City Council Meeting Minutes
July 22, 2013
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan arrived at approximately 6:08 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Willmus suggested moving Business Item 13.c ahead on the agenda to facilitate adjacent audience members in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Mayor Roe noted that there were several items on tonight’s agenda of interest to attendees: Twin Lakes and the Josephine Heights Final Plat.
Councilmember Etten suggested that if agenda items remained on the projected schedule, it may be more preferable to leave the agenda as printed to avoid any confusion with people anticipating a particular time.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of moving the Josephine Heights discussion immediately after the Twin Lakes discussion and before budget discussions.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of moving the Josephine Heights Plat discussion as Item 10.b.
Mayor Roe suggested moving Item 13.c entitled, “Approve Josephine Heights Final Plat” to occur after item 10.a, recognizing that it remained an action item.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon advised that, after further review, no City Council action was needed, only administrative execution of documents; and therefore recommended removal of Consent Item 7.j entitled, “Approve the Interlocal Contract to join HGACBuy.”
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced the first of three meetings over the summer of the League of Minnesota Cities Fiscal Futures Policy Committee, with the first meeting scheduled this Wednesday, July 24, 2013. Mayor Roe advised that this committee discusses financing for local government, driving establishment of LMC policies at the legislature. Mayor Roe invited individual Councilmembers, staff, and/or the public to alert him of any areas of interest or concern; and committed to keeping everyone informed of activities of this committee.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
a. Approve Minutes of July 15, 2013 Meeting
Mayor Roe noted the need for staff to incorporate and/or remove bench handouts as noted in draft meeting minutes, in accordance with City Council policy. Specific to the July 15, 2013 meeting minutes, Mayor Roe noted that this involved page 3, lines 9 and 10; page 4, line 27; page 9, line 31; and page 13, line 35. Mayor Roe asked that staff add these materials to the packet of record going forward, with the exception of Councilmember McGehee’s meeting minute recommendations, which should become part of the meeting minutes as adopted.
· Page 9, lines 39-41 (Etten)
Correct dollar amount from $50,000 to $70,000.
City Attorney Gaughan arrived at this time, approximately 6:08 pm.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 15, 2013, meeting as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
Recognizing that Consent Item 7.h entitled, Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue,” involved a family business issue, and wishing to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest, Councilmember Willmus recused himself from the bench for discussion/action of the Consent Agenda and left the Council Chambers.
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Mayor Roe thanked the Finance Department staff for successfully updating the Check Register with subtotals; opining that it was a very helpful addition to the report.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Check Series #
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
b. Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
Type of License
Stephen’s Hair Salon; 2174 Snelling Avenue N. #3
Massage Therapy Establishment
JoAnne Marie Lorenz; Stephen’s Hair Salon
2174 Snelling Avenue N #3
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items In Excess of $5,000
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:
Budget / CIP
(Per lowest bid for Year 1 of 3 year LED replacement program)
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
d. Receive Shared Services Report
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the quarterly shared services update.
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
e. Receive Grant Application Report
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the quarterly grant application update.
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
f. Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 Update
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the quarterly IR2025 medium and long-term goal update.
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
g. Approve a Sanitary Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation at 2645 Snelling Avenue for Kath Fuel Oil Service Company
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11078 (Attachment D) entitled “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement at 2645 Snelling Avenue (PF13-008).
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
h. Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11079 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 3040 Hamline Avenue Utility Construction – Roseville Project 13-10;” to Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. of Ramsey, MN in an amount not to exceed $98,623.00, subject to conditions as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 22, 2013.
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
i. Consider Reappointment to Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Mayor Roe recognized Member Vicki Lee for her past work on the HRA; and solicited City Council support and ratification of her reappointment.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support for Ms. Lee.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11080 (Attachment A) entitled “ Resolution Approving Mayor’s Appointment of Vicki Lee to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville;” for the term of five years beginning September 24, 2013 to September 23, 2013.
Ayes: McGehee; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
j. Approve the Interlocal Contract to joining HGACBuy
As previously noted, staff requested removal of this item for administrative versus City Council action.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:15 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:17 pm, at which time Councilmember Willmus returned to the dais.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Twin Lakes Property Owners Discussion
Mayor Roe welcomed representatives and/or owners of Twin Lakes property and thanked them for their attendance for tonight’s discussion, asking that they identify themselves and provide comment to facilitate tonight’s discussion.
Terry Foster, Representative of Hagen Properties, 2785 Fairview Avenue North Mr. Foster provided a bench handout packet, attached hereto and made a part hereof. As a real estate broker for over thirty (30 years, Mr. Foster opined that the problems experienced in the Twin Lakes area were no different than those experienced in any other City, with some more readily solved in the short-term than others. Mr. Foster advised that the real estate community looked to four (4) considerations in marketing/developing properties:
1. Communication with the businesses and financial community
2. Attitude: Is the City reactive or proactive; positive or negative?
3. Who’s responsible and are they effective or not?
4. Evaluation – Will the City take a look to change after evaluations?
In referencing the map provided in his bench handout, Mr. Foster noted that even though the area was listed as 210 plus acres, there were essentially only four (4) parcels; further noting that the parcel identified as “Parcel #8” would receive an initial hearing for a proposed development later in tonight’s meeting. In talking to the owners/principles of those four (4) parcels, Mr Foster advised that without exception they were all interested in doing something. Mr. Foster opined that the location Twin Lakes was superb.
Mr. Foster noted that there were eleven (11) banks within and representing the financial community in Roseville; all active and successful; and with enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act, had that tool available to them and an obligation to assist businesses and residents in the community.
Mr. Foster further opined that the four (4) parcels were not very big; and suggested use of the 1033 Tax Deferred Exchange in conjunction with 1031 as another option, depending on whether or not a property was under threat of condemnation or if the owner or principle wished to sell using the Tax Deferred Exchange. Mr. Foster opined that it would take further review by the City Attorney to provide a legal opinion based on specific properties; but he was of the opinion that such an option could work to everyone’s benefit, and suggested that the City Council consider it as an option to assist and apply in the Twin Lakes area. Mr. Foster advised that he included a copy of the 1033 law in his packet of handouts.
Mr. Foster referenced another part of his handout that provided a copy of a July 14, 2013, Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper article on Shakopee, MN and corporations locating in that community.
Mr. Foster noted that the next two (2) pages of his handout provided information about the Small Business Administration (SBA) and willingness of U. S. Bank in assisting the business community with planned expansion, rehabilitation or relocation efforts.
Mr. Foster referenced the remaining information in his handout from the legal department of the Minnesota League of Cities, opining that it was a great organization.
Mr. Foster opined that Twin Lakes was not very complicated; and noted that there was a group of investment bankers from New York that had come to Roseville to look at the Twin Lakes area to determine if it was investment grade property. Mr. Ralston opined that they had been very impressed with the Twin Lakes area due to its location, the Park & Ride amenity already in place, and various residential potential.
Mr. Foster further opined that, from a business perspective, he would like to see a consortium formed of bankers, a lawyer, and perhaps Councilmember Willmus, to set up a Business Task Force that would provide contact information in the lobby of City Hall to direct business interests I who to see if they wished to expand or re-establish a business in Roseville. Mr. Foster noted that this was not a complicated process, and would greatly improve business communications. In order to put together a successful project, Mr. Foster noted that it took architects and engineers, with the land aspect only a small part of the equation. Mr. Ralston opined that by the City Council considering financing options (e.g. 1033) and putting together a consortium, it would be a real plus for the City of Roseville.
Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Foster for the information he provided, and noted that discussions were already underway for outreach efforts to the business community by the Community Development Department. Councilmember McGehee questioned if property owners for parcels #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 were all interested in selling.
Mr. Foster responded by saying it wasn’t if you sold, but how you sold: whether a partnership, leveraged buyout, or other option; and that part of the selling process was addressing a large capital gain and how to address that.
While appreciating the information provided by Mr. Foster, Councilmember McGehee advised that she was more interested in how property owners saw future development of the area, or the kinds of businesses or activities they would prefer in the Twin Lakes area.
Mr. Foster responded that Roseville should set up a development corporation or something to serve as a facilitator for Twin Lakes, Har Mar Mall area or any other particular area, exclusive of any particular owner or any specific cash contribution, but to simply serve as a facilitator. Mr. Foster noted that the SBA and banks now had money and were more flexible, offering an option for demolition and construction of a new facility as a possibility. However, Mr. Foster noted that a financial vehicle was needed to do that; with enormous benefits possible. Mr. Foster advised that this could be done with a tenant as well as a property owner, and opined that the City needed to look long-term. In response to Councilmember McGehee’s request to elaborate, Mr. Foster opined that it would take a culmination of everyone working together and all the pieces fitting together so when investment bankers came into town, they would readily observe that Roseville was an investment town.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus related to the positive feedback received for the Park & Ride facility, Mr. Ralston advised that it indicated that Roseville was looking ahead and had the foresight not only for its residents who were commuting, but also serving as a destination point. Mr. Ralston further noted the positives with and recognition of the area’s education system, and the strength of corporations surrounding Roseville (e.g. Boston Scientific, Land O’Lakes, Deluxe Check, Medtronic, and St. Jude’s) all high paying jobs. Mr. Ralston opined that Roseville could take advantage of that corporate support and take the lead in further development. Mr. Ralston referenced the Hagen Property Development proposal coming forward later tonight, as an example of the culmination of efforts, with the system working.
Jim Walston, Representative of Old Dominion Freight Line (2750 between Iona Lane and Twin Lakes Parkway and Cleveland Avenue and Mt. Ridge Road),
Mr. Walston, involved for five (5) plus years with the Old Dominion site, concurred with the comments of Mr. Ralston, and encouraged the City to act in the role of facilitator. Mr. Walston opined that he had observed this all the way through, with the condemnation of property by the Metropolitan Council 4-5 years ago for the Park & Ride facility; and Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke working as facilitators to resolve issues and concerns with the property’s potential future use. While it ended up that no financing was available in 2008 to see the proposed hotel project through, Mr. Walston noted that Mr. Trudgeon had continued to work with various parties to work out matters for the Old Dominion site and any future land use issues on that site and make it more marketable. Mr. Walston advised that Colliers/Welsch was currently marketing the site; and any old concerns about municipal involvement was minimal at best, with Old Dominion currently based in North Carolina and operating routes out of their Blaine, MN facility; with the intent for the property to never serve as a truck terminal again; and continued to look for the right buyer for the property.
Mr. Walston agreed that it was vital to know who to contact at the City of Roseville; whether for their brokers, a potential buyer, him personally, or anyone to be confident of a listening ear and how to get great service from the City.
At the request of Mayor Roe regarding any remaining concerns they had with current zoning of the property for land use, Mr. Walston advised that the City’s introduction of performance standards for setbacks several years ago had created some initial concern; but opined that they no longer remained or were seen as any impediment for possible uses for the property and prospective buyers coming forward with a plan.
Robert Murphy, President of Applewood Point – Roseville at Langton Lake, 1996 Langton Lake Drive, Residential Facility in Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
Coming from a different perspective, as the only successful housing development to-date, Mr. Murphy noted reviewed the phased development of this residential complex immediately to the west of the Langton lake ballfields. Mr. Murphy asked that the City continue to consider the future vision for the area as redevelopment went forward, especially related to existing housing in the area and north of Twin Lakes. Mr. Murphy recognized the enjoyable amenity of being able to walk and bike around the park; and expressed concern with how various types of businesses might affect those amenities going forward, asking that consideration be given for traffic volumes and retaining the walkability of that area, in keeping with the City’s vision and comprehensive plan guidance.
Dan Regan, Air Lake Development
Mr. Regan advised that he represented owners of the twenty-one (21) acre, three (3) parcel area immediately adjacent to the Bylerly’s store on County Road C between Fairview and Snelling Avenues. As a family business developer for properties in the Twin Cities for over twenty (20) years (e.g. Air Lake Industrial park in Lakeville, MN and other industrial/retail projects in the metropolitan area) and having owned this property for a long time, Mr. Regan asked that everyone remember one vital thing. As dialogue opened on the Twin Lakes Master Plan overall, Mr. Regan asked that everyone remember that development is cyclical and, as a developer, he didn’t drive development, he was simply a developer; and tenants drove development. Mr. Regan noted that for some time, development had been driven by industrial tenants, but over the last 5-6 years, there had been no interest in that use until recently. During that time, Mr. Regan advised that medical/office had been an interested use. However, Mr. Regan reiterated that planners don’t drive development, only the end users and tenants.
Mr. Regan suggested a first step may be to take a more focused look at the Twin Lakes Overlay District and determine what makes sense. In Mr. Regan’s opinion, the residential cooperative building off Langton Lake was a good example for that specific area. Specific to his company’s property, Mr. Regan opined that there were some constraints based on land use options and questioned if their property should be held to the same standard and sue restrictions for land use design standards as the rest of the district. Mr. Regan noted that their property on County Road C was bounded on the west and north up to Terrace Drive by a county ditch as well as a significant topographical change from their property to the west (e.g. Tile Shop, H & W, etc.) with a forty foot (40’) drop. Therefore, Mr. Regan advised that there was no possible physical connection available from their property to those properties on Fairview Avenue without a significant engineering feat. Also, noting recent improvements to County Road C with the addition of turn lanes, Mr. Regan noted the limitations of what they could do on their property based on their primary access on County Road C.
Based on that situation, Mr. Regan specifically asked that the City consider pulling their property out of the Twin Lakes Planning District, allowing them to something more in line with uses to the east. Mr. Regan opined that a senior cooperative development didn’t make sense on their property that would look out to truck terminals or a shopping center; and some type of use more in line with the shopping center to the west would be more appropriate. Mr. Regan suggested looking at the Master Plan to buffer outside of that; but reiterated that they couldn’t connect to properties on the west or north.
Mr. Regan also requested that the City reconsider its overall goals for this area; while retaining interest in redeveloping into nice properties and eliminating blight, while creating new jobs and enhancing the City’s tax base. Mr. Regan noted that it took catalysts to accomplish these goals, such as capital. If more flexible uses were allowed on their property, Mr. Regan advised that they were prepared to come in with redevelopment plans, since the time was now right in the development cycle to look at it in earnest. Mr. Regan opined that he thought his firm could be that catalyst to the east side of the Twin lakes property, an area that was treading water right now; with his firm on the verge of the right time for them to look at redevelopment options and to provide some options of interest to the City as well.
In response to Mayor Roe’s question on the types of proposed uses, Mr. Regan responded that twenty-one (21) acres was a big piece of land, but they would need to secure anchor tenants, leaning toward heavy commercial use with some retail piece to anchor and kick-off development. Without knowing the size or scale at this time, Mr. Regan advised that he did not see their property coming up with a dense, multi-story mixed use, opining that it didn’t make sense at that location. In response to Mayor Roe, Mr. Regan clarified that he was not limiting that proposed use to retail unless it made sense for that area.
Mayor Roe noted that this had been discussed by the City Council and staff earlier this year, permitted uses within the overall area or restricting uses in other parts of the district. Mayor Roe asked Mr. Regan what uses he saw as most compatible to what was in the area of his property and how it fit with current zoning to facilitate that type of use. Mayor Roe questioned if Community Mixed Use (CMU) land use designation made sense.
Mr. Regan noted that his firm invested a lot of costs at the front end without knowing if a project would succeed or not; and asked that the City keep that in mind and eliminate uncertainties to the greatest degree possible; suggesting that the City could do this by taking a more focused approach to the Twin Lakes Master Plan.
Mayor Roe suggested, with concurrence of Mr. Regan, that therefore the City needed to provide as much flexibility in uses as possible, and not proscribe extremely specific uses on specific parcels,.
Councilmember McGehee sought comment from Mr. Regan on an additional anchor retail tenant and increased traffic volumes on County Road C between Snelling and Fairview Avenues when Wal-Mart would already have significant impacts to that roadway.
Mr. Regan, based on his personal experience and noting his office location at the Premier Bank building in Roseville, advised that he did not find existing conditions problematic; opining that he found traffic volumes with his frequent use of those roadways acceptable. Mr. Regan noted that he did not have projections on future impacts, referring that to a future traffic study to determine. However, Mr. Regan opined that existing conditions today were not that bad.
Regarding connectivity, Councilmember McGehee noted her propensity for a more flexible plan with Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) providing that connectivity without being so highly regulated. Councilmember McGehee questioned Mr. Regan on his perception, as well as opinions from other developers present tonight, on the use of PUD’s for large acreage sites.
Mr. Regan opined that connectivity was a great amenity, noting the recent request of Semantic for crosswalks for its employees to access Langton Lake; and suggesting that future developments may wish similar amenities. Mr. Regan opined that whether or not a PUD format would provide allow for more flexibility on site was difficult to answer, but may be a good way to accomplish that. However, Mr. Regan opined that more details would need to be known to determine how beneficial PUD’s would be to the overall overlay district.
In response to Councilmember Laliberte regarding what types of development are most prevalent now, Mr. Regan again noted that planners didn’t drive development, but were only reactive to demand and needed to strike when the time was right. Given the nature of Roseville as a well-known regional shopping area, Mr. Regan opined that there would always be the demand for some additional retail in Roseville, whether the City Council or community wanted to hear that or not. Mr. Regan opined that there could be some interest for office uses also, but clarified that there were already a lot of available spaces out there. Mr. Regan further opined that there wouldn’t be any bulk industrial development, but could be some office/showroom, even though there was also a lot of that available already. While there were quite a number of medical/office buildings already in Roseville, Mr. Regan anticipated that there may be more interest, if it was segmented with retail or eating or service based businesses, always in demand. Mr. Regan opined that there may also be interest in market rate or low income senior housing in the right places.
Mark Zwebber, 1650 Terrace Drive (Trucking Building)
As an owner of the property for the last ten (10) years, and past due diligence before that purchase when City staff had been adamant that the property was going to be taken by Eminent Domain, Mr. Zwebber, advised that he was attending tonight to learn. While he continued to wait for something to happen on the east end of Twin lakes, Mr. Zwebber noted that his interest was in finding out what was going on, as it continued to be.
Recognizing additional property owners in the audience, Mayor Roe invited their participation in the discussion as well.
At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the 1033 process, Mr. Trudgeon responded that in the past there had been a property owner looking for voluntary condemnation of their property for their financial benefit due to the spread of the capital gain of the sale over several years; however, the City Council had voted that request down at that time. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the request had been in 2007 for the Dorso property; with the City not having any condemnation plans, and the City Council having not appetite for proceeding. Mr. Trudgeon advised that there had been some condemnation proceedings in 2005, which had been concluded, but noted that there was nothing occurring at this point.
Mayor Roe suggested that, if the City Council remained not interested in providing that benefit, they may need a policy discussion on how to address or promote other financial tools and options.
Mr. Foster continued to support the 1033 option for properties always under the threat of condemnation in the Twin Lakes area, and how those properties could be defined from a legal standpoint, whether voluntary or non-voluntary. Mr. Foster advised that he was aware of two (2) property owners currently wanting to sell, but not wanting to go through the 1031 process; and suggested the City consider looking at the 1033 option to assist those property owners.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned the process for Metro Transit to condemn the Old Dominion property and how that happened; and whether it could happen elsewhere.
Mr. Walston advised that it had been a friendly condemnation as the site had been identified for the Park & Ride facility at the same time proposals came forward for the Old Dominion and Extra Lease sites; so a parcel for the Park & Ride facility had been carved out of the proposed hotel site at that time, with a negotiated condemnation and both projects proceeding on separate tracks.
Mayor Roe noted that it also involved federal funding that drove the timeline; opining that when there was a deadline for receiving money, things could happen quickly.
Councilmember McGehee asked that Mr. Trudgeon address current focus and direction for the Twin Lakes area in general.
Mr. Trudgeon responded that the focus has been to the west side of Fairview Avenue, with no movement or interest at all for the east side. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to struggle with businesses wanting to continue to operate and turnover, and was working on options that could allow businesses to transition at some point, even if they were not there yet, without necessarily saying that they could no longer operate there. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff’s goal was to make sure the area remained vibrant until properties were ready to turn over and not be a group of vacant buildings or properties. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was vital for staff that there not be a repeat of the truck terminals and vacancies on that east side. If not feasible for a CMU zoning designation, Mr. Trudgeon suggested a way for a property owner to come to the City Council seeking a way to make that transition. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there was no direct plan for the City to purchase land anywhere in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area or east of Fairview Avenue; but that the intent was to let the market dictate development along with property owners based on the economy.
Mr. Zwebber advised that he had experience with 1031’s and opined that they were an interesting tool. At the time of his purchase of the property, and with staff advising that it would end up in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, Mr. Zwebber opined that he had considered it a positive that they would probably end up doing a 1031 process. By allowing additional time for the City Council to facilitate such an option, Mr. Zwebber opined that he had no problem with that potential; and opined that it remained of interest to him.
Beyond identifying funding mechanisms and creating a Task Force/Consortium, Mayor Roe sought developer input on any other things the City could to facilitate development.
Mr. Foster, recognizing that Roseville was in a key location, opined that it made a difference in how the City reached out or talked to other businesses. Mr. Foster opined that there was absolutely no reason why businesses should not locate in Roseville if there was an active outreach process.
As part of this conversation, Mayor Roe advised that a goal was to get communication and outreach started; and expressed his pleasure in developer interest on the east side as well. Mayor Roe assured developers that the City Council was open to working on permitted uses or serving as a facilitator, and not being an impediment to development.
Councilmember Willmus noted recent amendment made to the City’s zoning specifically adding the Regional Business-2 designation; and suggested that developers provide additional information on perspective venues or how CMU may not fit their needs/uses going forward. If there were such cased, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in reviewing specific situations Councilmember Willmus also asked developers to comment on whether or not completion of Twin Lakes Parkway spurred their development/interest.
Mr. Zwebber stated that there was no question that the connection of Twin Lakes Parkway was vital to open up the entire area for people to access Twin Lakes as well as to get to Rosedale. Mr. Zwebber opined that it would take considerable pressure off County Road C.
Mr. Foster concurred; opining that anything you could do anything to move development one step ahead, such as extending Twin Lakes Parkway to Terrace Drive, it would serve to do a lot of good for redevelopment, especially west of Fairview Avenue. Mr. Foster noted that infrastructure was the first step to seeing redevelopment occur; and extending the Parkway would benefit that ultimate goal and eliminate one more step in the process. Understanding that it was more preferred to tie infrastructure improvements to actual projects, Mr. Foster opined that it would take considerable pressure off County Road C when the area redeveloped, and serve to benefit everyone.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the next steps in taking a fresh look at the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area after the previous AUAR and to determine any new ideas, zoning code revisions, or permitted uses. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the goal of this initial discussion was to receive direct input from property owners and bring that input back to the City Council for further discussion and direction to staff. Mr. Trudgeon advised that part of that further discussion would include how and if the previous Master Plan was still applicable today; whether there were additional zoning regulations needed or existing ones revised; any changes for process approval; the scope of the entire Twin Lakes area, and whether to remove or add some parcels; and a review of adjacent parcels as they relate to Twin Lakes parcels and how they compared.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that those next steps and that further discussion would be scheduled as time allowed; and noted continued welcome of input from the development community at any regular meetings of the City Council or on a one-on-one basis with staff. At this time, Mr. Trudgeon anticipated further discussion in August of this year. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was current with contact information for developers.
On behalf of the City Council and staff, Mayor Roe thanked developers for their attendance and comment; and encouraged that they continue the dialogue.
13. Business Items (Action Items)
C. Approve Josephine Heights Final Plat
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of the request for Final Plat approval of this large, vacant residential parcel on Millwoood Avenue between Victoria and Chatsworth Streets to accommodate six (6) single-family residential lots around a cul-de-sac, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 22, 2013. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Final Plat was similar to the Preliminary Plat previously approved, with conditions as outlined in the RCA. Mr. Lloyd provided an updated Tree Preservation Plan.
City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the Public Improvement Contract; and various components addressed for the development entitled, “Millwood Court,” in accordance with that contract. Specifics of the contract and areas addressing concerns expressed by neighbors included lowering the grade of existing ground to facilitate adjacent properties with a high capacity, low clog stormwater management structure for overland drainage to a swale and then into an infiltration system, one each on the east and west side of the plat. Ms. Bloom advised that the infiltration basins were constructed to have gravel and a pipe so water can pool and then flow to the structure underneath before draining to the tile; all designed not to exceed current runoff and for 100-year storm events. Ms. Bloom reviewed the provisions of the maintenance agreements as part of the contract for City and developer/future property owner responsibilities; with the City retaining the right to take over any maintenance no up to standards and charge the cost back to the property owner. Ms. Bloom noted that the drainage system should serve the stormwater management needs of the area while also providing an attractive entry system into the development itself.
Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included confirmation that there were no stormwater catch basins in the cul-de-sac itself, but with a crown designed on the road there would be no water pushed out onto Millwood Avenue, with a curve intended to facilitate coming off the curb line; confirmation of maintenance agreements for each lot that would follow the property and hold future property owners accountable as well and becoming part of the title to the property; and a review by staff of the drainage function and various maintenance components.
Councilmember Willmus questioned whether it would be more prudent to spread the costs of the maintenance of the storm drainage system on the two out lots to all six (6) lots as they all benefited from that system. Ms. Bloom deferred that question to the developer.
Mr. Lloyd sought City Council preference for naming the street, noting that the City’s building official suggested Milton as there was a north/south street in another area of the City roughly lining up with this street. Mr. Lloyd advised that the developer did not have a preference at this time, with no one else having a great interest in the street name; but suggested by the building official as “Milton Court.”
Discussion ensued regarding the ease for emergency services personnel to weigh in on the name, with Mr. Lloyd advising that they had been part of the discussion at the Design Review Committee (DRC) level and had expressed no concerns.
Councilmember Etten noted that original concerns of neighboring property owners was for a tree survey and the proposed raised height of the development properties; and questioned if those concerns had been addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.
Ms. Bloom reviewed existing property height with proposed, indicating a 4-5’ increase throughout the development, and lowered in the backyards to address drainage concerns and requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Bloom confirmed that adjacent properties would be higher than the swale area along the property boundaries.
Nathan Fair, Hanson Builders, 13432 Hanson Blvd., Andover, MN, Developer Representative with Landmark 6 of Roseville, LLC and Hanson Builders and Nate Harmon, Engineer
Mr. Fair pointed out several minor typographical errors in the contract (page 3, line 22) and references to “Cleveland Avenue” and “Langton Lake Drive,” requesting that the reference be changed from Cleveland Avenue to “Millwood Avenue.”
Mr. Fair also noted concerns about working hours, as property owners had expressed concerns at the open house, with one of the neighbors working nights. After consulting with Dean Hanson, his partner, Mr. Fair offered to change their working hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 pm (page 7, line 33) for weekdays and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekends if any work took place on a weekend, while not intended at this time. Mr. Fair advised that this would allow them to complete the project in a timely manner and offered this concession for the neighborhood.
Mr. Fair also advised that a homeowners association is no longer intended for this neighborhood since the landscape plan had been revised (Exhibit B, page 15, line 7) and any references should be struck.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom confirmed that this was amenable to staff.
Mr. Fair reported on the open house held last week with the neighborhood; with three (3) neighbors and one (1) Councilmember attending. Mr. Fair advised that the owner of the development, Dean Hanson, had attended to respond to any questions of the neighborhood.
Councilmember McGehee reported that she had attended the open house; complimented the developer on their nice presentation and drawing provided for neighbors to see the home style, type and size planned; and noted that the developer team had responded to all questions asked and did a nice job.
Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember McGehee for her attendance; at which time he invited public comment from the audience.
Jody McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue
Ms. McElroy thanked Councilmember Willmus for suggesting adjustment of tonight’s agenda; and thanked the City Council for helping the neighborhood through this process and making revisions in the process for future developments. Ms. McElroy opined that the City Council had been more supportive of the neighborhood than City staff, opining that response time from staff had often been slow, forcing the neighbors to be its own watchdog and work with the developer to get answers. In addition to the resulting Tree Preservation Plan, Ms. McElroy advised that the neighbors were still working with the developer; and referenced a recent video provided by the neighbors to the City Engineer that resulted in a change to the proposed drainage plan. Ms. McElroy pointed out a street correction in the Public Improvement Contract as well as in lines 140-141 of the most recent RCA.
Paul Rossbach, 953 Millwood Avenue
Mr. Rossbach referenced another outstanding item pointed out by Mike Winfield from the Public Works/Engineering Department advising that one of the survey monument markers was wrong with an apparent overlap of 5’. Mr. Rossbach advised that he didn’t have any documentation of the issue, but asked that it be determined prior to the developer starting the project.
Ms. Bloom advised that Mr. Winfield is actually the Ramsey County Surveyor; and offered to follow-up on the situation with Ramsey County’s surveyor and the developer. However, Ms. Bloom noted that Ramsey County would not file the Final Plat until those and any other inconsistencies were addressed and corrected.
Matt Johnson, 826 County Road D
Mr. Johnson spoke in support of and provided a testimonial on behalf of the developer, advising that he and his wife had built their home in 2010 with Mr. Hanson and found the process to be a great experience. Mr. Johnson opined that the result was a great quality home and expressed confidence that the developer would follow-through with homeowners; and would provide more good quality homes in Roseville.
Greg McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue
Mr. McElroy expressed his concern with the size of the homes proposed for those lots, averaging 5,000 plus square feet on a parcel of 2.5 acres in the middle of this street. Mr. McElroy opined that it just didn’t fit in the middle of their street.
Mr. McElroy asked that the City Council review sizing for homes on lots in the future, and while not objecting to larger homes, expressed concern that they serve to fit with existing neighborhoods and homes. Mr. McElroy sited an example of Edina, MN with a similar problem and in the news recently. Mr. McElroy further opined that he anticipated that the homes would be “great and beautiful,” would overwhelm their neighborhood in the middle of it.
Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to the neighborhood for their involvement in and keeping their voice heard throughout the process; and for the work they had done to address their concerns.
Councilmember McGehee noted several items brought up during public comment that needed further review by the City Council. Overall, Councilmember McGehee expressed her support of the current drainage proposal; and suggested that drainage issues going forward, since the City seemed to have a lot of them. Councilmember McGehee opined that the open house had been helpful; and encouraged the City Council to continue facilitate open houses and dialogue between developers and neighborhoods to make sure it continued.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11081 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract of Josephine Heights (PF13-005);” for the large, un-addressed vacant residential parcel on Millwood Avenue between Victoria and Chatsworth Streets; amended to correct street references and removing reference to the homeowners association as noted.
Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation to the developer for holding the open house and discussing their proposal with the neighborhood; as well as his appreciation for the landscape plan and plantings proposed on the new lots rather than encroaching on existing properties. Councilmember Willmus thanked the neighbors for their active role, resulting in changes to developments going forward and formalizing a process for open houses on smaller developments such as this. Councilmember Willmus agreed that public comment on scale of homes on infill lots may need further review in the future.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked everyone in the process; noting that while it had started out rough and staff had neglected to review the site in person before moving forward with the process, the end result was positive. While expressing appreciation that the process had improved as it moved forward and thanked everyone for their additional efforts specific to this development, Councilmember Laliberte opined that anytime neighbors brig their concerns forward, staff needed to be as equally aware of and concerned in addressing those concerns.
Councilmember Etten thanked the neighbors for their work, time and effort; and acknowledged the change and positive movements made; with everyone learning and improving the process moving forward.
Councilmember McGehee thanked the developer for volunteering to adjust their work hours; and suggested that this may need to be a consideration in the future for work in residential areas.
Mayor Roe concurred with comments regarding the results accomplished and with Councilmember Laliberte’s observation that what had started out roughly had evolved and provided an impetus to improve several processes moving forward. Mayor Roe opined that the concern raised about size and scale was a tough one, and while there was no doubt that there was a difference in perception and taste, the proposed homes met the City’s current setback requirements. Mayor Roe further noted that the homes and lots were not as tight as those in Edina; since the City of Roseville requires more spacing between buildings and property lines. However, Mayor Roe noted that it was prudent that the City Council continue to have discussions and make adjustments if and when indicated. Mayor Roe noted that a down side for making such adjustments and creating a different standard in the future, with the community evolving since before the 1940’s and a zoning code enacted in 1959 but just recently revised in 2010, it may cause more difficulties. Mayor Roe opined that the process continued to evolve, and hopefully more things were being done right than wrong.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
b. Public Hearings
12. Budget Items
a. 2014 Budget Direction
Finance Director Chris Miller noted that, as detailed in the RCA, this would be the last opportunity for the City Council before their August 12, 2013 meeting and subsequent receipt of the City Manager-recommended Budget to be presented on August 19, 2013. Mr. Miller advised that he had highlighted recent discussions among staff and Councilmembers from the last few weeks and months; and invited any questions or comments of the City Council as they provided more refined direction to staff in preparing the 2014 budget.
Councilmember Willmus referenced and thanked Mr. Miller for sending additional information on the Recycling Fund, and further asked that Mr. Miller provide updated numbers for Capital Replacement Funds. Regarding the update of Reserve Fund levels (page 2 of the RCA), Councilmember Willmus asked at what point a base would be reached and money no longer budgeted toward those reserves or when it was no longer necessary to build them up.
While there may theoretically be a time when those levels are reached, Mr. Miller advised that the City’s Reserve Policy was tied to a specific percentage of its annual operating budget, and as that budget increased, the size of reserves needed to increase as well to maintain that same level of financial strength. Mr. Miller noted that there may come a time when the City felt it had reached a substantial point for its reserves and anticipated no major draw downs in the upcoming years; and suggested that at that point, it may be time to reconsider them.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the current reserve levels are basically due to collections exceeding projections, with some created by vacant positions, lower expenses that those projected, and additional revenues realized. Mr. Miller opined that the City remained quite disciplined in keeping a balanced budget, often through remaining somewhat conservative in projected revenues, preferring to err on the side of caution.
Mayor Roe opined, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that the only general exception was that replacement funds were used for additional budget funding in certain years to build funds to accommodate higher years.
Councilmember Willmus noted that 2012 reserve levels were $1 million higher than those of 2011; and while the City had experienced some major events (e.g. heavy snowfalls in the spring and tree pick-up as a result of the July storms), he questioned at what point in the budget calendar Mr. Miller could provide the City Council with a forecast of where that reserve would be for 2013.
For planning purposes, Mr. Miller advised that he would not reach a comfort level in providing those forecasts until November or December of 2013. Mr. Miller advised that part of his rationale in not forecasting earlier was due to Department Heads holding off on certain purchases until they were confident of where the reserves would end. Mr. Miller clarified that this was not just his projection or estimation, but would require the cooperation of all Departments near year-end 2013, based on the City’s current decentralized purchasing model, and without their input, he could possibly provide a general projection before year-end, but no accurate projections as early as July.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in receiving that information at the earliest time possible.
As noted in on page 1 of the today’s RCA, Mayor Roe referenced the calculation refined for the levy limit, and net potential increase from $175,000 to $198,000; with savings related to sales tax exemption estimated at $225,000, of which $70,000 is property tax supported.
Mr. Miller confirmed the accuracy of Mayor Roe’s observations until more refined information was made available in late August or early September. Mr. Miller noted that approximately half of the sale tax exemption savings would be contained in the CIP, with some in operating funds. However, with no additional funding proposed for the next two (2) years in the CIP Fund, Mr. Miller noted that any savings realized from that sales tax exemption would be neutral.
Mayor Roe referenced page 3 of the RCA and HRIA Software annual maintenance of $20,000; with Mr. Miller confirming that it had been budgeted from reserves versus the levy, thereby reducing the budget by $20,000. In an attempt to avoid an assumption that the levy had been reduced by that $20,000, Mayor Roe asked that this be clarified.
Noting that the City’s General Fund Reserve Policy was a target of 35-45%, with the Fund not at 43%, Mayor Roe noted that the Fund was close to the high end of the policy.
Mayor Roe focused tonight’s Council discussion on the following points:
a. Do we want to levy to the maximum extent allowed by levy limits or less than that?
b. Do we want to use the estimated 2014 LGA funding of $225,000 for operating costs, even though a stated objective by past City Councils was not to do so?
c. How best to deal with staff recommendations for the Compensation Study?
d. What priority to give the information received/budget discussions with Department Heads for additional positions/staffing for Administration and Parks & Recreation; or cut elsewhere to fund those positions?
Councilmember McGehee requested the addition of another priority for ensuring that all City assets in all departments be implemented on the Asset Management Program software by the end of 2014; and to ensure that the HRIS system was up and running, and interfacing with the payroll system so employee reviews are completed in a more timely and efficient manner. In her conversation with Mr. Trudgeon earlier today, Councilmember McGehee opined that one staff position estimated at $80,000 split in the Human Resources and Public Works Department could accomplish this goal. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this would free other staff currently performing the data entry work to focus on other areas.
Councilmember McGehee also noted that, after implementing the long-term Capital funding plan, discussions continued about sustainability; and questioned if enough had been set aside in the CIP to address maintenance and repairs; and if it was possible to reduce the levy or look only at COLA and inflationary increases to the levy in this and future years versus large spikes. Councilmember McGehee noted that it was her understanding, prior to adding the new assets and elements of the Parks Renewal Program and Fire Station, the City would need to invest $1.4 million annually from now through 2020 to reach that sustainability; and asked that residents be consulted to provide feedback to the City Council on how the City should proceed to achieve that sustainability goal for the CIP. Councilmember McGehee cautioned that the City Council and residents continue to think long-term to avoid similar issues as found through not investing in its own infrastructure system.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember McGehee had a good point; agreeing that the City had come a long way with its infrastructure replacement and maintenance needs. Mayor Roe advised that as he included 2014 numbers in CIP funding, the only issues were in the Water Fund for water tank refurbishment and water meter costs, coming on line earlier than originally projected; along with a Facility Management Plan proposed as an additional levy amount in 2014, but no longer feasible given levy limits enacted by the legislature. While recognizing that the unexpected LGA funds estimated at $225,000 could be applied to the CIP Fund as planned before levy limits were enacted, Mayor Roe suggested that there were competing priorities and needs beyond Capital needs.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller clarified Mayor Roe’s comments related to a portion of the sales tax exemption with the majority of purchases done in CIP thus realizing the majority of savings in that Fund; along with some savings in Enterprise Funds that will also save on future fee increases, even though it wasn’t a huge budget windfall, and most of the savings will be eaten up by inflationary costs. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Miller further clarified that any savings from the sales tax exemption would be eliminated since the 2013 and 2014 CIP had been frozen, creating an issue again in 2015.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that since CIP spending varied from year to year, but the goal was to have steady funding annually to avoid spikes; with the frozen funding seeming to get the City through several years in the short-term.
When working on the CIP and Budget Task Forces, Councilmember Etten noted that one item addressed was the inflationary increase for what was already in place; and questioned if the sales tax exemption monies would help any without increasing the levy and would avoid digressing.
Mr. Miller responded that it helps and would benefit the City some by alleviating the need for tax levy increases down the road, but would only be a one-time revenue source and adjustment, and once factored in would become part of the base.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of spending LGA revenue this year only.
Mayor Roe clarified, for general information that the LGA revenue had come as result of new LGA calculations in their formulas.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not supportive of most of the additional positions requested by staff, other than the $75,000 for IT support defined in the CIP, but not for the Skating Center or other areas. Councilmember McGehee questioned if the Parks & Recreation Department would consider taking funds from the Parks Renewal Program in the amount of $200,000 and apply it to the skating center, keeping the CIP on track; and going forward with the CIP setting aside funds for a new club house for the golf course.
Specific to the use of LGA, Mayor Roe asked for individual Councilmember comment.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she could support the use of LGA for operating costs in 2014, depending on what was proposed to be funded.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of applying LGA funds to CIP costs and not operating costs.
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of using LGA as a CIP investment, opining that it was a good way to use the revenue in this timeframe. Councilmember Etten noted fixed costs for 2014, not including general inflation; and fixed contractual costs were already at $245,000.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten identified those items he was referencing, as excerpted from page 3 of the RCA:
Budget Impact Item/Description
Employee wage step increases for eligible employees
Employer PERA mandates, with increased contributions for Police and Fire employees
Employer healthcare increases, based on a 3% healthcare contribution increase
Police Patrol, additional contractual Ramsey County dispatch costs $65,000
Councilmember Etten opined that without the maximum levy the City could barely accomplish the mandated items, and suggested that using the LGA may be needed to accomplish those mandates. To make key investments in City staff and provide a 2% COLA at a minimum exclusive of the decisions made for the Compensation Study, Councilmember Etten opined may be better from a broader perspective to address those needs in the General Fund versus CIP funding.
Mayor Roe cautioned that, to accomplish everything that should potentially be done, whether through using LGA funds or reserves, neither of those options was sustainable; and if the goal was to not use either of those options for the 2015 budget, it would require a levy increase in 2015.
If this is the consensus of the body, Councilmember Etten suggested going back to Department Heads, and if the items they brought forward were important priorities, finding out their recommended resolutions. Councilmember Etten noted that unrestricted reserve funds for the License Center were at 56% of its budget, when the target was 20%, opining that it represented a lot of reserve funding, almost triple the target percentage. Councilmember Etten suggested that this may be how the General Fund and operating budget was improved to accomplish key results for the City’s employees.
Councilmember McGehee suggested using the LGA funding for the 4.6% Compensation Study recommendations and/or COLA; however, she expressed concern in not addressing long-term CIP sustainability; and questioned if the additional space available when the Fire Department moved into the new facility could accommodate moving the License Center onto the City Hall campus, obviously requiring some remodeling that would be part of capital funding.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that with the exception of the Sergeants Union and pending negotiations with other unions having a 2% COLA increase written for 2014; that to maintain parity and equity for all City employees, he would recommend a 2% COLA across the board. Related to the Compensation Study and if the City Council went forward with the recommended increase of 4.6%, Mayor Roe sought clarification of rationale in proceeding with a 2% COLA as well. Mr. Miller responded that the Compensation Study was based on 2012 comparisons, and to get and retain the average at 4.6%, it would still need a 2% COLA to maintain that ranking with peer cities, noting that peer cities would probably do a 2% COLA as well, which would then cause the City to revert back to 98% of the peer city average rather than the recommended 100%. Regarding rationale for using 2012 numbers for the Compensation Study, Interim City Manager Trudgeon clarified that this was when the study was done.
Councilmember Willmus noted the one thing factoring into the decision was the rate at which the Compensation Study may be implemented; and when that policy discussion was held, all of the above-referenced items needed to be factored in if the City wished to implement it at 100% average of peer cities. Councilmember Willmus advised that this was his rationale in recommending a range, if all things were factored in, and the need to understand the full implication of the recommended 100%.
Mayor Roe opined that the range didn’t serve to accomplish the goal. Mayor Roe requested, and Mr. Miller confirmed that employees had received a 2% COLA from 2012 to 2013; with Mayor Roe further opining that this didn’t put the situation as far behind as he had originally understood in his initial comments.
However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that this also meant that it would not be prudent for the City to increase the compensation at 2.6% versus 4.6%.
Mr. Miller opined that, depending on the discretion of the City Council on a policy level, the question was if they supported their employees at 100% of the peer average, recognizing that the average was already a range with some cities below and some above that mark. Mr. Miller suggested that the first fundamental question was on principle if the City Council wanted to aspire to that average; and the second question was how to get there – whether incrementally or all at once. Mr. Miller noted that this still required more discussion and a consensus of the body. If the City Council decided on full implementation today, mid-year 2013, Mr. Miller advised that it would require use of reserves.
Regarding Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion for using $200,000 in Park Renewal Project funding for the Skating Center, Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to that suggestion, opining that it would not be appropriate since use of the funds have passed through and been vetted by a community process and would not be justified to put it somewhere else.
Based on Councilmember Etten’s comments and noting that this $200,000 was a one-time only revenue source, Mayor Roe concurred that it was neither appropriate nor sustainable. Regarding the License Center suggestion, Mayor Roe noted that building reserves in anticipation of constructing a new License Center in the future was one option; but noted that such an effort would also be appropriate for a future bonding project. Mayor Roe asked that everyone be aware of the use of reserves for ongoing operating expenses.
In response to Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee note that of the $19 million in bond revenue, she was tired of the perception that those dollars were carved in stone, especially when the City had significant funding constraints and those funds could be used for maintaining or renewing existing assets. Councilmember McGehee opined that she had no problem adjusting those funds to address those issues, and clarified that she was not suggesting a slush fund. In her review of community support for parks and amenities, Councilmember McGehee opined that some were supported and others not as much; and further opined that the Skating Center was a large piece of the park system, and in difficult times to label such a use as inappropriate was too harsh, and suggested that everything should be on the table for consideration or reconsideration.
Councilmember Willmus disagreed with the notion that the City wanted everything but didn’t want to pay for anything; opining that such a perception was a disservice to the public. Councilmember Willmus noted that each year during budget discussions, there was a significant amount of money left out of the discussions – reserves – and at some point in time, the purpose of those funds needed serious review and re-evaluation of the target funding and actual dollar amounts for each of those reserve funds.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the 2013 levy was approximately $18,269,000 and the 2012 levy approximately $15 million.
In response, with reserves now at $13.5 million, Councilmember Willmus opined that to continue building those reserves at a rate of $1 million annually, while continually chasing targets and inflating those numbers with each budget cycle, at some point the reserve levels needed to be reconsidered as to what level was appropriate. Councilmember Willmus further opined that this was a part of the budget cycle from his perspective.
Mayor Roe suggested that the question was what was the plan to make the General Fund sustainable going forward; and if part of that plan was to reduce reserves to 35-45% of the City’s annual operating budget, when the bottom of the range was reached, how did the City account for spending based on annual operating costs and not taking from reserves to accomplish that.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, if the inflationary function was continued in annual budget projections, reserve funds would continue to exceed target percentages. Councilmember Willmus again expressed his preference for a more accurate picture of those inflationary pictures at this point, with Mayor Roe responding that this was a preference shared by others as well. Councilmember Willmus opined that historical data provided an easier process, with decisions made in March, April or May versus making those decisions in November or December.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she agreed that LGA money not be used for operating costs; but would support its use for CIP so movement in that fund not be frozen for another year. However, Councilmember Laliberte recognized an impact of $245,000 or $430,000 beyond its control; and given that tough spot at this time, she expressed her interest in directing the City Manager and staff to prepare a flat budget and not take advantage of levy limits to the maximum, in an effort to see what Department Heads would come forward with in those proposals.
Mayor Roe clarified that Councilmember Laliberte’s request was for a zero levy increase for 2014, with the exception of bonded debt service.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, opining that it was a disservice to citizens to work in a bubble, with residents recently asked by the legislature to pay additional taxes, impacts of the recent bond issues, and implementation of additional utility fees. While understanding the rationale behind suggestions by other Councilmembers, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was time to give residents a break, which was the legislature’s rational in proposing the LGA. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the School District would also be going out for a referendum that would further impact residents; and her request was to see if a budget could be developed that would keep the levy flat by trimming expenses where possible; recognizing that the debt service was excluded from that proposal.
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to return through the City Manager-recommended Budget for 2014 a proposed flat levy.
Mayor Roe addressed several additional implications of that direction, including not addressing the Compensation Study recommendation or any additional positions; but directing staff to figure it out and present a proposal accordingly.
Councilmember Laliberte confirmed that this was her request; and if the City felt it was a priority to attempt this, they could pass that direction on to staff, based on the priorities tasked to each Department Head. Since there was yet no agreement on a policy for implementing the Compensation Study, Councilmember Laliberte opined that how and when it was funded remained an unknowns.
Councilmember Willmus asked Councilmember Laliberte if she was open to a friendly amendment directing staff to present two (2) budgets for City Council consideration: one as proposed in the original motion, and the second to prepare a budget at the maximum levy limit allowed, excluding debt service, allowing the City Council and public to compare them side by side.
Councilmember Laliberte accepted that friendly amendment. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was willing to consider both, but opined that residents were continually being tapped to the extreme; and given the current level of reserves, she was willing to have further consideration on the current policy at 35-45% now and in the future.
Direct staff to bring forward two (2) budget proposals without an extensive amount of detail: one with a zero levy increase and one with a maximum levy limit, both excluding debt service, with no further clarification and addressing levy impacts only.
Interim City Manager Trudgeon clarified that all budgets did not impact property taxes across the board; and sought further direction on whether the direction was exclusive to the property tax supported levy and budget.
During last week’s budget discussions, Councilmember Laliberte noted that staff had been asked and confirmed that current fee levels were sufficient.
Mayor Roe suggested that, based on the levy limit on revenue, that the fee-supported budget be considered frozen as well under that scenario.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that his request for further clarification was based on the fact that while inflationary issues could be addressed easily, if considering as an example the Community Development Department budget at a zero percent increase, it also remained frozen at 2013 levels, while not impacted by levy limits as it was supported primarily through fees. Mr. Trudgeon sought whether all budgets should be frozen at 2013 levels, with associated ramifications, or only those supported by the property tax levy.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he would take the motion and direction to mean levy-focused only.
Regarding staff time to prepare and present two different budget scenarios, Mr. Trudgeon deferred to Finance Director Miller, allowing time for conversations and work by Departments Heads in determining their priorities, and for he and Mr. Miller to get those budget scenarios prepared for presentation to the City Council by August 19, 2013. Mr. Miller noted that it should be doable.
Based on the current pressures, Councilmember Laliberte added that it was important to look at the worst case scenario, some of those things that were outside the control of the City, and stressed the importance of having that information included.
Mayor Roe clarified, and Councilmember Laliberte confirmed that her motion did not include the use of reserves of LGA funds.
If only intended as an exercise, Councilmember Etten opined that he could support the motion; however, he noted that the $430,000 already excluded an inflationary increase for basic operations and would already represent a zero percent increase in that portion of the budget, requiring staff to absorb any recommended Compensation Study increase and identified mandates. Councilmember Etten cautioned that this scenario at zero percent increase went from making an investment in City employees to significantly reducing or eliminating a lot of options; and if seriously considered, needed to be open to using reserve principles or repurposing those reserves. Councilmember Etten opined that he did not anticipate any additional money in reserves by year-end 2012 with the exception of additional monies available to the City for the budget that were not currently being talked about.
Mr. Miller concurred, based on current and projected interest rates so low; and those older investments maturing and needing to be reinvested at those lower interest rates that he projected to remain stagnant at best and possibly declining in 2014. Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the investment would reduce accordingly.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the zero percent levy increase scenario being considered as an exercise to identify some things that maybe had not yet been identified.
Mayor Roe opined that the items had already been identified and expressed his opposition to the motion.
Councilmember McGehee noted the reserve fund review done several years ago when the policy was to retain 50% reserve levels, which was subsequently reduced to 35-45% per LMC recommendations. Councilmember McGehee opined that she had no problem taking 3% off the top and repurposing it; but could not support going any lower than 35% levels.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe confirmed that the Communication Fund was funded 100% through franchise fees and any reserves were considered restricted funds.
Councilmember McGehee observed that only two (2) reserve funds were not restricted: the License Center and General Fund, both currently under the 35-45% target level.
While Councilmember Etten observed that the Parks & Recreation and Information Technology Funds were also unrestricted, Mr. Miller advised that, while there were not external restrictions, for management purpose the reserves had been accumulated for specific reasons, and targeting them to use in a different way would create significant long-term impacts. However, Mr. Miller noted that the reserve levels and funds were at the discretion of the City Council.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller confirmed that staff currently had completed an exercise for budget projections at a 3% levy increase; based on a maximum levy limit budget and levy scenario.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not opposed to considering recommendations on how to use reserves if the consensus was comfortable going below 43%, with the understanding that this was not something to be done repeatedly or consistently.
Mayor Roe opined that this ultimately served to create a deferred tax increase.
Ayes: Willmus and Laliberte.
Nays: McGehee; Etten; Roe.
Based on a 3% proposed levy increase scenario, Mayor Roe clarified that this would provide for $245,000 less than the levy limit as previously identified by Councilmember Etten, funding for the Fire Relief Association contribution ($80,000) and leaving a small amount of discretionary spending for staff to work with. Mayor Roe suggested that part of the motion provide direction for staff on reserves; and how and whether to use those funds through 2016.
Roe moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to being forward a City Manager-recommended budget at the maximum levy limit; and if there remained particular areas of priority not funded in that levy scenario, including the discretionary amount of the identified $245,000; a proposal on how to fund that in 2014 to attain sustainable funding in the future; with 2014 projected LGA funding to be applied to CIP funding.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, that the difference between the existing 3% and $430,000 brought forward by Councilmember Etten be taken from reserves as proposed by staff (e.g. PERA, healthcare, dispatch, and wage step increases).
Discussion ensued that the additional motion identified that reserves be used specifically for those items; while Mayor Roe’s original direction was for staff to use reserves for other things as well; with Councilmember Etten clarifying that his preference was that reserves used for funding those specific items was clarified.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that there was $35,000 remaining in 2013 funds from the merit fund.
Mayor Roe opined that staff had sufficient direction under the original motion.
Roll Call (McGehee Amendment)
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: Etten and Laliberte.
Councilmembers Willmus and Etten spoke in support of the motion as amended.
Roll Call (Original Motion as Amended)
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:53 pm and reconvened at approximately -9:00 pm.
14. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
b. Discuss Hagen Property Development
Interim City Manager Trudgeon introduced and welcomed Andy Hughes, Sherman Associates and Sherman Architect Link Wilson, referencing detail included in the RCA and attached Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Mr. Wilson reviewed his involvement with Sherman Associates since 1987 and provided examples of other projects completed throughout the metropolitan area. Mr. Wilson noted the potential of the Hagen Property site adjacent to Langton Lake and its amenities along with existing development to the north, allowing for the City’s re-envisioning for this part town. Mr. Wilson advised that the proposal for this phased development was for a four (4) story, masonry and panel designed and modern architectural approach, with balconies, hidden parking and connection to pathways to the east to access the Park & Ride facility and on the south to access bus transportation; and employment to the south and east. Mr. Wilson opined that this would provide a dynamic project not yet seen in Roseville, and expressed the firm’s excitement for this proposed project.
Mr. Hughes anticipated breaking ground for the market-rate and retail/office phase in the spring of 2014, with the rest to be completed in 2015. Mr. Hughes reiterated the firm’s excitement with this being their first project in Roseville.
Discussion included the proposal to use Langton Lake as an asset and how and if the intent was to overtly connect the development to the lake, with the hope to make a connection to Twin Lakes Parkway and natural paths through partnership with the City for buildings in the development and focus of activities and attention on the east side of the building, with the north side intended to be a softer approach with a potential for independent townhomes that could serve as a gateway to the lake.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Hughes advised that until their financial due diligence had been completed with their lenders for market rate underwriting for the project he could not project the amount of TIF dollars that may be requested. Mr. Hughes noted that there were many variable factors including construction pricing, advising that this represented the first market rate development in Roseville since 1987 (Lexington Apartments); but anticipated that they would be seeking a significant amount of TIF assistance.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding the proposed size for the tot lot, Mr. Hughes advised that designs were still being developed and at the next meeting he could provide photos of other tot lots they had done, but anticipated that this one would be approximately 50’ x 35’, similar in size to the City Council Chambers, fully fenced and holding a number of different areas.
Further discussion ensued regarding whether there was a consensus regarding connecting and/or extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, with the roadway and its realignment long platted with the City having purchased the property with the intention of extending the Parkway aligning with Terrace Drive further south to create an intersection and officially mapped in the 1980’s; the existing City pond on the site and future use as a retention area depending on negotiations and stormwater management on the site in conjunction with City Engineer Bloom; proposed style of construction for each phase; and planning for a more flexible product for mixed use developments.
Regarding a future TIF funding request, Councilmember Willmus alerted the developer that one thing he personally gave significant consideration to was long-term job creation, as well as long-term ownership of a project by the developer. While he had also asked this question at the HRA presentation, for the benefit of the City Council and public, Councilmember Willmus requested that the developer review their company’s philosophy regarding ownership of their developments.
Mr. Hughes responded that most developers sold their properties with the exception of condominiums; however, he advised that it was very rare that Sherman Associates sold their developments; and planned to develop, construct, own and manage the development along with the other buildings in their portfolio, for the long-term. Regarding job creation, Mr. Hughes advised that the Phase II portion of the project, defined for office/medical use, was intended to address that criteria.
Regarding his perspective on use of TIF funds, Mayor Roe stated that if TIF funds could achieve structured versus surface parking for the project, he would be willing to consider TIF to fill those funding gaps. Mayor Roe advised that other parking amenities (e.g. deck parking) that would open more green space would also increase his interest in providing TIF funding, as well as any shared parking options.
Mr. Hughes advised that, in attempting to have the housing component meet the requested amenities for top market rentals in Roseville, the underground parking and other amenity package proposed should accomplish the goals even at a significant cost but also provide a standard for Roseville and help renew apartment developments in Roseville.
At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the proposed use for DEED grant funding, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was intended to demolish the existing Hagen building, asbestos removal and other site preparation costs, estimated at $440,000, with August 1, 2013 as the application deadline. If the grant was approved, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be prepared and presented to the City Council in the future. Mr. Trudgeon pointed out a typographical error in the draft ordinance.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11082 entitled, “Resolution of Applicant”, a DEED Redevelopment Grant application for the property located at 2785 Fairview Avenue;” as amended to correct the typographical error from “2008” to “2013” in the first “BE IT RESOLVED.”
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the applicant and staff would return in the near future with a request for TIF funding based on the criteria and guidelines identified in the City’s TIF Policy.
13. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Approve Springsted Amended Proposal for City Manager Search Services
Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon briefly reviewed the Amended Springsted Contract for City Manager Search services as detailed in the RCA dated July 22, 2013, based on direction of the City Council at their July 8, 2013 meeting. With further negotiations with Springsted, and City Council preference for the firm not to be involved in the interview process, while this would alleviate the placement guarantee from the contract, Ms. Bacon advised that this would save $4,900 in costs. Given the importance identified by Springsted to their overall process, Mr. Bacon advised that upon further negotiation, they had agreed to add that part back into the contract at a reduced cost of $2,500.
Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten expressed confusion as to what the final decision had been by the City Council for their involvement in the interview process or if they had decided on the full package and process.
Even though he was unsure why this item was pulled or brought back for reconsideration, Councilmember Willmus took the opportunity to seek a revision to the entire process. Councilmember Willmus opined that he would frankly like to hold off doing anything with the City Manager Search process, and proceed through the entire budget cycle with the Interim City Manager and see how it went. Councilmember Willmus opined that this could provide an opportunity to vet some things found problematic in the past and to further determine which direction they wished to pursue. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had not yet personally determined a clear direction and strongly recommended holding off doing anything until January 1, 2014.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had similar interest in following that route; and as the one asking that this item be brought back for reconsideration, for which she thanked Councilmembers for their support in doing so. Given the many things currently weighing heavily on Ms. Bacon as the City’s only Human Resources staff, the new budget process, levy limit considerations and other issues, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City Council yet knows what it wants, and therefore she was not comfortable spending money now to move forward with a search that being done because it was expected or the issue was being forced. Councilmember Laliberte advised that it was also her intent to ask that this be deferred to allow staff to get through the end of the year. Councilmember Laliberte noted that, if the process were continued at this time, a new City Manager would not be hired or in place until year end, while the City Council would still have things it wanted implemented immediately around City Hall with a new City Manager needing time to get acclimated and pushing those initiatives further out rather than allowing them to be started now.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte; opining that the City was not ready to proceed at this time; and as pointed out by Councilmember Laliberte, the City Council knew more what it didn’t want rather than what it did want, and until those items were identified, it was premature to move forward. Councilmember McGehee agreed with the potential loss of an entire year before any significant changes could be implemented.
If the Search was to be delayed, Councilmember Etten noted the need for the City Council to have a six month review process in place for Interim City Manager Trudgeon to determine whether or not to open up the search process; and asked that the body solidify a timeframe to accomplish that review by January 1, 2014.
Councilmember Willmus proposed that the body refrain from further discussion on the Search until after January 1, 2014; with discussion opened up at that time.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Willmus; that until that time, no specific plan or order be developed, allowing staff and Councilmembers to get through the remainder of the year and have the luxury of controlling the search timeframe versus it controlling them. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had no qualms about the amended Springsted contract or the company itself; and if the City Council decided to move forward with a search in January of 2014, she would be more than comfortable going back to this firm to avoid repeating the RFP process, if a decision was made to do so at that time.
In terms of knowing what the City Council didn’t want, Mayor Roe questioned if that was true, opining that individual Councilmembers may know, but questioned whether those issues had been synthesized. Mayor Roe opined that one aspect of working with a third party consultant was accomplishing that synthesis; and questioned if the City Council would be amenable in working with a consultant on that aspect of the process, or if there were other mitigating factors yet unresolved.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not opposed to considering some type of facilitation apart from the City Manager Search where the group could determine what it envisioned, and to create a vision process working together going forward.
Mayor Roe questioned if it was the consensus to put everything, including that third party facilitation, on hold until after January 1, 2014, or if that part of the process was preferred between now and the first of the year.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she differed with Councilmember Willmus’ viewpoint to set everything aside; and would prefer to flesh things out in the next few months to determine what the body wanted from the Interim City Manager, as what had been enacted in the meantime so when the opportunity for review of Mr. Trudgeon became available, there were specific points for review. Councilmember Laliberte opined that this would provide direction for Mr. Trudgeon as well as the body; and further opined that the issue could not just be ignored for the next six months.
Mayor Roe suggested that the expectations of the Interim City Manager over the next six months should be addressed before month five; and determining what the body wanted moving forward. If this change in timeframe was approved as proposed, Mayor Roe asked Mr. Trudgeon what impact it would have on him.
While unable to fully answer at this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was not just the impacts on him personally, but more so for the Community Development Department. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the department could operate in the interim, but it another six months was proposed before a decision point, and without someone else on board for another year, he expressed the need for more guidance for the Community Development Department. Mr. Trudgeon advised that one concern, if the timeframe was extended would be how and when to advance on key issues in the Community Development Department beyond the current status quo being kept in the interim. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would need to consider those impacts to the Community Development Department before commenting in more detail.
Mayor Roe noted that, in 2007 during a transition, a Director for the Community Development Department was hired on a contractual basis; and asked Mr. Trudgeon if that was in the realm of possibility at this time.
Mr. Trudgeon responded that everything was on the table.
Mayor Roe suggested further discussion at a future meeting regarding this development.
Councilmember Willmus advised that his primary concern right now was the City Manager Search itself; and while recognizing the concerns of Mr. Trudgeon, they were secondary to him at this time. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council needed to take time now to figure out what it was looking for in a City Manager, which to him at this stage was paramount.
Mayor Roe questioned if Councilmember Willmus was convinced that this could not be accomplished if a Search firm was selected and the timeframe extended.
Councilmember Willmus reiterated his original statement that he preferred to hold off with the Search process until January 1, 2014, with consensus of Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee, and at that time decide on the direction wanted.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the previous contractual relationship seemed to work well for the Community Development Department for a few months, and suggested that Mr. Trudgeon be tasked with considering that option under his personal supervision, allowing for further discussion at a future meeting in the near future.
Not wishing to discount Mr. Trudgeon’s comments or concerns, Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee to delay the Search process. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City Council had made it clear in the past that they would be supportive of a more proactive approach to the Community Development Department; and expressed confidence in the continued City Council support for that, not wanting to put that approach on hold. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the intent was to have Mr. Trudgeon serving in the Interim City Manager role through year-end.
Mr. Trudgeon agreed that this was also his expectation; however, his only hesitation was based on extending that another 5-6 months while leaving the Community Development Department leaderless, while important, city-wide priorities remained in limbo as well.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, a motion NOT approving the contract with Springsted for City Manager Search services as proposed.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
b. Appoint Commissioners
Mayor Roe introduced the appointment process as detailed in the RCA dated July 22, 2013.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Janet Henquinet to fulfill a term on the City’s Police Civil Service Commission for a term ending March 31, 2016.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Michele Courneya to fulfill a term on the City’s Human Rights Advisory Commission for a term ending March 31, 2015.
Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte spoke in equal support of Molli Slade in filling this term, but offered their support of Ms. Courneya as well, opining that both were excellent candidates.
Councilmember McGehee recognized the excellent pool of candidates as usually found when filling vacancies.
In support of his motion, Councilmember Etten opined that Ms. Courneya brought forth excellent, thoughtful, and deliberate leadership to the Commission from her great experience in working with people in different countries and with various people groups.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, also opining that both candidates were excellent – as well as all applying. Mayor Roe noted that he had originally supported appointment of Ms. Slade as she brought a perspective not yet represented on the Commission, given her work with mental health related issues. Likewise, Mayor Roe noted that Mr. Cihacek brought the Veteran’s point of view to the table, another perspective not yet represented.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion, suggesting that staff make other candidates not appointed aware of other opportunities to serve in the community.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of Mohamed Keynan to fulfill a term on the City’s Planning Commission for a term ending March 31, 2015.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her support for Mr. Keynan as well as Mr. Immerman; and expressed her hope that when she and Councilmember Laliberte met to discuss commissions and technical/advisory aspects, viewpoints similar to that expressed by Mr. Immerman could find a place.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
c. Approve LHB Inc. for Final Design, Plans and Specifications for the Park and Recreation Renewal Program
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly summarized the Best Value Business Model used to bring forward this recommendation for a firm to provide final design, plans and specifications for the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, as detailed in the RCA dated July 22, 2013.
As noted in the RCA, the base bid of $755,150 was outlined, in addition to six (6) Value Add (VA) items and costs as applicable (page 3 of the RCA).
At the request of Mayor Roe regarding identification and listing of the firm name in the RCA (page 2), City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any legal requirement to identify the firms; and clarified that this was a Professional Services Contract that was not subject to the strict bidding requirements of State Statute. City Attorney Gaughan further clarified the motion language for consideration.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Roseville and LHB Inc. for services as detailed in the Pre-Award Document attached to the RCA dated July 22, 2013; for development of final designs, plans and specifications for the Park and Recreation Renewal Program projects at an amount not to exceed $884,310, including the Value Added items #3 and 5 at costs as detailed and #1 and #2 with additional cost as outlined and to be taken from the Renewal Program budget; and authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to execute the document, contingent upon final City Attorney review and approval.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
15. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Willmus requested further discussion on the future expectations for the City Manager Search process; along with establishing a review process for the Interim City Manager position.
Councilmember McGehee requested discussion at a future meeting to review the City’s standards for residential building size; and finish materials allowed for residential buildings.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was currently working on text revisions for finish materials; however, they had not begun any discussions on the size of residential buildings.
Mayor Roe suggested that future agenda discussion at that time be limited to the body determining if it wanted to direct staff to consider sizes for residential buildings.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:02 pm.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.