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.
ACH Payments
|
$119,528.89
|
55831 – 55993
|
407,676.38
|
Total
|
$527,205.27
|
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:
Applicant/Location
|
Type of License
|
Jennifer Lynn Feddick @ Lifetime Fitness
2480 Fairview Avenue N
|
Massage Therapist
|
JoAnne Marie Lorenz @ Stephen’s Salon
1125 West County Road B
|
Massage Therapist
|
Rachel J. Fritz @ Well-Adjusted Chiropractic
2436 Albert Street N
|
Massage Therapist
|
Lisa Marie Scholl @ Lifetime Fitness
2480 Fairview Avenue N
|
Massage Therapist
|
Hamline Liquor, Inc., 2825 Hamline Avenue N
|
Cigarette &
Tobacco Products
|
Louise Peters @ Lifetime Fitness
2480 Fairview Avenue N
|
Massage Therapist
|
Scott Mark Shaffer @ GoldMaxx
10 Rosedale Center #725
|
Precious Metal Dealer
|
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:
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
Water
|
Dakota Supply
|
500 Water
Meters
|
$39,405.00
|
Sewer
|
Pipe Services
|
Televise
Sewer Mainline
|
23,831.60
|
Recreation
|
Goodmanson
Construction
|
Skating
Center Exterior Improvements
|
35,775.25
|
I.T.
|
Access
Communication
|
2009 Fiber
Installation
NOTE:
Original estimate per 5/11/09 presentation
was $134,750
|
85,029.45
|
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.
|