View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 9, 2017
City Council Oaths of Office
Economic Development Authority
(Minutes published separately.)
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:49 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Attorney Erich Hartmann was also present.
2. Pledge of
acknowledged the Pledge had been recited as part of the Council Oaths of Office
ceremony prior to the start of the meeting.
3. Approve Agenda
Willmus 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.
Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road and Sherry Sanders, McCarrons Boulevard
On behalf of
"Do Good Roseville," Ms. Ramundt and Ms. Sanders presented several upcoming
opportunities to serve to help make Roseville as inclusive as possible. Flyers,
were provided for those events occurring at the Ramsey County Library -
Roseville Branch in January and February, and recognizing the respective
sponsors for those events.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
For the benefit
of the listening audience, Mayor Roe provided several announcements of upcoming
community events and volunteer opportunities, and identified where to find additional
information for each.
announced a winter clothing drive at City Hall during normal business hours;
with collected items going to the Fairview Community Center's coat closet for
families in need in the Roseville School District.
of the announcements by Mayor Roe on dementia and coping for families and
caregivers, Councilmember Laliberte provided additional information on the focus
of upcoming seminars.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation proclaiming January 16, 2017 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in
Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to honor Dr. King by committing
to volunteering in the community.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, proclaiming January 16, 2017 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in
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 December 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the December 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 36, Line 31 (Roe)
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten 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) and related attachments, dated January 9, 2017.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP
Items," January 1, 2017.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the sale or trade of surplus items as noted in the RCA
dated today's date.
Approve Resolution Designating Official Bank Depositories for
As an opponent
of the North Dakota pipeline of which U. S. Bank is a supporter, and for full
transparency, Councilmember McGehee brought to the attention of the public that
U.S. Bank is listed as one of the city's depositories for 2017.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11386 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
on Designation of Depositories;" designating U. S. Bank and BMO Harris Bank.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Approve Resolution Designating Official Bank Signatories for 2017
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11387 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
of Designation of Bank Signatories;" designating Mayor Roe, City Manager
Trudgeon and Finance Director Miller as signatories.
Designate 2017 Legal Newspaper
Trudgeon advised that the city was in the second of a three-year contract with
the Roseville Review and would be going out for proposals after 2017.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, designating the Roseville Review as the legal newspaper for
the city for 2017.
Approve Annual 2017 City Sign Permits
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of 2017 sign permits for city uses and promotions as
detailed in the sign summary dated January 9, 2017.
f. Approve the Community Development Department Request for Approval
of a Multi-year Electrical Inspection Professional Services Agreement
McGehee noted her personal experience in using the services of this electrical
inspector and her satisfaction with their professionalism.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of a three year (2017 - 2019) professional services
agreement (Attachment A) with Tokle Inspections, Inc.; and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to executive the document pending City Attorney review.
g. Approve Appointment of Codes Coordinator as Assistant Weed
Inspector for 2017
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11388 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Approving Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector;" appointing the City's Codes
Coordinator as the duly-designated Assistant Weed Inspector for calendar year
2017, pursuant to Minnesota Statues 18.80.
h. Appoint Mayor and City Manager to Roseville Firefighter Relief
reference, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in serving on the Fire
Mayor Roe advised
that, while not required by state statutes, current Fire Relief Association By-laws
stipulate the Mayor and City Manager serving as municipal representatives and
would need to be changed accordingly.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11389 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Designating the Mayor and City Manager as Municipal Representatives to the
Firefighter Relief Association."
i. Authorization to Seek Donations for Various City Functions and
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorization for the City Manager or his designee to solicit support
via formal written request to community groups and businesses for various city
functions and special events as detailed in the RCA of today's date.
j. Authorize Design Services for the Replacement of Cedarholm Golf
McGehee noted conversations and consideration of various major expenditures
during a given year, often for good opportunities, but stressed the need for
broader community and facility planning for overall expenditures versus doing
so in a piecemeal fashion (e.g. License Center) and in relationship to this
particular request for replacement of the clubhouse.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a professional
services agreement with (Attachment B) with Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain
Architects for design services as referenced in Attachments A and C for replacement
of the Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse; at a cost for those services not to
exceed $33,490 to be funded from the Golf Course Fund; and contingent upon City
Attorney review and approval.
k. Approve a Conditional Use Pursuant to Table 1006-1 and Chapter
1009 of the City Code to Allow a Motor Freight Terminal at 2500 County Road C
Trudgeon noted a revised resolution presented as a bench handout and made part
of the RCA, specifically revising line 138 as recommended by the Planning
Commission, inserting the language "undergoing maintenance."
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11390 (Attachment C as revised) entitled,
"A Resolution Approving a Motor Freight Terminal as a Conditional Use as 2500
County Road C."
Approve Adopting a City of Roseville and Economic Development
Authority *(EDA) Acquisition Framework
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of the City of Roseville and Roseville Economic Development
Authority Acquisition Framework dated January 2017 (Attachment B) with Item
4.A.3 amended as follows:
"Consideration of effect to market value and tax capacity of
surrounding properties and overall city tax base.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Subdivision Code Revision Introduction
Mayor Roe recognized
Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd to introduce Mike Lamb with Kimley-Horn, the
consultant selected to lead and provide guidance for the update of the city's
Mr. Lamb's presentation,
incorporated into the staff report, briefly reviewed anticipated tasks, a
proposed schedule, known issues and topics to bring forward as part of the
update and revisions as applicable.
Roseville's long history of involving the greater Parks & Recreation Commission
in the subdivision process, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for
maintaining their involvement at the front end.
McGehee expressed her interest in at a minimum one advance public comment
opportunity before the formal Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level,
similar to that used by the Lake McCarron's neighborhood. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it was important for residents to see proposed revisions to
the subdivision code and provide their input and ideas before a formal public
hearing. Even though she followed such things closely, Councilmember McGehee
noted her surprise with some things included in the code (e.g. parcel shapes);
and reiterated that one formal public hearing at the Planning Commission is not
sufficient and more input was needed.
suggested an annotated version, referencing the schedule as outlined in the
presentation and as various iterations come before the City Council, there
would be the usual opportunity for public comment. Therefore, from the point
of view to solicit comments, Mayor Roe suggested noticing residents that have brought
forward a subdivision request in the immediate past, and seeking their input
from that perspective. Since the process used by the Lake McCarron's
neighborhood has the involvement of the surrounding neighborhood, Mayor Roe
opined that an open house format made more sense as done in the past by the
city and prior to the formal public hearing at the Planning Commission or
subsequent to the next City Council discussion scheduled for February 13,
2017. Mayor Roe asked staff and Mr. Lamb to consider that in developing the
McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's suggestion; and yielded to staff, opining
they'd done a good job in the past of noticing interested parties. However,
with not seeing that option in the proposed schedule, Councilmember McGehee
wanted to ensure public comment was made available when and where appropriate,
and allowing sufficient time for the City Council to get advance feedback
before it formally goes to the Planning Commission.
agreed with Councilmember Willmus on the need to continue involving the
leadership of the Parks & Recreation Commission early on to help the City
Council in their decision-making for land or cash respective to park
dedication; or at least to inform policy discussions. Mayor Roe sought future
input from Mr. Lamb based on his perspective during those upcoming policy and
city code discussions.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Business Items (Action Items)
Appoint Acting Mayor for 2017
Laliberte moved, Willmus
seconded, moved designation of Councilmember Etten as Acting Mayor for 2017.
Laliberte stated she based this on Councilmember Etten having received the
highest number of votes in the recent municipal election.
Etten accepted the nomination.
Consider Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointments
Roe noted referenced the various reappointments as listed in the RCA of today's
Willmus stated that he had no issues with the proposed reappointments.
However, Councilmember Willmus suggested taking a special look at the Community
Engagement Commission (CEC) and where the City Council felt this advisory
commission was going, especially losing a number of commissioners and therefore
much of their institutional knowledge. Councilmember Willmus stated that he
had general concerns at the City Council level in how the CEC was being
employed and utilized and suggested not filling those vacancies at this point,
spending the remainder of the spring (through the end of March) focusing
remaining members of the CEC on background work regarding their accomplishments
to-date and best practices going forward with the information they had gained.
During that time, Councilmember Willmus suggested the City Council could also
take a closer look at what it wanted to do moving forward allowing time for
them to determine the future charge of the CEC if it is to continue.
McGehee agreed to some extent and on some issues with Councilmember Willmus.
Councilmember McGehee stated she had no desire to re-interview those having
served the community well. However, Councilmember McGehee stated that she did
have issues with the CEC in particular; and agreed that as the City Council
studies the current CEC, perhaps the remaining members could be combined in
some way with another advisory group to allow them to be productive and take
some of their tasks with them to that combined focus group. On another note,
Councilmember McGehee noted the majority of advisory commissions had seven
members, and questioned why the Parks & Recreation Commission had nine
members. While not knowing the historical background, but with two
commissioners leaving, Councilmember McGehee noted with two vacancies, it
provided an opportunity for a standard of seven members on each advisory
commission, opining that seemed sufficient to her.
also not knowing the history of nine versus seven members serving on
commissions, Councilmember Laliberte stated her comfort in reappointing those
interested in serving, opining they'd done a good job for the community. If
there was frustration on the CEC from their perspective as well as a lack of
clarity from the City Council's perspective of what was desired of that
commission or if there were questions on how to proceed to provide sufficient
direction, Councilmember Laliberte offered her willingness to reinvent the
commission subcommittee and gather input from those currently serving and/or
those having served (e.g. exit interviews), as well as sitting City Council
members. Councilmember Laliberte advised she'd be willing to pursue a broad
review of all advisory commissions again, including the CEC and potential
creation of a public safety commission, however directed by the full City
Etten agreed that the City Council had not given the best direction to the CEC;
and opined all struggled with how to use the great volunteers serving on the
CEC, but not always sure of their charge. Councilmember Etten advised that was
his goal last year when he requested a focus on advisory commissions; and agreed
with not making reappointments to the CEC at this time, but instead reviewing
it over the next few months. Since this was new information to him tonight,
Councilmember Etten stated he wasn't sure if he was interested in reviewing all
commissions again until he had more time to consider that and any
ramifications. However, Councilmember Etten stated that he was open to look at
how to frame and better use CEC commissioners and honor their work. Specific
to the additional commissioners serving on the Parks & Recreation
Commission, Councilmember Etten suggested there may have been more members
included due to that component of the city garnering greater community interest
and that was a way to involve more people. Since this component also represented
the greatest volunteer effort for the city, Councilmember Etten noted there was
no financial burden for carrying more commissioners.
Willmus stated that he wouldn't want to change the membership on the Parks
& Recreation Commission without further discussion with the commission
itself. Given the considerable size of that City activity, Councilmember
Willmus opined it was nice to have a number of voices represented at the table;
and therefore he wasn't averse to having nine versus seven commissioners, assuring
a broad community representation in addition to being philosophically good to
engage more people. Specific to bringing back the commission subcommittee,
Councilmember Willmus opined that may be a good idea allowing more direct talk
with people and the ability to formulate a plan going forward. Therefore,
Councilmember Willmus suggested not advertising for positions for the CEC at
this point but see what the subcommittee yielded before then.
Roe reviewed options for the City Council to take at this point. Mayor Roe
stated his personal preference for looking at commissions through a commission
subcommittee, including creation of a public safety commission as part of that
ensued regarding reappointments to the CEC, given that as of March 31st,
the commission would be significantly reduced in number.
moved, McGehee seconded, reappointment of all those seeking reappointment and
authorizing staff to advertise for vacancies for all commissions, with
the exception of the CEC for which no action will be taken at this time.
the upcoming CEC meeting later this week, City Manager Trudgeon sought
clarification on direction to staff. Mr. Trudgeon advised that his intent
would be to pass along this action and any subsequent direction from the City
Council to the CEC at that time. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the CEC was currently
working on its 2017 work plan; and if the City Council is interested, he could
arrange a joint meeting between existing CEC members and the City Council to
work things out. Mr. Trudgeon also offered his assistance if the subcommittee
needed any assistance, noting that March would come quick and therefore, subsequent
discussions were needed as soon as possible.
Roe advised that he had reviewed the next CEC agenda, and from his perspective,
with the CEC in existence at least through March of 2017, suggested they
provide the City Council with a report on how they could wrap up as much as
possible from their work plan and their recommendations to approach remaining
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that direction.
her previous service on that commission subcommittee, Councilmember McGehee
expressed her interest in serving on it again; clarifying her intent would be
only for a narrow discussion specific to the CEC.
Roe advised that discussion would be coming up shortly on tonight's agenda as
part of the City Council liaison item.
Discussion of Council Liaisons
Roe referenced the current 2016 Council Liaisons as detailed in Attachment A of
Etten noted that discussion was not only needed to identify who to serve on a
commission task force, but to define its direction, purpose and scope and a
timeline for accomplishing that work.
the CEC and what could be accomplished, with a nexus to the Human Rights
Commission (HRC), Councilmember Willmus advised that he wasn't personally as
concerned with the number serving on a commission, which he considered a
non-issue. If there was a desire to look at new commissions or to realign
current commissions, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in hearing
those ideas, along with seeking input from current commissions on what they'd
like to see. Councilmember Willmus stated that would weigh in on his thoughts
as to who would be best to serve on a commission subcommittee.
McGehee expressed her interest in a subcommittee or task force; but with March
coming soon, she suggested it first and exclusively deal with the CEC. Then
going forward, Councilmember McGehee suggested if the City Council wanted a
public safety commission of some sort that would be a completely different discussion.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she had no issue about the number of
commission members serving, and had simply asked the question as to why the
discrepancy in one advisory commission compared to the others. Councilmember
McGehee noted that the Council had created two commissions, one with a specific
goal and able to accomplish a lot without much direction and the other with
vague direction. Because of the lack of vision and direction by the Council,
the CEC had struggled since its inception. Based on this experience Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City Council would need to do a better analysis of what
they wanted and whether a commission was the correct vehicle.
the timeframe, Councilmember Etten agreed that the subcommittee should
initially focus on the CEC, and whether it should become an offshoot of the HRC
if there was such a nexus or not. Councilmember Etten stated that he was open
to discussion; but opined creation of a public safety commission should be a
separate discussion, with the commission task force only focusing on the CEC at
Laliberte stated she was fine using the focused approach and giving the CEC
priority, opining it didn't require a broader discussion beyond that. However,
Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for the City Council to be cognizant of
available staff support and where these great volunteers could be placed if
something different was done with the CEC. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte
noted that involved looking at other commissions and "doing" versus "advising"
commissions as well. Councilmember Laliberte opined she saw members of the CEC
interested in "doing," while the city already had one commission (HRC) serving
in that capacity.
moved, Laliberte seconded, creation or reconvening the commission subcommittee
specifically to address the CEC at this time; and appointment of Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Laliberte to serve.
on his rationale in making his motion as stated, and appointment of Mayor Roe
and Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember Willmus opined that this required a
broader approach than just a look at whether or no to continue the CEC.
Councilmember Willmus opined that there may be people in play who were suited
to other commissions as well, along with considering staff time and how those
other advisory commissions came into play as well. In consideration of the
limited time available between now and March to make this decision, Not to say
other Councilmembers may not also serve well in this capacity, Councilmember
Willmus stated his confidence that Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte will remain
cognizant of that short period of time to bring forward their recommendations
to the full City Council.
this instance, Councilmember McGehee stated that she also had adequate time and
background to serve in this capacity, as well as the background in having
worked with Councilmember Laliberte before on the commission subcommittee.
Councilmember McGehee clarified that she had no intention of just putting the
CEC under a microscope; but opined part of the discussion applied to what proposals
come back to the City Council and those should include options for using those
CEC commissioners currently serving and the completion of their work plan
currently in process and recognizing their commitment to that work plan. Not being
able to imagine that the CEC's current work plan was of no value, Councilmember
McGehee pondered where that work plan and these volunteers belonged going
Etten recognized the value of the subcommittee's goals, but also stated his
understanding of Councilmember McGehee's point.
Roe offered his willingness to serve in this role as per the motion.
to the motion, Councilmember Laliberte noted that when the original CEC was
proposed, even though she and Councilmember McGehee serving on the commission
subcommittee at that time had worked on it together, Councilmember McGehee had
made it clear that she was not supportive of the CEC. In looking back on that
situation, Councilmember Laliberte opined that Councilmember McGehee's previous
viewpoint may slant her recommendation to the full City Council at this point.
her defense, Councilmember McGehee clarified that her lack of support for the
CEC at that time was based on not having it well-defined and with no specific
job outlined, a clear failure by the City Council in her opinion.
Councilmember McGehee further clarified that her lack of support at that time
had not reflected on her support of those serving on the CEC and the work
they'd brought forward. Councilmember McGehee stated that her recommendation
at that time was that the work being sought by the City Council could be better
accomplished by a task force versus a standing commission. Councilmember
McGehee reiterated that, while not supporting the idea of creating the CEC at
the beginning, their ideas and volunteering were most valuable.
moved, McGehee seconded, reappointing Mayor Roe to continue serving on the
Northeast Youth & Family Services Board and on the North Suburban Communications
Commission/North Suburban Access Corporation Board for 2017; with Councilmember
McGehee stated her withdrawal as alternate on both groups; and no subsequent
alternates appointed to serve on either.
Willmus seconded, reappointment of Councilmember Laliberte to serve as the City
of Roseville representative to the Ramsey County League of Local Governments
for 2017; with no alternate appointed to this group.
withdrawal of Councilmember Willmus and volunteering of Councilmember McGehee
to serve with Councilmember Laliberte expressing her ongoing interest in
serving in this capacity, Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of
Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee to serve on the City Manager Performance
Review City Council Subcommittee for 2017.
Mayor Roe noted
the remaining liaison roles were provided for information purposes only; and
asked staff to remove the "Regional Council of Mayors" and Minnesota Mayors
Association from future iterations of the list; as well as adding the "Metro
Cities Board of Directors" on which Councilmember Laliberte serves on their
Board of Directors.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Council Meeting Efficiency
Trudgeon noted the information contained in the RCA and suggested review by the
City Council of each category in detail as listed to provide direction to staff
and inform the City Council's Rules of Procedures update.
McGehee stated her strong support for staff's suggestion in the RCA, noting the
time delays in receipt and review of the minutes, especially when meetings are
back to back during a month. Councilmember McGehee suggested this would
provide a more reasonable deadline to meet, with approval then possible on the
Consent Agenda within the two-week period.
agreed to some delay, given the nuance of a meeting held back-to-back.
However, Councilmember Etten noted some meetings held at the end of the month
may have a significant delay for staff or other situations needing more
immediate review and approval. Councilmember Etten suggested a two-week review
for the City Council depending on how that interacted with the City Council
schedule. Councilmember Etten stated that he tried to avoid making too many
changes since the meeting minutes served as a general record; but could agree
with the two-week time frame.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that while there may be
some issues created with the 60-day land use case review timeframe per state
statute, the most important action was the adoption of related resolutions
rather than the actual meeting minutes.
Hartmann concurred with City Manager Trudgeon that resolutions were separate
from the meeting minutes and therefore a delay in minute approval but not
resolutions should be problematic.
Willmus opined that staff would need to be cognizant of those land use
situations if the City Council approves departing from the current practice of
approval at the next meeting. While not having a history of why draft minutes
are not included in the agenda packet, and unsure if he wanted to get into
that, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for minimizing the delay,
even though he would support a two-week turnaround, his personal preference
would be to have it quicker than that.
Since he tended
to perform the overall review of draft meeting minutes, Mayor Roe recognized
that it required a quick turnaround, and opined there would be benefits with
more time for review, including for the Recording Secretary to submit the
initial draft, and then for staff to provide an administrative review (e.g.
grammar corrections and name, address, and/or date verifications) before being
provided to the City Council. Mayor Roe opined that the City Council then
wouldn't have to focus on that as much, but could instead allow departments to
review their portions of minutes before they were submitted for review to
individual council members. Mayor Roe clarified that he meant this staff
review to be going on at the same time and not a step-by-step process from the
City Manager, then to one department, then another; but to have each department
review their particular areas for accuracy, with more eyes for factual
corrections. Mayor Roe noted this would still provide individual council members
to correct their statements accordingly, while staff would have provided its
initial grammatical review administratively, with departments reviewing actual
facts and figures.
McGehee acknowledged the heavy lifting provided by Mayor Roe in reviewing
meeting minutes at this time; and advised that she typically reviewed her
portion of minutes to ensure that they accurately and clearly reflected her
statements. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was clear from Mayor
Roe's review that he read the entire document. Councilmember McGehee agreed
that it would prove helpful for the Recording Secretary and city staff to have
more time for processing meeting minutes upfront, thus allowing individual
council members more time to review their portions.
Councilmember Willmus agreed with this approach, stating that he was cautiously
optimistic that the City Council would still have the meeting minutes back in
time to avoid rehashing them at meeting if and when they were delayed.
Mayor Roe asked
his colleagues if the meeting minutes were delivered to the City Council by the
Friday before packet preparation for the next meeting, if that would allow them
time to respond to staff with any changes by the next Wednesday.
objecton, council members agreed that was a reasonable timeframe: two week
meeting minute approval with submission to the City Council after initial staff
review by Friday and return by individual council members by the following
Wednesday to be included in the agenda packet materials for that upcoming meeting.
objection, council members also agreed that this discussion would inform any
tweaks before formally adopting into the Rules of Procedures.
Trudgeon suggested the City Council consider asking questions on routine items
placed on the consent agenda by contacting staff before the meeting. Mr.
Trudgeon suggested the only exception should be to remove an item if an individual
council member wanted to vote against a particular item. Mr. Trudgeon advised
that his suggestions as detailed in the RCA were a result of consulting with
his peers on their consent agenda practices, as well as in consideration of his
summarizing each item, which could also be eliminated at the City Council's direction.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested some change in the current format and practices as
outlined in the RCA.
consideration of openness to the public, Councilmember Etten opined that a
brief, one-sentence description, but not detailed review of each consent agenda
item by the City Manager was an important aspect of letting people know what
its elected officials were doing that what they were voting for. Councilmember
Etten spoke in support of not removing items from the consent agenda unless for
a separate vote or to make a significant point; and agreed that asking
questions ahead of time was a good idea.
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten that for transparency purposes, a
one-sentence synopsis of those items on the consent agenda was necessary.
However, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that questions could be asked ahead of
time and, if necessary, acknowledgement of those questions and responses could
be addressed during discussion or items removed for a separate vote.
ensued, prompted by Councilmember Willmus, to clarify the intent of
Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte between current practice and how to portray
sufficient descriptions of actions for consent agenda items for the public's
McGehee opined that the city made very poor use of the screens and overhead
display opportunities it had available for the public. Councilmember McGehee
suggested the consent agenda items appear on the screen as a one-line
description while it was being discussed or before taking a vote, rather than
those viewing at home seeing a blank screen and only able to listen but not
visualize a topic or issue. Councilmember McGehee opined this would help for
those re-watching or viewing a taped meeting. Councilmember McGehee urged the
city to improve its transparency and public understanding by making better us
of materials versus simply council member face time, and experiment accordingly.
agreed that Councilmember McGehee's comments made sense; noting other city
meetings he'd viewed had explicit descriptions and spoke in support of showing
consent items on screen.
Etten agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion to shorten descriptions
for consent items by using a header or two, but to keep it short but
descriptive for the public, allowing them to track what its city leaders were
Given how rare
it was for a member of the public to make a comment on a consent item, Mayor
Roe suggested those could be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Trudgeon reviewed staff suggestions and challenges in scheduling work sessions,
noting seven were scheduled for 2017, but also noting given the limited time
available, none were included for January or February or other months where
only two meetings were available due to scheduling conflicts or holidays. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that left only adjusting start times, or additional meetings, or
using the practice of some cities to hold a work session before every regular
business meeting. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that would require pushing
meeting start times earlier if feasible.
McGehee reviewed her historical perspective and institutional history on past
work sessions. Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in using them as
listening sessions, allow residents to bring topics to the City Council's
attention to think about, and providing open dialogue versus the current public
comment portion of the meeting. Councilmember McGehee opined that the public
should be able to ask a question or seek rationale for a vote and receive a
response at that time rather than having to wait; thus providing a learning
opportunity for all parties. Councilmember McGehee expressed hope that if
meetings became more efficient, there may be time for that to occur and provide
for that open dialogue. Councilmember McGehee also noted the number of topics
brought to the city's attention via email, phone call or other means allowing
their elected officials to hear what their constituents thought. Councilmember
McGehee opined that to her dialogue was the most important missing piece in
actions from the dais; and sought a way to create opportunities for that to
stated that his perspective on work sessions was different and more closely
mirrored the suggestions made by City Manager Trudgeon, in that the allowed an
opportunity for the City Council to have more in-depth presentations and
discussions with staff on various issues coming before them. If the desire is
for listening sessions with the community, Councilmember Willmus agreed with that
idea, but his idea of a work session format was for that more in-depth,
to-the-point and less formal discussion and interaction with staff, or presentations
affording more information on upcoming decisions. Regarding City
Councilmember-initiated discussions, Councilmember Willmus questioned if all of
them rose to the level of needing to be put off for a month or more, opining
that some things that pop up may require immediate action by the City Council;
and suggesting maintaining some flexibility to do so, providing a recent
example occurring over the last weekend.
Etten stated his appreciation in holding work sessions, and agreed to place
more or similar things on them when possible. Specific to Councilmember
Willmus' point on City Councilmember-initiated items, Councilmember Etten noted
the City Council itself could define whether or not an item was pressing. As
an example, Councilmember Etten noted things now placed on the back of future
agenda reports that continue to be listed; and considering when best to look at
those items if and when time-sensitive and on a case-by-case basis. As for
moving meeting times up any earlier, Councilmember Etten advised that it would
be difficult for him professionally and for his family for meetings to start
consistently earlier; and questioned how that would accomplish any efficiency
agreed with not starting meetings earlier, noting most area City Council
meetings didn't start until 7:00 p.m., allowing Roseville to get a one-hour
head start. However, Mayor Roe suggested focus seemed the key to him; and suggested
at least one of four meetings in January and February was a work session or
even a portion of one meeting when fewer meeting dates were available. Mayor
Roe encouraged the Council to discipline itself to always have a work
session-focused meeting at least monthly; opining they were getting closer than
they had been in the past. While any regular meeting could be more focused on
discussion, Mayor Roe opined it would help to have the discipline to identify
meetings as work sessions to avoid action items on those nights that could
prolong meetings further. Specific to institutional history, Mayor Roe opined
that it was important not to get into past habits developed before his tenure
on the City Council, where work sessions provided some an opportunity to fill
that time with topics not relevant to the priorities of the Council and City
and some of those topics not necessarily well-vetted beforehand. However,
Mayor Roe opined that this city council was more focused and held substantive
discussions; and further opined that picking designated work session meetings
was an improvement. Mayor Roe stated that he could not support adding more
frequent or shorter meetings for work sessions.
McGehee stated that she and some residents found it confusing when action was
taken at a work session when it was understood prior to that that the purpose
was only for discussion of that item and that no action would be taken.
Councilmember McGehee noted this had been her intent in her earlier suggestion
to pick a specific topic or topics ahead of time to provide public notice and
allow an open dialogue between residents and their elected representatives,
most effectively at a work session, and allowing those interested in a particular
topic or presentation to attend and share their thoughts or opinions, allowing
them to engage in a meaningful way with their government.
Mayor Roe noted
one model for that dialogue would have been the recent pet shop licensing
discussion, with two different occasions for feedback and dialogue. However,
Mayor Roe opined that it remained challenging for the City Council on how best
to conduct that dialogue and not allowing some members of the public continuous
participation rather than the decision-makers taking action. Mayor Roe
questioned if every work session needed that dialogue component, when the
public had an opportunity for input on most issues at some point.
Etten stated his understanding Councilmember McGehee's interest in and past
discussions about the City Council leaving the Council Chambers to be more
approachable, whether annually or semi-annually. However, for tonight's focus,
Councilmember Etten opined that if the discussion was in making meetings more
efficient, that continual dialogue didn't work with that goal. Councilmember
Etten stated that he was open to ways for that dialogue to occur outside
meeting time whether by individual council members, but not resulting in the goal
of further lengthening potential meeting times or extending them as part of the
regular format and function.
open to moving off-site, Councilmember McGehee noted the challenges with
cameras and transparency.
suggested further thought and follow-up on it as a separate issue from
Laliberte stated work sessions were important, but agreed lines were often
blurred with action items removing their status as true work sessions; and
suggested the City Council be better in defining that. Councilmember Laliberte
agreed with Councilmember Willmus that some action items didn't need to wait
until another meeting; but also reiterated that making work sessions true work
sessions only would be a big improvement.
agreed that more discipline was needed in not taking action on those items.
Mayor Roe's comments about the work session format for initial pet shop
discussions, Councilmember Willmus stated his frustration with that meeting,
especially entertaining thoughts from outside of Roseville business owners and
taking away time from an owner and any time for a more in-depth discussion by
the City Council at that time. When he considers work sessions, Councilmember
Willmus stated he looked for a more focused interaction with staff and his
council colleagues in order to formulate decisions coming forward and allowing
staff to have more access to the City Council as a body in a more informal
setting. Councilmember Willmus opined that he saw Councilmember McGehee's
requested format as an entirely different idea, such as a listening session
allowing for more dialogue. Councilmember Willmus suggested that may be
appropriate for those bigger issues that may be percolating, but he considered
it entirely different than what he was looking for from a work session.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus' comments on the first pet store
presentation. However, Councilmember McGehee also noted this provided her with
an opportunity to ask a business owner from another city questions about their
experience in switching business models.
Mayor Roe noted
his responsibility as chair of the meetings to be more disciplined in moving
things along. While the speakers at that meeting were also visitors to the
city, as pointed out by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that while their
information proved helpful, it went well over the line in providing them camera
time at the expense of Council discussion and deliberation.
Trudgeon sought additional directive on items detailed in this portion of the
tonight's discussion and from her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee
suggested several changes:
Use of the screen before a meeting to cycle announcements versus
having them read at the meeting
Showing future agenda review items on the screen and Channel 16
at the close of the meeting;
More use of the screen during staff presentations (e.g. budget
line items) for the benefit of the viewing audience; and
Shortened meeting minute review at the meeting.
McGehee opined that since each council member had pledged their allegiance to
the City, State and Constitution as a part of their oaths of office, she found
no reason to have the Pledge of Allegiance at each meeting; further opining
that it would further shorten meetings.
stated he didn't want to step away from City Council approval of licenses and
similar items, noting they frequently had considerable questions on some of
those; and therefore wasn't interested in any significant changes at this
point. Councilmember Willmus agreed that scrolling announcements at 5:30 p.m.
before a meeting versus using meeting time was a valid point unless something
came up at the last minute, but instead to use available resources and
technology. Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no problem saying the
Pledge of Allegiance at the start of meetings, opining it was a nice thing to
do, and therefore wasn't supportive of that change. However, Councilmember Willmus
agreed that the other points as noted by Councilmember McGehee were valid to
use time and resources more efficiently.
Laliberte agreed that using the screen and Channel 16 for announcements was a
great idea; but stated she remained uncomfortable with some of the items listed
by City Manager Trudgeon in the RCA for this point, opining those things
remained important to come before the body from her perspective. Councilmember
Laliberte expressed her interest in retaining the Pledge of Allegiance. If
scrolling announcements before a meeting, Councilmember Laliberte suggested
doing so on Channel 16 during the week as well, with the caveat that they are
kept current as applicable with a good plan to do so in place by staff for
scrolling up-to-date information.
agreed with that, provided the information was kept more up-to-date and
fresher; and agreed with putting the future agenda report on screen; and agreed
with Councilmember Laliberte that those suggestions by City Manager Trudgeon in
this section of the RCA needed to remain under the City Council's purview.
Trudgeon cautioned that this was his most radical suggested change, to mix up
the agenda order, while remaining flexible, to get the business needing to be
done accomplished sooner (Attachment A). However, Mr. Trudgeon recognized that
earlier discussion tonight could assist as well.
Etten stated his understanding of the order of Item 7 (Business Items) to be
determined by staff given their importance, urgency and public interest in a particular
item; but sought clarification as to how that determination would be made.
Trudgeon responded that it would be fluid and based on a combination of
things. Mr. Trudgeon noted that he moved approval of meeting minutes and the
consent agenda to the end of the agenda. However, if something was removed
from the consent agenda, Mr. Trudgeon noted his intent was to deal with it at
the beginning of section 7 out of respect for staff and their time. For the
rest, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it depended on what topics were most important
to deal with that night.
agreed with shifting some items, opining that often some important things were
left until late at night; but questioned the proposed location of items removed
from consent as there may be questions of staff requiring their continued
ensued on the consent agenda regarding asking questions of staff before the meeting;
retaining the discipline of the consent agenda; and the key to getting that
information before a motion.
understanding the concerns expressed by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Willmus
stated his interest in giving the proposed order a try to see how it worked.
Councilmember Willmus noted his interest in reordering the agenda to focus on
putting public hearings and action consideration at the front end before a
series of presentations and typically those items for which the public may be in
attendance, seeking respect for their time as well.
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus' suggestion to give the proposed
order a try. However, specific to questions on consent items, Councilmember
McGehee noted that while she may have already talked to staff on a particular
item, she occasionally removed it from the consent agenda to make a point.
Councilmember McGhee agreed with scrolling items 5 and 10 on the screen versus
taking up meeting time.
Mayor Roe noted
another option for item 5 may be the practice of some other city councils to
make live announcements at the end of the meeting rather than at the
beginning. Mayor Roe suggested putting announcements on the screen, but if
just received that day, they could be added to the end; while keeping
recognitions at the front.
opined that he liked the idea of the future agenda review scrolled, but opined
he'd like it kept on the agenda as well.
Etten noted that if simply handed out by City Manager Trudgeon, there should be
no need to read things off unless there were specific questions at that time.
suggested if a routine was established and feedback provided subsequent to
receiving the future agenda items listed, both items 10 and 11 could be covered
Objection, council members agreed to combine items 10 and 11 (Attachment A).
discussion ensued regarding item 7 and the order; with Mayor Roe noting the
preference is for the public versus staff to leave early. However, Mayor Roe
noted with some flexibility, items could be identified for adjustment on the
agenda early at each meeting for adjustment to that particular agenda as
Willmus and McGehee stated they were not interested in the pre-packets.
necessarily wanting to continue the pre-packets, Mayor Roe clarified that it
was nice to have some of that information ahead of time to provide staff with
some feedback, even though most of items provided in pre-packets to-date were
not always the pressing topics of the time. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested,
for those big issues, staff provide information as it becomes available for
council member review.
agreed that if staff knew of a bigger issue and has information available that
could get the city council more focused on the issues they provide that
information to allow more time to look thins over.
Objection, council members agreed.
Trudgeon noted his comments in this section were simply provided as food for
Laliberte clarified that there were times when she asked a question to include
it as part of the conversation, whether for her benefit or because it has been
brought to her by a member of the public.
clarified that there would always be an opportunity for questions on each
topic, but noted that some of the more inconsequential questions could be asked
Etten opined that Mayor Roe, as manager of the meetings, served in an unusual
role; and noted in order to keep the meeting moving forward, individual council
members needed to be open to his attempts to keep things moving. Councilmember
Etten opined that repetition was not necessary, and only served to spend a lot
of time with no new discussion or new information presented. In those
circumstances, Councilmember Etten opined that the mayor needed to step in and
say "enough" and be respected by his colleagues when doing so.
adherence to times listed on the agenda
ensued regarding the allotted times shown on the agenda for each topic, while
recognizing the need for the city council to be self-disciplined or provide a
check-in as to whether to continue discussion, table the item or move forward
with a motion if applicable.
discussion ensued regarding time periods (e.g. 15 minutes, 50 minutes, etc.)
versus an actual time; and challenges with and frustrations of people not
showing up for the meeting time of 6:00 p.m. and instead using the projected
times on the agenda as their guide, and often frustrated with earlier or
delayed consideration of their item of interest.
consideration, without objection, with the public portion of the agenda moved
to the front of the meeting (Attachment A), staff was directed to keep the
times on the agenda, but also have a check-in for progress for items as
Public Comment Time
McGehee opined that she liked the way public comment is currently done;
allowing people a reasonable expectation that they can make their point one or
more times if they felt they weren't properly heard the first time.
Councilmember McGehee noted the recent changes made for land use cases if and
when needed. However, Councilmember McGehee stated she had no problem limiting
those making repetitive points or suggesting one spokesperson for their group;
and perhaps limiting those types of discussions to three versus five minutes in
stated he'd be willing to look at employing some options on a trial basis.
Councilmember Willmus stated his frustration in some speakers appearing 2-3
times for the same issue, or public testimony reaching a point of counterpoint
for both sides. With public comment also provided for non-agenda items at the
front of the agenda, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in maintaining a
nexus between the function of city business and not using public comment as a
tool to further individual or group initiatives that may or may not be directly
related to the city as a whole.
cautioned the city council that a lot of groups were doing things in and for
the city that may not be directly affiliated with the city. Mayor Roe stated
that his philosophy was to err on the side of the rights of people to speak and
address their government, and therefore, sought not to restrict them. Mayor
Roe opined that he found public comment becoming more disciplined; with
Councilmember McGehee agreeing she didn't see it being abused as much as in the
Laliberte stated that she was uncomfortable not allowing public comment just
because it was intended for a public hearing for a land use issue at the
Planning Commission meeting. However, as she had learned over the years,
Councilmember Laliberte noted that often someone may not have been watching a
Planning Commission meeting or aware of an issue, and this may be their first
opportunity to speak. Councilmember Laliberte stated that an exception would
be if a topic was discussed 3-4 times and in several different manners; and the
same testimony was being given repeatedly by the same person, especially when
that testimony was already included in written form or as part of the official
record in the meeting minutes in packet materials.
Etten agreed not to limit public comment on land use issues to only the
Planning Commission but as the City Council as well. However, when something
is openly discussed at several City Council meetings, Councilmember Etten
suggested repeat comments have a time limit applied, or only accept new points
or information. Councilmember Etten suggested this could be accomplished
through instructions from the Mayor versus a firm rule, and depending on the
issue. When a certain issue gets repeated comment from the same people,
Councilmember Etten noted it becomes a long, tedious, and repetitive situation;
and therefore, he suggested adjusting expectations from repeat comments via instructions
from the bench.
For those items
coming before the Planning Commission, while not precluding additional comment
at the City Council level, Mayor Roe suggested it made sense to reduce the
allotted time to three minutes when a formal public hearing had already been
McGehee suggested, when a speaker had already been heard or a list of points
had been made by one or a group of speakers, perhaps by the mayor restating
those points at the beginning of public comment, a statement could be made that
if new information is available then come forward.
expressed concern with that concept, noting that unless multiple copies of
minutes or materials provided at the Planning Commission from that public
testimony were made available for the public, it wouldn't be fair for the
public to not have that information available to them.
Laliberte clarified that from her perspective, if the only testimony
opportunity was at another meeting, they should not be precluded from speaking
here, but if there are minutes available from previous city council meetings
and part of that discussion, a statement could be made by the mayor that if
you've spoken before, your comments are in the packet as a mater of public
record, and therefore that speaker should yield to someone else.
suggested, as part of his instructions, besides noting the availability of
Planning Commission meeting minutes and/or previous City Council public
comment, alerting the public that those materials are available for the public
as well, and the relevant portion of meeting minutes, especially anticipating
those land use items, along with the staff report and attachments if for a
particular area of interest.
objection, Mayor Roe stated his intent to allot three minutes for second
comments on an issue versus five minutes if they come back before the body and
if and when a previous opportunity for public comment has been provided.
Rules of Order
addressed tonight, City Manager Trudgeon noted the frequent repetitive
discussion before and after a motion; but by using Rosenberg's Rules, a motion
should be put on the table before discussion. Mr. Trudgeon noted this would
require forethought coming into the meeting, but suggested more discipline in
following that procedure on a more regular basis.
suggested that as a starting point the staff-recommended motion could be put on
the table, even if the makers of the motion are not 100% in agreement with the
proposed motion or language.
Laliberte agreed that it would make for a better meeting to get the motions on
the table before discussion, with one discussion following and statements of
support or opposition.
McGehee opined that she found advanced discussion often provided for a better
motion, especially for more complicated items that she wasn't sure of her
colleagues' thoughts prior to that discussion, and allowing her to get an idea
of what the motion should be.
recognized Councilmember McGehee's point, but suggested trying this out and
seeing how the flow went. While it may become a tracking issue if there were
multiple amendments to a motion, Councilmember Etten noted the result may
instead be that it gets to a decision quicker, whether or not a motion was refined
from staff's recommended motion or made independently by an individual council
Councilmember McGehee's point, Mayor Roe noted that discussion was necessary
before calling a motion, providing an opportunity for amendment or change
accordingly; whether based on individual comments or staff's perspective.
Mayor Roe suggested trying that practice, and offered to track amendments
Laliberte noted that the practice didn't need to be perfect, and opined that
the City Council knew which items were not ready for a motion without prior
Etten stated he was on middle ground on this, using code violations as an
example, opining that could be covered with one slide. However, using another
example of a MnDOT presentation, Councilmember Etten stated he didn't want to
shorten that presentation to the point where the public couldn't understand a
project. Therefore, Councilmember Etten opined this fell to staff to find a
way to get information to the public as well as the City Council; defining
those items of importance and how best to portray that information and understanding
of background material.
Laliberte concurred to some extent, but suggested not limiting slides, but
instead reviewing what information was needed to best understand a topic, issue
or project. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she didn't need the staff
report read to her, but instead preferred an executive summary of the information
displayed on the screen; with any additional information outside the slides
provided in staff's presentation.
suggested more bullet points and visuals/graphics on slides for the City
Council and the public to help frame up the issue, identify the decision to be made,
and then turn the topic over for questions.
Willmus agreed with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, noting the
information contained in the power points didn't need each and every slide
read, but boiled down into an executive summary; and if available ahead of
time, provided to the City Council and public so all can come prepared for
discussion and questions.
opined that if the information was provided in the presentation but not in the
report, something was wrong; and therefore, he'd argue against more power
points, but more succinct information for those viewing from home.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that when staff makes their presentation, they
slide a map over of the area being talked about, or other pertinent information
to inform the discussion and presentation.
agreed with Councilmember McGehee, including policies and other documents for
display during discussion.
Trudgeon asked permission of the City Council to start instituting some of the
things discussed and agreed upon tonight before the next meeting.
objection, Mayor Roe so directed staff to proceed accordingly.
Discussion of City Council Rules of Procedures
Trudgeon suggested allowing staff to amend the Rules of Procedures and bring
them forward at the next meeting of the City Council.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, there were no additional rules or revisions of current rules
brought forward for consideration other than those addressed above.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:22 p.m.