City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

August 10, 2009

1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.

(Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe; and Klausing)

Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Ihlan had previously advised that she would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to a family commitment.

City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.

2.         Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

          Mayor Klausing noted that applications were open for a citizen advisory team, serving as the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee; and encouraged interested citizens to apply, with applications due by Tuesday, August 18, 2009 by 4:30 p.m., and applications available via the City’s website, or at City Hall.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of July 27, 2009 Regular Meeting

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 27, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.

Corrections:

Page 6, lines 41 and 42

Page 8, line 32

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.                 Approve Payments

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented. 

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for the following applicants:

            Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

            Nays: None.

c.                  Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

            Nays: None.

d.                 Establish a Public Hearing on August 24, 2009 for OSAKA Roseville, Inc. application for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, establishing a Public Hearing for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at 1675 West County Road C, for OSAKA Roseville, Inc. to be held on August 24, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

e.                 Establish a Public Hearing on August 24, 2009 for Community Input on the 2010 Budget

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, establishing a Public Hearing to solicit community input on the 2010 Budget for August 24, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

f.                   Establish a Temporary Part-time Position within the Information Technology Division

Councilmember Johnson sought clarification of how it would be determined if and when the position was eliminated; with City Manager Malinen responding that the position was created as a temporary position subject to annual reassessment as indicated.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the creation of a temporary, part-time Desktop Support Specialist position within the Information Technology Division.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

g.                 Declare a Vacancy on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)

Mayor Klausing highlighted the vacancy on the HRA and encouraged citizens to apply, especially those with a passion for housing-related issues.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, declaring a vacancy on the HRA effective September 23 2009; and directing staff to advertise the vacancy with an application deadline of 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 2009 and applicant interviews scheduled on September 21, 2009; in accordance with standing Resolution No. 10541.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

h.                 Approve One-Day, On-Site Gambling Permit for the October 4, 2009 Roseville Fire Department Auxiliary Booya

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of the request by the Roseville Fire Department Auxiliary, Inc. to hold its annual Booya at 2701 N Lexington on October 4, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

i.                    Approve Project and Authorize Advertisement for bids for Walsh Lake Subwatershed Rain Garden Project

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of the Walsh Lake Subwatershed Drainage Improvements Project; authorizing staff to advertise for bids; and to engage WSB and Associates, Inc. for additional services through Phase I in an amount not to exceed $18,380.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

j.                   Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2009 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining Project to Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. of Chesterfield, Missouri

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10740 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2009 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining;” awarding bid to Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. of Chesterfield, Missouri; in an amount not to exceed $175,869.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

k.                  Adopt a Resolution for Declaration of Costs for projects to be assessed in 2009 and ordering preparation of assessment rolls

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10741 entitled, “Resolution Relating to Improvements P-07-02 Neighborhood 10 Reconstruction Project Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

11.             Public Hearings

a.                 Conduct a Public Hearing for On-Sale 3.2% Liquor and an On-Sale Wine License at 2100 North Snelling Avenue for Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request for an On-Sale Wine and On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License by Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC at 2100 N Snelling Avenue; with staff recommending approval of the application.

Brian Beers, Applicant Representative

Councilmember Roe asked if Mr. Beers was aware of the City’s voluntary training program for liquor license applicants; and reduced penalties in case of any compliance issues in the future.

Mr. Beers advised that the firm’s legal counsel was assisting them in making application to participate in the training, expressing the firm’s willingness to be responsible sellers of liquor.

Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:13 p.m. to receive public comment on the application for On-Sale 3.2% Liquor and an On-Sale Wine License at 2100 North Snelling Avenue for Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC; with no one appearing for or against.

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Approve an On-Sale 3.2% Liquor and an On-Sale Wine License at 2100 North Snelling Avenue for Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the On-Sale 3.2% Liquor and an On-Sale Wine License, for Smashburger Acquisition – Minneapolis, LLC, located at 2100 N Snelling Avenue.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Electronic Communications Policy

City Manager Malinen presented the most recent draft of an Electronic Communication Policy for the City Council, based on previous drafts and discussions and suggestions of individual Councilmembers and the City Attorney.

Mayor Klausing questioned Page 1, line 36 (III. Communications with members of the public); and intent of the language for confidentiality and whether that should be up to the Councilmember.

Councilmember Pust observed that expectations couldn’t be legislated; and suggested the word “expect” be replaced with “require.”

City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember Pust’s point, and opined that her suggested language change would be a better choice, and would be consistent with State Statute, allowing that either the sender or recipient could choose that correspondence remain private.

Mayor Klausing further addressed page 2, line 10 – 12 related to individual Councilmembers copying each other on specific inquiries.

City Attorney Anderson advised that this language originated with the sample ordinance provided by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) related to serial communications that were in violation of Open Meeting Law; however, he opined that the statement achieved nothing, and that the City’s proposed draft ordinance, Item VI, addressing communication outside the realm of a Council meeting, provided sufficient language and intent under the law, and to avoid backchannel discussions.

Councilmember Pust opined that, if not prohibited, why state the language at all; acknowledging that backdoor communication wasn’t being invited, but that there was no need to do more than the law required, to allow for a balance between efficiency and transparency, which should be clear in other areas of the draft policy.

Discussion among Councilmembers included specific examples of potential inquiries that the entire Council may wish to know about; with Council consensus determining that the last sentence (lines 11 and 12) be deleted entirely.

Mayor Klausing further addressed language of the first bullet point on page 2, line 27 and 28, (Section V. Communication during Council meetings), and questioned the intent of that language.

City Attorney Anderson noted that the public has multiple ways to petition individual Councilmembers; however, suggested that this section was related to that communication occurring during an actual meeting, serving to avoid the whole purpose of the Open Meeting law, where communication is sought to be open and in a manner where the public can hear, making electronic communication inappropriate during a meeting.

Discussion included personal versus city business-related communication and perceptions.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the Electronic Communications Policy as presented and identified as “Attachment B” to the Request for Council Action dated August 10, 2009; as amended:

                                            i.                        Page 1, line 36; Section III. Communications with members of the public:

“Members of the public cannot expect [require] confidentiality when electronically communicating…”

                                          ii.                        Page 1, line 11 and 12; Section IV. Meeting Materials:

Delete last sentence: “A Council Member should not copy other Council Members on his/her inquiry.”

Councilmember Roe thanked staff for their work in achieving the final draft; with Mayor Klausing echoing that appreciation.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Receive the 2010-2019 Capital Investment Plan

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a brief summary of the 2010-2019 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as prepared in accordance with the goals and strategies identified in the Imagine Roseville 2025 initiative and goals and objectives subsequently identified by the City Council, with their input to staff, as well as that of the Council’s various Advisory Commissions.

Mr. Miller noted that the document carried numerous assumptions, as detailed in the Executive Summary, based on changing priorities, direction and needs.  Mr. Miller emphasized that this document was designed as a planning tool, and not a budget request document; and that annual budget requests for any listed items only be considered after careful discussion and appropriation of funds by the City Council. 

Mr. Miller noted that this updated document represented approximately $10.2 million in capital needs, up several million from last year; and expressed his expectation that the documented needs would continue to grow annually as the document was periodically revised.   Mr. Miller addressed the sizable funding gap between asset funding mechanisms and asset requirements; and advised that the document included items discussed in the four most recent community meetings held over the last few weeks.

Mr. Miller reviewed the formatting of the document by category and function with a one-page summary of larger capital items, in an effort to provide the City Council and community with an aggregate look.  Mr. Miller noted that he was finalizing more detailed spreadsheets, similar to those provided last year and linked to this document that would provide greater detail and consistency for each category and/or function.  Mr. Miller asked that Councilmembers review, reflect upon, and provide input to staff for further refinement; at which time staff would ask that the Council formally adopt the document as a planning tool.

Councilmember Pust advised that she was pleased to hear that, contrary to the requested action in the Request for Council Action for tonight, that staff was not seeking adoption at this time, as she had numerous questions.

Councilmember Pust specifically addressed the Police (page 14) and Fire Department (page 17) functions and rationale for those particular departments recitation of historical operating costs and staffing deficiencies not related to capital, which appeared inconsistent with the formatting of other departments.  Councilmember Pust also questioned references to the chart on page 16 to correspond with that page.  Councilmember Pust noted that page 17 (Fire Department) didn’t include community meeting discussions (i.e., held at Central Park) related to replacement and/or relocation of stations; and noted the need for further discussions beyond the Study completed in 2008 and current leadership vacancies.  Councilmember Pust cautioned that, if this document is to represent a consensus of the City Council to the public, the document itself was premature of those policy decisions and priority details being discussed by the City Council.  Councilmember Pust suggested that the document needed more work.

Mayor Klausing asked Councilmember Pust if prioritizing wasn’t part of the annual budget process, rather than attempting to prioritize over a 10 year period; and opined that he saw this CIP tool as a high-level analysis of long-term capital needs over that 10 year period.

Councilmember Pust responded that it was vital to differentiate between levels of analysis provided for funding during budget discussions, based on specific funding sources versus a “wish list” identified as a “capital plan” that had yet to be vetted by Councilmembers during policy level discussions before representing it as a consensus document to the public.

Councilmember Roe addressed Pathway construction (page 29) and the need having a policy discussion as to whether to move forward before approving a CIP plan that included those pathways.  Councilmember Roe opined that, by calling the document an investment plan indicates that the City Council had already prioritized it, even though it may be identified as unfunded, that it still gave it status.

Councilmember Johnson opined that he viewed the document differently, and that it correlated with the Imagine Roseville 2025 vision, with pathways being a big part of that.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that the CIP represented the overall plan or “forest” with annual budgetary processes representing the “trees,” for a more detailed analysis.

Mr. Miller advised that it was the intent of the CIP to take the goals and strategies, and subsequent discussion and priorities, of the Imagine Roseville 2025 process, and provided for a calculation of those goals; in addition to a simple calculation for replacement of existing obligatory assets (i.e., rolling stock and equipment).  Mr. Miller recognized the need for large-policy discussions related to items such as fire stations; and acknowledged that not all items included in the CIP had been vetted by the City Council; again emphasizing that this was a planning tool, and those items listed needed to be addressed one way or another.

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller addressed Councilmember Pust’s issues related to staffing items included in the CIP; noting that those items included in some department-specific areas were included as context for assets (i.e., squad cars, trucks, and other rolling stocks) and based on some departments expanding and others not having done so.

Mayor Klausing sought additional Councilmember comment on how to proceed with further Council policy discussions (i.e., fire stations and/or pathways).

Councilmember Roe opined that including those items in the CIP was appropriate as a way to document costs and identification by the community as a need; and noted that future receipt of the more-detailed spreadsheets should provide funded and unfunded areas, and reflect back to this document, based on revenue sources (i.e., taxes, fees, other sources) and related gaps for that funding. 

Mayor Klausing opined that by showing that distinction of actual projected costs, available funding or lack thereof, and/or gaps in revenue sources, should serve to clarify for the public those items authorized to-date by the City Council.

Councilmember Pust suggested that more time be taken with the document, with flagging of problematic areas, particularly since the document was now available to the public on-line; and that it should reflect the City Council as one voice, and easy for the community to follow.  Councilmember Pust asked that each department be consistent with other departments to allow for easier understanding by the public.  Councilmember Pust opined that “we can do better” in using this as a marketing tool or for dissemination to the public; and that the larger items needed more City Council discussion.  Councilmember Pust advised that she needed to do more review of the draft CIP based on her discussions in the community over the last few weeks.

Mayor Klausing requested that City Manager Malinen ask staff, as a stylistic matter, that departments make their sections more consistent; and that those items needing further discussion at City Council meetings be highlighted for upcoming meeting agendas as appropriate.

Further discussion included the plan’s purpose, from a City Council policy-making perspective, as a compilation of items with a level of consensus when money became available; and clarification in the document that the pathway amounts are a portion of or the entire build out over a 10 year period.

Councilmember Roe noted that the department-specific strategic plans were different and separate from the CIP; however, concurred that the formatting needed to be more consistent among and between departments and categories, allowing City Council comments to the City Manager following presentation by Mr. Miller of the detailed spreadsheets.

No formal action taken.

b.                 Discuss Revised Professional Services Policy

City Manager Malinen presented the most compiled revisions to a Professional Services Policy, with input from Councilmembers Pust and Roe.

Mayor Klausing opined that overall he was pleased with the proposed language, its intent and purpose, in accomplishing the City Council’s goals in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Mayor Klausing questioned language related to “term-based” contracts (page 1, line 30) versus “multi-year” contracts (page 1, line 34) and whether they were one in the same.

City Manager Malinen clarified that they were one in the same, but that “multi-year” seemed to provide more clarity.

Mayor Klausing questioned the wording on page 1, line 45, “forms,” with City Manager Malinen advising that this should be “firms.”

Mayor Klausing questioned the need to have City Council representation (page 1, line 44) for interviews and evaluation of candidate firms, given the statutory provisions for the City Manager having hiring approval subject to City Council approval.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of this provision, as originally provided in his proposed policy draft, dated April 1, 2009, and identified as “Attachment D” to the Request for Council Action dated August 10, 2009.  Councilmember Roe’s rationale in including the language was based on the Civil Attorney dealing almost exclusively with staff on a daily basis, but also based on a relationship with the City Council, whether providing advice corporately at formal meetings, or providing advice to individual members outside the meeting format.  However, Councilmember Roe noted that his original language was “should” not “shall.”

Councilmember Pust expressed confusion in attempting to track terminology changes in the new “Attachment A,” and those items included in her proposed policy identified as “Attachment C” and that of Councilmember Roe, previously identified as “Attachment D.”

City Manager Malinen advised that he had taken excerpts of both Councilmember Pust’s and Roe’s language and created “Attachment A” as a hybrid document, including the good concepts and language in both of their drafts, as well as subsequent City Council discussions.  City Manager Malinen clarified that there was no need for Council action at tonight’s meeting, allowing for further refinement and review.

Councilmember Roe asked that “Attachment A,” page 1, line 34, include language for specificity of when performance reviews may happen to clarify the City’s intent, not that a review happen at the end of a contract period, with language similar to that proposed in his draft (Attachment D), line 42.

Councilmember Pust noted that her original version (Attachment C) suggested mid-term reviews for a three year contract, (page 1, under “Policy” section); and that the language was substantially different than either Councilmember Roe’s version or the City Manager’s hybrid version.

Councilmember Roe suggested mid-term or annual reviews, at a minimum.

Councilmembers Roe, Johnson and Pust spoke in support of annual reviews.

City Manager Malinen indicated that he would change page 1, line 34 of “Attachment A” to read “Multi-year contracts shall include a [an annual] performance review…”

Further discussion included defining what a performance review should consist of.

Councilmember Johnson suggested that it should be an annual meeting with the City Council, similar to that for Advisory Commissions.

Councilmember Roe suggested that the City Manager provide a written report to the City Council.

Mayor Klausing questioned if the performance review would be similar to an employee or supervisor review, with the City Manager reporting back to the City Council.

Councilmember Roe concurred that this would be one way to approach the evaluation.

Councilmember Pust suggested that the terms for judging performance should be included in the contract.

Councilmember Roe noted the variety of professional services under contract, and how to stipulate specific criteria to use.

Councilmember Pust suggested that the criteria would be within the contract itself, not in this policy, but allowing both parties to know the terms for evaluation.

Mayor Klausing questioned Councilmember Johnson’s intent if the City Council be involved in only the City’s attorneys or all consulting contractors would be involved in such an evaluation.

Councilmember Johnson opined that, with multi-year contracts, as long as the City Council had input into the review process, and received input from the City Manager, an annual review would not need to occur in front of the City Council.  Councilmember Johnson suggested that, in the situation of a negative court case or situation, the firm provide an explanation to the City Council, and identify how the firm used it as a learning experience in a formal report to the City Manager, and then provided to the City Council.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it was his desire that the review process would be a great experience for both parties; however, further opined that there needed to be a process to avoid issues percolating long-term. Councilmember Johnson suggested that the City Council provide input to the City Manager of issues to be raised at the review.

Councilmember Roe noted that there was always the expectation of good service, but that in any contract, those expectations needed to be addressed in the contract, particularly when best value contracts were used to reflect those values.

Councilmember Pust noted that the review process should not be considered in an adversarial way, but allowing for an opportunity on a regular basis to receive feedback on your performance; and serving a firm’s business interest for rebidding or reference purposes.

Councilmember Roe opined that it was appropriate for the City Manager to report to the City Council, based on the defined criteria (i.e., job description) and relative performance, similar to that used for the City Manager position, with an opportunity for questions from the City Council, a critique ahead of the process or a formal review to address issues during evaluation and follow-up with Councilmembers.  Councilmember Roe questioned the need for that procedural language to be included in the policy itself.

City Manager Malinen summarized revisions to include, based on tonight’s discussion: language on “Attachment D” that included reporting of results to the City Council; feedback that there is a desired opportunity to provide input; development of criteria for evaluation of performance and report the outcome of the evaluation to the City Council to allow the City Council to connect to that process; and development of such a form for consistency and reporting purposes.  City Manager Malinen suggested that the evaluation procedure results to the City Council be incorporated into page 1, line 35.

Councilmember Pust requested additional revisions from her initial review of “Attachment A:”

                                            i.                        Reformatting the policy to include numbering, not boxed bullet points for easier reading by the public;

                                           ii.                        Correct terminology for “best value” to “best overall value” based on consultations with City Attorney Anderson, to avoid confusion with the intent of this policy versus state statute and potentially constraining or construing that intent

                                         iii.                        In the “Purpose” statement; return language from her version in “Attachment C” (page 1, third bullet point) related to ensuring public confidence, integrity and transparency.  Councilmember Pust indicated that this language was in response to Councilmember Ihlan’s concerns related to economic market forces.

Councilmember Roe concurred with the proposed language, and indicated that it was his intent to have a policy that addressed councilmember concerns, while also being supported by City Manager Malinen and workable for staff to use.

Councilmember Johnson expressed his support for those changes suggested; and opined that it was a good policy.

No formal action taken.

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen provided projected agenda items for future meeting.

Councilmember Pust suggested that some agenda items be moved around; opining that the “Budgeting for Outcomes” report that the City Council had invested in should come before the City Council prior to holding substantial budget discussions on August 17, 2009.

City Manager Malinen advised that the tentative agenda process was subject to change; and indicated that the original place holder for the budget requests on August 17, 2009 may have been a carryover from previous budget processes, and not actually related to the budgeting for outcomes process.  City Manager Malinen advised that he would consult with Finance Director Miller and the City’s financial consultant, Springsted, to determine when the report was scheduled to come before the City Council.

Councilmember Pust opined that, if receipt of the report could not be moved, there would be no choice but to schedule special meetings in order to complete the preliminary budget process prior to the September 15, 2009 deadline for submission to Ramsey County to meet Truth in Taxation deadlines.

Councilmember Roe advised that he didn’t want to discount informal staff discussions scheduled for August 25 or August 26, and expressed his desire to incorporate their input into the process before the City Council got too far into the decision-making process.

Councilmember Pust noted that tonight’s meeting was the second meeting that had been adjourned before 8:00 p.m.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Further discussion was held related to upcoming meetings, topics, and the budget process and timeline itself; and specific individual Councilmember requests for the budget.

Councilmember Pust requested updates and discussions on the City’s current impervious surface issue; timing for zoning variances and regulation changes at general or final concept stages; concern expressed in some residential neighborhoods as to why Roseville continued to have a five foot setback regardless of the character of the neighborhood; and recreational vehicle parking in residential neighborhoods.

Councilmember Pust noted that the RFP for zoning ordinance changes would be coming before the City Council soon, and she sought to have policy discussions related to the above-referenced zoning issues before that to allow it to flow back into the process.

Councilmember Roe noted that some items would be taken care of prior to the overall review; but would tie into the overall discussion.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:27 pm.