control over the city or their neighbors.
McGehee opined that the Night to Unite event, block captains, and the
NextDoor.com program provided significant and sufficient outreach.
Trudgeon noted this is all predicated on fostering NAs so they could foster
community and civic engagement. Mr. Trudgeon noted there was a lot of
information in this report, and clarified that there was no suggestion that
everything be implemented all at once. Mr. Trudgeon suggested starting with basic
resources and a tool kit for NA self-organization and offering the support
available to them from the city; and then to wait and see before implementing anything
further. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his appreciation of the City Council's recognition of the staff time commitment, and especially if following this route, further noted his appreciation of a phased approach to not overburden staff. If the City Council is interested in proceeding, Mr. Trudgeon opined there were good nuggets provided in the report and models with which to move forward.
Purposes of NAs (Attachment B, page 2)
reviewed the intent of this effort.
Mayor Roe noted
it would be helpful for the City Council if existing NA representatives could
provide input as to the registration process and their experience in tracking
McCormick, Wheeler Street
referenced how this NA process had historically come to be, based on her recollection
and personal service on the task force and its report that served as a
predecessor to the current CEC. With that original intent to create more cohesive
neighborhoods that evolved into the NA concept, Ms. McCormick opined that idea met
with some resistance at the CEC level. As to whether or not the idea was
brought forward by members of the public, Ms. McCormick questioned that, noting
she initially brought forward but then reversed her position; and stated she
knew of no one else coming forward to request this.
opined this was premature, and to City Manager Trudgeon's point, it provided good information and things to initiate, there was no need for this formal of a process, but simply to strengthen the block program. Ms. McCormick referenced her starting of a NA several years ago and stated if she had more information at that time, would have used a different process to do so. Ms. McCormick referenced the work being done by the Police Department's Community Relations Coordinator Corey Yunke with block clubs. Ms. McCormick questioned for what purpose and what community engagement this effort was put forth. Specific to her NA, Ms. McCormick reported there were initially 40-60 residents at meetings and subsequently participating, but when they felt like they weren't being heard, it was difficult to maintain membership and keep good faith, even if and when decisions didn't have the preferred result of those participants.
questioned the goal, and suggested if the city pursued it there may not be the
desired results that they had achieved and improved upon, including potential
legal liabilities if they were encouraging incorporating entities and a level
of involvement for the City Council in NA management. Under this proposal, Ms.
McCormick stated she would not seek recognition as a NA as she was philosophically
opposed to the requirements. Ms. McCormick opined when she was working
directly with former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta, she had contributed
to the community, and by implementing this process, the city would be taking a
step backwards. For members of the community to be allowed to meet in public
spaces, Ms. McCormick asked if they needed to be recognized as a NA participant
to do so. If so, Ms. McCormick opined that was a step backward.
referenced her research of the "Speak Up! Roseville" website, and past meeting
videos, with most public comment coming from those attending tonight's meeting for this topic, without much other feedback received. Ms. McCormick noted this had yet to be vetted by the community; and stated that she found it fairly disrespectful that the fact there are three NAs in Roseville, one formally incorporated and two informally meeting, and only one acknowledged at a public meeting. As the founder of one of those informal NAs, and with the Chair of the formally incorporated meeting also present in tonight's audience, Ms. McCormick stated both had come forward to say this is premature, not collaborative, and not the right thing to do at this time based on their experience.
While there may
be more conversation on this, Ms. McCormick asked that people be brought to the
table to comment.
Sanders, Chair of Lake McCarron's NA, Resident of S McCarron's Blvd.
As a member of
the Civic Engagement Task Force from its inception to its end, and after their
report was submitted on which she had worked, as well as serving on the CEC,
and as an involved community member, Ms. Sanders stated her interest in
responding to this issue.
agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe and the city not defining boundaries,
noting she had opposed that at the CEC level, and remained against that; and
also opined the city should have nothing to do with NA bylaws.
expressed by Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Sanders opined there was no need for
that concern, as the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association continued to
persist and was basically ignored by many City Councilmembers over the years.
Ms. Sanders noted their NA was 3,000 people strong, and included residents and
businesses in their area - anyone owning property, none of whom had asked for
stated community and civic engagement was hard and messy, and noted you could
always rally people temporarily around a common enemy, but stated that wasn't how she wanted to perceive things, but preferred something build on a positive aspect. Ms. Sanders noted her NA met monthly, had formal bylaws, regular meetings and membership dues.
points outlined in the report, Ms. Sanders questioned why the City Council
would even consider accepting it, other than simply receiving the report and
reviewing it. Ms. Sanders asked that they not consider action now, opining the
city already had too much going on already and suggested reacting to the report
at a later date, and including public participation in that discussion. Of
those working on the Task Force, Ms. Sanders noted after many hours sacrificed
to consider NAs, none of them supported this or were asking for it to become
cit policy. While the report may have some good points, Ms. Sanders opined
they were not necessary, even though she wrote some of them.
stated she had a problem with people without experience encouraging the City Council
to make policy.
membership and vetting, Ms. Sanders addressed one group of residents seeking to
be grandfathered in without any bylaws and holding no meetings to-date. Ms.
Sanders asked that the City Council take their time with vetting, and determine
whether or not representation was in the actual area, opining otherwise messy
things could happen down the road, when things should be done prudently and
noted there were advantages for the city to help NAs advertise and with
possible funding, but noted her NA did that on its own anyway, and referenced
the Rice Street Gardens and Community Conversations as two examples of their
efforts. Ms. Sanders noted their NA and those efforts were more resident-led
initiatives and they could even do more.
offered her availability in the future to assist the City Council and bring in
those with experience in creating and running real associations - block clubs
that were a building block for associations form an organic foundation.
asked that the City Council wait until enough people want this and then do it
Verkuilen, 1123 Sextant Avenue W
expressed concern in attempting to draw boundaries, recommending if doing so,
their borders needed to touch. While recognizing the need for rules of order
for meetings, Ms. Verkuilen noted the difficulty with bylaws. Ms. Verkuilen
noted the whole object was to get information out, and opined that was what
should be included, and with the right person heading up the job it could be
noted her lack of support with mailings, opining the best thing was person to
person contact and handing things to neighbors. With that personal contact and
interest expressed, Ms. Verkuilen noted it allowed for ways to provide personal
information and a contact point through emails of door to door notice versus
the cost of mailings.
S McCarron's Blvd., Lake McCarron's NA Co-Chair
asked that the City Council put this on the back burner, and opined the only
benefit was funding for a one-time mailing list with everything else already available.
If someone wants to start a NA, while it may be beneficial for them to receive
this information, Ms. Sanders noted most if not all of it was available on
To have the
municipal government involved in telling a NA how to run their organization,
which he didn't think was their intent, Mr. Sanders questioned the rationale involved, and what potential harm could occur down the road.
encouraged the City Council to take it slow and give out information on what it
would and could do, but avoid setting up boundaries, allowing block captains
their role in providing fluent communication. Mr. Sanders opined that the goal
was to see people come together and if they saw the city becoming too involved,
they would back off. Mr. Sanders opined that any information residents sought
of the city was readily available from the city website.
questioned what this whole movement was about; and as a member of an existing
NA, opined he wasn't interested in what was being offered.
City Council Discussion
clarified his point in establishing NAs was voluntary for those wishing to do
so, but further clarified that the city was in no way mandating it, and expressed
concern that was the perception of this report and discussion. Mayor Roe categorically
stated that was not what was being talked about by the City Council; and
clarified the intent of the CEC was to have NAs register with the city and receive
benefit from those collective efforts. Mayor Roe noted that ultimately the
City Council would need to decide how to proceed; and determine whether there
were benefits to registering as well as considering other aspects. Mayor Roe
suggested that everyone leave this conversation acknowledging that there was
nothing wrong with neighborhoods connecting with each other and forming an
association; and also confirmed that there was no need for them to talk to the
city to proceed, with no one suggesting that as a requirement. On the flip
side, Mayor Roe noted the benefit of the process could be seen as the ability
to connect with local government and be a part of that larger process. Mayor
Roe stated any way to facilitate that participation was his objective with this
process; and opined the rest was for discussion and consideration by the City
Willmus noted that, as he stated back in April of this year, his position had
not changed. Councilmember Willmus stated that he saw nothing in this report
that impedes any existing NA continuing to function as it had been; and only
provided an alternative for people choosing to go this route. Councilmember
Willmus reiterated that it in no way should diminish residents or those
existing NAs in any way. Councilmember Willmus opined, if things go forward,
further review and consideration was needed; noting the report was nowhere near
the point to move forward with it.
Out of respect
to those with experience, Councilmember McGehee noted their advice was to wait;
and until or if people come forward seeking assistance with forming a NA, the
City Council and community needed to know that if they had something to discuss
as a group, they were welcome to use public space to do so, as well as
receiving City Council agendas as requested. Further Councilmember McGehee
noted residents were free to contact their city leaders at any time about what
they needed to form a collective voice. However, until she felt the need for
this in the community or for the City Council or city staff to spend more time
on this, Councilmember McGehee opined this was not in the city's best interest.
stated his agreement in general with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus,
noting this doesn't force anything, nor should it insult any existing NAs. Councilmember Etten stated he'd be very concerned if this intended to take away anything from groups not seeking registration, but opined he didn't think it did so. Councilmember Etten further opined that the vast majority of the points were intended for those seeking to do more in the community and to do good; and questioned why the city wouldn't want to encourage more people to make this happen and provide them with the tools and support they may need, but not forcing anything. Councilmember Etten stated this supported positive connections in the community, and opined there was a role for the city without formally forcing boundaries. While there were some things that needed working through, Councilmember Etten opined the city could help those not knowing how to develop neighborhood connections, the overall purpose of the city and for the good of
the broader community.
Laliberte stated this was nothing she was ready to do now she could support the
baby steps approach. Councilmember Laliberte further stated she didn't want to create anything precluding an organization that wanted to be as loose or formal as they chose. However, the easy creation of a tool kit to assist them, similar to that created for neighborhoods interested in pursuing organized trash collection, Councilmember Laliberte opined was feasible, offering sample outreach options and bylaw models for them. Councilmember Laliberte opined it shouldn't take much more effort from the city than that. Councilmember Laliberte noted comments she'd received over the last few months that residents were not interested in paying for mailings for other residents. However, even though this already happens, Councilmember Laliberte noted the perception was out there. Councilmember Laliberte opined that one remaining question was whether those NAs not "registered" had the same recognition from the city as those who are. Councilmember Laliberte noted there were lots of things to work through if the city provided any other benefits. However, if the intent was to
help and encourage residents to build a more cohesive neighborhood in a formal or informal way, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was all for that, even though that was only one tiny part of this report.
stated his tendency to agree with taking the first baby step of acknowledging
the city felt there was a benefit in people forming NAs and a willingness to
prove basic tools as resources. While he found this "tool kit" a good idea,
Mayor Roe stated he wasn't supportive of tracking and providing grant information. Mayor Roe clarified that he wasn't suggesting authorizing the tool kit tonight, but stated that may be the first step in the future. Mayor Roe stated he didn't want to lose sight of this report and some of its suggestions; all toward the effort of encouraging neighborhoods to work together. Mayor Roe stated his take away from tonight's discussion was that there remained a lot of questions yet before moving forward with any steps.
McGehee agreed that she wasn't ready to proceed even if the tool kit was very simple like that put together for organized trash hauling. However, Councilmember McGehee expressed her lack of understanding of the City Council's motivation in trying to make neighborhoods into NAs.
clarified that this was not what he said; and restated his comment that he felt
it was important for the city to acknowledge the benefit of associations, not disadvantages,
by making positive communication efforts through that acknowledgement rather
than the status quo which in effect served to discourage it.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Roe requested
meeting minutes of the June 21, 2016 Roseville Economic Development Authority
(REDA) meeting be reviewed for approval at the next scheduled City Council
meeting. Unless there was a reason not to do so offered by the REDA's legal counsel, Mayor Roe suggested future REDA meeting minutes be approved by the City Council as well, rather than waiting for the next REDA meeting to allow posting them on the city's website for public information without further
Trudgeon reported that staff had intended to distribute them as part of the
upcoming August 29, 2016 REDA meeting; but would consult on process protocol
for future reference.
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:43 p.m.