City Council Meeting Minutes
July 15, 2013
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:30 pm, and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Interview Commission Candidates
Acting Chair Zoe Jenkins was also present for interviews of candidates to the Police Civil Service Commission: Janet Henquinet; Brian Cihacek. Chair John Gisselquist was also present for interviews of candidates to the Planning Commission: Brian Cihacek; Mohamed Keynan; Joshua Immerman. Chair Gary Grefenberg was also present for interviews of candidates to the Human Rights Commission: Brian Cihacek; Michele Courneya; Allison Jensen; Vicci Johnson; Molli Slade.
2. Approve Agenda
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, reconsideration of the Employee Compensation and Classification Study action from the July 8, 2013, meeting, and addition of that to tonight’s agenda as action item 13.a.
Mayor Roe spoke to the appropriateness of the requested addition to tonight’s agenda in accordance with City Council Rules of Procedure, with the previous action not including actual TABLING of action to a future date.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, reconsideration of the City Manager Search Consultant Selection action from the July 8, 2013, meeting, and addition of that to tonight’s agenda as action item 13.b.
In response to Mayor Roe’s request for rationale for this requested action, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she sought to ensure that staff was clear on the previous motion, and was not acting on the process further until further discussion and clarification on the scope of and various components of the search process with a consultant.
Mayor Roe noted that he had taken the previous City Council action to authorize contracting with the firm of Springsted, Inc.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she may propose a different action; with Councilmember McGehee speaking in support of the motion as well.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
McGehee moved, Willmus 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
For the public’s interest, Councilmember Laliberte announced the final Snelling Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Open House coming up this coming Wednesday afternoon.
Mayor Roe thanked the B-Dale Club for inviting him to their 50th Anniversary event last Saturday, representing the City of Roseville; and publically apologized for not promoting their event when passing a Proclamation recognizing that milestone at the previous City Council meeting. Mayor Roe further noted that the group would be sponsoring a car show in September of 2013.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Recognize Outgoing Youth Commissioners Julia Laden and Marie Siliciano; and Commissioners Kris Doneen, Don Drackert and Gerald Olsen
Mayor Roe recognized outgoing Human Rights Commission (HRC)Youth Commissioners: Julia Laden and Marie Siliciano, present and receiving certificates of appreciation from Mayor Roe.
Other retiring commissioners were recognized by Mayor Roe, but not in attendance: Don Drackert of the Police Civil Service Commission; Kristin Doneen of the Human Rights Commission; and Gerald Olsen of the Planning Commission.
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 8, 2013 Meeting
Councilmember McGehee submitted additional corrections via an e-mail dated July 14, 2013, and provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 8, 2013, meeting as amended.
· Councilmember McGehee corrections as noted above
· Page 4, lines 8-9: strike – duplication of lines 4-6 (Laliberte)
· Page 29, line 2, correct “Nay” votes as Willmus: Laliberte; and [Etten] (Willmus)
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
. At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Check Series #
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; 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 Juut Salonspa, 1641 County Road C, Massage Therapy Establishment, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 15, 2013.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
11. Public Hearings
12. Budget Items
a. 2014 Department Budget Discussion
Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview of tonight’s presentations by Department Heads, to be followed at upcoming City Council meetings by remaining Department Heads. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the next step would be to draft more detailed information and scenarios to pursue at the direction of the City Council, as detailed in the RCA dated July 15, 2013.
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided an outline of his presentation.
Mr. Schwartz noted that previous submissions for the Public Works/Engineering Department as submitted in May of 2013 represented a status quo budget under certain parameters; with staffing and employee compensation rising to the top of the priority list.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the current market for key positions remained competitive with other communities; and opined that it was important to retain the best and brightest in Roseville, along with those employees having a an historical knowledge of the City and its infrastructure. While recognizing that employees left for any number of reasons, Mr. Schwartz reiterated the comments made by Finance Director Miller at the July 8, 2013 City Council meeting related to the recent compensation study; and the need to support City staff and position the City around those employees who continue to deliver services as desired by the community. Mr. Schwartz noted that staffing for the City of Roseville remained lean compared to peer cities, while those employees continued to deliver a full complement of services; and again reiterated the need to make it a budget priority to deliver those services with the best employees the City could afford.
Contractual Sealcoat Program
Mr. Schwartz suggested that proceeds from the recent sale of equipment, originally allocated to the City’s CIP program, be transferred to the contractual/operational side of the budget, allowing the department to research contracting with a private company to perform this annual maintenance, thereby accomplishing it in a shorter timeframe, providing a better quality job based on their expertise, and freeing staff to perform other duties.
Asset Management Support
Mr. Schwartz noted that another area for new dollars in the 2014 budget included annual support for the recently implemented asset management software, estimated at $6,000 annually. Mr. Schwartz advised that all engineering work was now fully implemented with the software program, with every task tracked with specific timesheet information through that program. Mr. Schwartz advised that the mapping component was not yet fully implemented, but in process. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the annual support for this software was not included in previous department budgets.
Of the five (5) management level staff positions in the department, Mr. Schwartz advised that three (3) were eligible for retirement in the next 1-5 years. As previously indicated in the department’s Strategic Plan and suggested reorganization structure, Mr. Schwartz suggested converting several current maintenance positions to foremen positions; and creation of a superintendent position in the maintenance area, thereby reducing the structure by one (1) supervisor level position. Mr. Schwartz opined that this would provide better accountability and coordination throughout the department.
Phase II Stormwater Permit
Mr. Schwartz noted that in August of 2013, the current permit would be released and its timeframe for implementation. Mr. Schwartz advised that this would have an impact on staff to meet those strict requirements under federal law, and most likely be time-consuming as well.
Mr. Schwartz noted that City and County staff continued to review some pavement applications done over the last 15-20 years metro-wide given their early deterioration well below those based on industry standards. While MnDOT had also completed their study of this deterioration, Mr. Schwartz advised that it did not sufficiently meet concerns of the City or County, and the consensus was that there was something more to it than weather-related causes, suspecting that there was a direct relationship to current oil refinement practices today.
Therefore, and in response to Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that the Roseville CIP may need revamping to allow for more frequent mill and overlay of some of those streets; since the issue seemed to be contained with surfaces, not structural concerns. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that this would create an impact on the current maintenance program and additional budget stresses.
With the Recycling Utility function now under the Public Works Department, Mr. Schwartz advised that he foresaw this function being coordinated with stormwater Phase II work, education, water quality, and application for additional grants to ensure sustainable measures in the community. Mr. Schwartz suggested that these functions be addressed through the addition of an Environmental Engineering Specialist as an employee of the City.
Mr. Schwartz updated the pending solar funding project with application pending to Xcel Energy for the City. Mr. Schwartz also noted that the City Council would be asked in the near future to approve the first round of LED lighting for city-owned streetlights as they came due for maintenance/replacement. With the fire station’s geothermal system soon coming on line, Mr. Schwartz noted that reasonable payback timeframe and cost efficiencies should be realized, addressing more sustainability for the City’s energy costs.
Mr. Schwartz briefly addressed pathways and pavements as part of the overall infrastructure for public properties.
Alternative Budget Scenarios (reductions)
Mr. Schwartz recommended that any reductions be handled in service levels and programs least felt by the community; while protecting areas related to public safety and maintaining the city’s significant infrastructure investments. Mr. Schwartz advised that he awaited further City Council direction on their preferences.
Discussion ensued regarding solar rebates necessary through a third party (e.g. Newport Partners); staff recommendations for potential budget reductions in aesthetics (e.g. rights-of-way mowing, streetscape maintenance, or reduced plowing based on actual snowfall inches); knowledge of existing staff and the City’s infrastructure system; research provided by Councilmember McGehee for City of Roseville staffing compared with the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park, showing that the City of Roseville staffing was very lean by comparison; and federal requirements for meeting the mandated six (6) minimum stormwater Phase II management measures annually.
Further discussion, instigated by Councilmember Etten, included current sharing cross-department, specifically between the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments for equipment and staff; potential opportunities for additional sharing of more of the Department’s administrative duties with the City’s Administration Department; and an offer by Mr. Schwartz to provide data input assistance to the Parks Department to complete implementation of the asset management software.
Mr. Schwartz commended the Public Works/Engineering staff for stepping up to implement the data management and GIS software for the Public Works Department; and reiterated his support for offering their expertise to the Parks Department when they were ready to proceed.
Mr. Schwartz also suggested there may be additional opportunities for the Community Development and Public Works Department GIS staff to coordinate further. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was common for any and all departments to request help of other departments as needed.
Related to Mr. Schwartz’ comments regarding upcoming retirements and reorganization plans, Councilmember Laliberte requested additional information in the near future of a flow chart for succession planning for the department; and any potential things that could be eliminated from this department and provided by another department to allow the Public Works team to focus on specific duties outside ancillary “fluff” in day to day operations. With the addition of a new superintendent and one less supervisor, Councilmember Laliberte noted that this would impact salaries at those levels as well.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he was cognizant that all departments throughout the City were lean, and questioned the viability of asking another department to take on additional responsibilities.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that one consideration may be how facilities are currently managed, with future consideration given to contracting that management out, recognizing that facility management firms provided web-based management and expertise, freeing up current staff to complete reorganization within the department.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was a significant amount of money spent in the Public Works/Engineering Department and that it would be a mistake to priority other things without first funding a succession plan.
Mayor Roe recognized the City of Roseville’s current provision of Public Works/Engineering services to other communities, as well as the sharing of a City of Maplewood Engineer with Roseville; and asked for a status update on those arrangements, whether they were a net gain for the City of Roseville or not.
Mr. Schwartz responded that those relationships did impact staff time; however, they were still found to be a net gain. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City was currently only providing engineering services to the City of Falcon Heights, as Arden Hills hired additional engineering staff. Mr. Schwartz further reported that the City of Maplewood staff engineer being shared with the City of Roseville for stormwater modeling had left that city for the DNR, and the City of Maplewood did not fill that vacancy. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that the City of Roseville had been using a start-up firm with young talent that was found somewhat less expensive than the Maplewood model; and opined that it remained a good value for Roseville. While taking additional staff time, Mr. Schwartz opined that it remained beneficial to all parties.
Mr. Schwartz referenced the Department’s Strategic Plan outlining a future technician level person in rights-of-way; and opined that between that relationship and other permits and related fees implemented over the last few years, the position could be funded without any additional tax support, with the net of all those components fully funding the positions and making up for any negative impacts on staff time.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to the benefits for additional collaborative efforts with neighboring communities for specialty engineering services versus contracting out for those services allowing staff to remain focused on other items, Mr. Schwartz responded that there would always be a need for specialty engineering (e.g. stormwater or traffic) beyond staff’s in-house expertise. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was nice to retain those relationships due to the ebb and flow of workloads and to keep those channels open. Mr. Schwartz advised that this was how it had been left with the City of Maplewood for the time being.
Mayor Roe questioned if the Department had opportunities to work with other communities similar to capital purchases through the state bid process, or to consider contractual relationships with other communities to benefit all through a larger bidding process.
While Mr. Schwartz recognized that as an interesting concept, he concurred with Mayor Roe that this would take staff time to manage it; but if cities developed a pool of resources, he also saw a negative perception and resentment within the consultant community for such a consortium.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that he anticipated funding for the Environmental Specialist position from enterprise funds (e.g. Recycling, Stormwater and others) and requiring no tax funded support beyond that allotment. Mr. Schwartz advised that this was proposed under previous direction and guidelines given under a maximum 3% levy increase scenario.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz provided an update on the City’s inflow and infiltration (I & I); drawdown of the first surcharge allowed by the Metropolitan Council from state bonding monies for current work on the City’s manholes and sewer lining to reduce infiltration; pending impacts of the June 21 – 22 storms to determine if the City of Roseville had exceeded its maximum allowed; and further research on the significant lift station cycling during the summer storms that indicated a problem still existed in the system – with specific locations yet to be identified.
Further discussion ensued at the request of Councilmember McGehee on solar energy eligibility for the City Hall campus and projected annual savings; review of the need for a third party partnership for tax credits; options for metering each facility to understand operations and needs; extensive timeframe for payback on solar without a rebate program and reduced rebate without that third party partnership; clarification that, as a non taxpaying entity, the City could not qualify for federal credits for solar installations; and projections of the geothermal master plan program.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that an annual evaluation of the City’s partnership and cooperative efforts with other cities was performed to determine if those partnerships remained viable, including employee costs, engineering software, equipment, overhead for vehicles, etc.; and a cost multiplier of a percentage of the person’s salary providing that service.
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided an outline of his presentation as a bench handout.
Mr. Brokke advised that the Department consisted of five (5) areas: parks, recreation, skating center, forestry (each tax-supported in addition to some fee-supported at 50-60%), and the golf course (an Enterprise Fund).
Mr. Brokke noted that 2011 funds of $100,000 were allotted, but not used; and anticipated that $50,000 to $70,000 in funding would be remaining in the fund to go forward.
Mr. Brokke noted that it was anticipated that currently eliminated positions (e.g. park supervisor and custodial person) would be reinstated when the overall economy improved. However, Mr. Brokke noted that this continued to be deferred, and continued to stretch a lot of staff in a lot of directions. Mr. Brokke noted that his department had purchased some time from the Public Works’ contractual maintenance firm; however, they were looking for a more consistent solution for take down/set up for various activities and events. Regarding concessions, Mr. Brokke advised that current staff or volunteers have taken on this task, as an outside party had not yet been found, and he continued to work with affiliated groups to man concession stands to make them work; anticipating that this could eventually become a revenue plus situation.
Mr. Brokke noted that the department remained lean in full-time staffing, as well as part-time and seasonal staff needs with many turnovers requiring continuous training for operations and safety issues.
Mr. Brokke opined that the entire park system was so heavily used, it was difficult to remove something and require another location to absorb those needs (e.g. Owasso ballfields).
Mr. Brokke noted that this past season was the most challenging encountered in a long time for trail plowing especially with limited equipment (2 pieces off-road and 2 pieces on-road).
Mr. Brokke noted that wildlife management was becoming more of a concern in urban areas, including Roseville, and that the staff continued to coordinate that management with Ramsey County for deer and geese.
Mr. Brokke admitted that staff had been unable to get their information fully implemented in the asset management software at this point as it remained lower on the priority list; noting that the reinstatement of a park supervisor position would be a great help in accomplishing that.
Mr. Brokke noted that everyone in the department worked across the department.
Mr. Brokke advised that he was calling the renewal program as a one-time opportunity to make significant improvements in the city’s park and recreation system. Mr. Brokke advised that each park in the city-wide system was being given its own unique individual identity as part of the renewal program.
Mayor Roe clarified that the renewal program was also encapsulated as part of the City’s ongoing CIP process, with recent revisions.
Budget Reduction Scenario
Mr. Brokke advised that any reductions he may support would be primarily focused around non-fee programs (e.g. ice rinks, summer entertainment, bands, Rosefest, 4th of July, etc)
Regarding the Owasso ballfields, Councilmember Willmus asked if any outreach had been done to-date with other communities to find partnerships or potential locations; and if not, opined that this process needed to start now.
Mr. Brokke advised that he had not personally contacted other communities; however, he had discussed the situation with baseball group members to find possibilities or other options.
With continuing comment heard occasionally from a member of the public regarding the City selling some of its park property, Councilmember Willmus asked that at a future time, Mr. Brokke provide information pertaining to the value of open space in a community. Councilmember Willmus noted specific formulas (e.g. market value for contiguous properties surrounding open space and/or offsets for other government services) to determine the value for open space and to offset emergency services personnel; or other factors not previously considered beyond the actual price of a piece of land sold for a certain number of dollars; but to address costs outside that basic land value.
Councilmember Etten concurred, adding the availability of stormwater management opportunities as well.
Along that same line, Mayor Roe noted that the dollars received for selling the land were only a one-time revenue source, and while maintenance costs may be reduced, what was actually being lost in selling that land, depending on the different categories of uses and changes to the complexion of the community.
Councilmember McGehee encouraged the department to raise the priority level for getting current with the asset management software program, opining that it provided an important piece of the City’s capital plan and overall planning. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of that across the board for all City Departments. Councilmember McGehee also spoke in support of Councilmember Willmus’ suggestion to contact other district communities for cost-sharing opportunities for outdoor facilities.
Councilmember Willmus clarified his rationale in raising the issue for cost-sharing of field with other communities, stating that it was based on potential implications for the 2014 budget, without knowing which direction the School District would go, and the need for the City to start planning now for any potential impacts to its recreation programs.
Mayor Roe further clarified that communication to-date from the School District was that the Owasso ball fields would remain usable through the 2014 season, so impacts may be to the 2014 budget, but not 2014 programming.
Regarding reinstatement of the custodial position, Councilmember Etten noted the high demand from the community to have more bathrooms available during the day, week and throughout the year; while also recognizing the need for those facilities to be maintained and cleaned appropriately. If the custodial position was reinstated, Councilmember Etten questioned if that position would be free to perform that maintenance for those additional buildings as well.
Mr. Brokke opined that they could help, but would not be able to perform the fine detailed cleaning.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Brokke advised that his department was currently much stretched, and often was the recipient of other departments in accomplishing its work load, particularly for special events; and could envision no additional sharing of current Parks & Recreation staff with other departments that may provide greater efficiencies. Mr. Brokke noted that during special events, all departments did their part, opining that this was one thing Roseville did very well, with a lot of sharing among and between departments. If there are areas to share, Mr. Brokke opined that staff found them; and as pointed out by Mr. Schwartz, it was a real benefit to be able to not hesitate and call on those other departments as needed and their immediate response to those needs.
At the request of Councilmember Etten if the Administration Department was able to provide more support allowing individual departments to focus on their operations, Mr. Brokke responded that he would need to give that further consideration. Mr. Brokke reiterated that he didn’t hesitate to call on Administration for help if and when needed; opining that every department had its own level of expertise for everyone to rely on if not available within its own department; and further opined that it was important to continue that relationship under current staffing constraints.
Councilmember Laliberte, in conjunction with Councilmember Etten’s comments, asked that Mr. Brokke consider if there were functions that could be moved out of his department to Administration (e.g. purchasing).
Councilmember Willmus noted Mr. Brokke’s comments under “operational challenges” related to trail plowing, advising that he continued to hear feedback during winter months that some trails are kept in their natural state to allow snowshoeing and cross country skiing; and questioned if taking a percentage of trails outside the maintenance realm was possible.
Mr. Brokke advised that some cross country skiing had been experimented with, including golf course trails and some around Acorn Park, However, Mr. Brokke advised that the overwhelming response fielded by staff was the public questioning whey the trails were not being maintained for walkers, at which point, staff responded by again plowing them.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke clarified that the number of summer or seasonal employees was estimated at 150 annually, with some of those of one hour and some more per week, varying from year to year and part of delivering programs Mr. Brokke confirmed Mayor Roe’s understanding that the seasonal employees were not included in the department’s FTE count of 24.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that purchasing and communications may be an administrative function for all departments to free up some staff time; and asked that Mr. Brokke give that more thought.
Discussion ensued regarding those new buildings coming on line as part of the Renewal Program, and the anticipated year they would do so and related budgetary impacts, including that of CIP amortized costs.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte and Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke clarified that the new positions addressed were funded through the tax levy, with only a portion funded (50-60%) through fee programs. Mayor Roe noted that this created a concern with levy limits; and suggested that Mr. Brokke consider the benefits of incorporating additional responsibilities (e.g. asset management implementation) into an additional position request such as that of the Park Supervisor.
Additional discussion included whether water fountains were needed in parks when so many carried their own beverage containers; periodic Roseville fee comparisons with other communities; and non-resident fees versus resident fees and how to focus fees on those using a service versus the entire community through tax levies.
Finance Director Chris Miller provided an outline of his presentation. Mr. Miller noted that the Finance Department fell into three (3) distinct operating divisions: Finance and Accounting, Information Technology, and License Center. Mr. Miller referenced the points of emphasis for the 2014 Department Budget as detailed in the budget overview handout.
Issues and Challenges
Mr. Miller advised that the greatest challenge for the department was competing with the private sector, specific to IT and CPA expertise, and providing additional focus to successfully compete with above and beyond those other cities and the private sector, done well historically and to-date. In order to facilitate that, Mr. Miller advised that it was necessary to provide the right work environment, ongoing training, and a comparable compensation/benefit package. Without those elements, Mr. Miller advised that it will be difficult to retain top tiered personnel; which provided a critical challenge for the Finance Department on a daily basis.
Regarding the IT model, Mr. Miller clarified that he was specifically addressing the support needs for Roseville, as IT staffing levels were well below peer organizations and industry-recommended standards; as well as not keeping pace with additional technological programs recently added to the City’s software platform (e.g. HRIS, Police/Fire record management, and asset management software). While joint powers agreements (JPA’s) support additional support staff to serve partner communities, the Roseville IT model is not sustainable unless IT staff is available to support Roseville software maintenance. Mr. Miller advised that current staff was putting in70-80 hours per week; and at some point a better solution was needed.
Mr. Miller advised that a simple benchmark for industry-recommended standards was for one (1) IT employee for every fifty (50) employees needing IT support. At this time, Mr. Miller advised that the City of Roseville was experiencing a 1/100 ratio; with 1,200 users throughout the consortium. While the City was fortunate to have people putting forth the extra effort, from an operational standpoint for IT models for the consortium, current staffing may be appropriate, but moving forward, asked that the City Council consider the need to upgrade its staffing levels to support the City of Roseville and consortium members.
In response to department capital needs funded at only 60%, Mr. Miller advised that this included not only computers or printers, but all network servers, anti-virus programs, and back-up programs. Mr. Miller noted that, while the CIP provided funding for general equipment and vehicles, any additional strengthening of the Roseville IT program in 2014 would be challenging with current levy limits. While recognizing the need to get by short-term, Mr. Miller cautioned that the IT program was not sustainable under current funding.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the annual lease for the off-site License Center was $62,000, and would increase over the next three (3) years based on the existing lease.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller clarified that member cites/agencies in the consortium were invoiced per JPA language for any additional staff needs or additional technological support for the City of Roseville, basically at a no net cost to the City. Mr. Miller advised that this model had not changed in a decade, but noted that new software solutions were continually being added and therefore requiring additional training and service support needs.
Mr. Miller further clarified that the IT staffing levels he addressed in his “Issues & Challenges” comments were specific to the City of Roseville as each department upgraded their software programs for the purpose of becoming more efficient and productive, they all required additional maintenance. Mr. Miller noted that it was not Roseville property taxes that paid for those fees (e.g. Microsoft licenses), but revenue from tower leases; and without that, things would shut down quickly.
Mayor Roe questioned if the business model for partner cities/agencies would continue to work if costs were increased to those members of the consortium to cover Roseville’s costs; or if this would no longer make the consortium option competitive.
Mr. Miller advised cost allocations for the business model were revised annually based on a proportion of costs shared by all agencies. Mr. Miller noted that this business model had been developed in 1997, and did not include a multiplier as referenced by Mr. Schwartz for engineering services (1.9) that would allow Roseville to be a profit center. Mr. Miller advised that the true benefit for the consortium was sharing fixed costs among 28 different entities for expensive systems (e.g. back-up system), essentially saving Roseville dollars by spreading out those fixed costs, lowering the costs, but not covering all of them. Mr. Miller opined that if a multiplier was applied to cover Roseville’s IT costs, it would no longer be a competitive or beneficial option for partners.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller confirmed that when any new JPA is executed, additional staff costs, equipment costs, license agreements, number of users, and other components were all figured into the agreement. Mr. Miller clarified that those cities continued to pay for their own licensing fees and computer costs, while the City of Roseville purchased them on their behalf, with the costs borne by the individual partners.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified the ownership of assets, with each city having its own network switches and equipment for each building served, providing some true benefit to the City of Roseville in having partnerships so its fixed costs were spread over a larger area. As an example, Mr. Miller advised that the City was going to require $50,000 for storage capacity for Roseville alone, but the storage had been intentionally oversized to allow other cities to store their information on that network and pay Roseville proportionately. Mr. Miller advised that the advantage to Roseville was that it obtained a $50,000 piece of equipment for $10,000, but the City of Roseville still owned the equipment that it would need to buy anyway, but it now also could support multiple users.
Mr. Miller noted that another advantage, excluding any crisis with a partner in the consortium, was that the Roseville IT staff of twelve (12) could be put on a specific Roseville job to get a task accomplished sooner; and without the opportunity provided by the consortium, the City would only have 2.5 IT members available, which would provide an entirely different business model than currently available through regional collaborations.
At the request of Councilmember Etten regarding the extensive hours provided by all IT staff, Mr. Miller advised that of the twelve (12) IT employees at this time, five (5) were exempt, with the remainder of the employees hourly and only working 40 hours, since there was no provision for overtime in the current budget.
At the request of Councilmember Etten as to the ratio of IT staff available for the consortium and industry-recommended standards, Mr. Miller advised that in the quarterly meetings of partners in the consortium, members had agreed to fund additional positions gradually to obtain a more realistic staffing level at approximately one per year or every other year. Mr. Miller noted that it was important to be sensitive to those partner cities who were facing the same conditions and constraints as the City of Roseville and what they had available to commit to their IF functions. Mr. Miller advised that overall the cities have been great partners, with the majority very patient and understanding of the true value of these collaborative efforts with realistic expectations. However, Mr. Miller noted that there were some concerns expressed related to response times for IT staff, especially on weekends, evenings or holidays, all dependent on IT staff time and schedules. Mr. Miller noted that all IT staff had pagers, and the standard is that they always responded. However, if all of those cities had departments with computers, printers, and internet service 24/7, the standard was for the City of Roseville to provide support and maintenance. Mr. Miller noted that the question was: “Could a handful of employees, beyond those Department Heads tasked accordingly, be continually expected to be on call 24/7 with no relief in the long-term?
At the request of Councilmember Etten for service level increases in the Finance/Accounting area, Mr. Miller advised categorically that if internal service capabilities were improved, his first, second, third, and ongoing priority recommendation would be for IT staffing levels to increase. Mr. Miller advised that this would also allow the Department to increase information reporting needs for other departments and the City Council, whether budget analyses or internal audit functions that a city the size of Roseville should be doing, which would be beneficial, in addition to monitoring purchases and expenditures above current thresholds, along with improved risk management based on best practices and industry standards. Mr. Miller opined that the largest internal need for the City’s internal customers was a glaring need in the IT function.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the first positions added would be IT response network engineer positions, with one (1) position great and two (2) being a godsend. Mr. Miller advised that the intent would be to anticipate problems on the front end on a proactive basis for scanning and evaluating equipment and software, making the reactionary response on the backend less of a problem for complete system failures or crashes.
On behalf of Interim City Manager Trudgeon and anticipating the July 22, 2013 meeting and staff’s request for general budget direction from the City Council, Mr. Miller asked that the City Council provide serious priorities while recognizing levy limits and other issues coming on line. Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Trudgeon would eventually need to present the City Manager-recommended budget, a team effort, and whatever specific information the City Council could provide on July 22, 2013, would allow staff to deliver that as anticipated on August 19, 2013.
13. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Employee Compensation Study
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, TABLING discussion on the Employee Compensation Study to a future meeting.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Discussion ensued regarding moving the Study to the August 19 meeting to allow more discussion time; since implementation is slated for January 1, 2014.
b. City Manager Search Process
Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern that this item should be tabled as well, especially because no additional information was available tonight from the Human Resources Department.
Mayor Roe noted that staff was scheduled to return to the City Council for approval of the final agreement; and questioned what if any additional information Councilmember Laliberte wanted.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she wanted to see the final agreement with a scope well defined for each component; with a full discussion and consensus of that final agreement for consulting services.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff intended to bring the contract forward at the July 22, 2013 meeting on the consent agenda, but suggested it be moved to an action item.
Mayor Roe clarified that if the final agreement was scheduled to return on July 22, 2013, there was no need to reconsider anything at this point, as staff had been given sufficient direction based on previous discussions.
14. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember Willmus advised that several neighbors had requested that they be included in notices for future discussion on the Josephine Heights plat.
Mr. Trudgeon responded that a community meeting/open house was scheduled for the developer/neighborhood tomorrow evening at the Skating Center; but offered to confirm notices; with Councilmember Etten confirming that he had received a copy of the invitation last week.
Future agenda items discussion included the number of items included on future agendas and how to do them all justice; with some items reviewed for deferral and others to be considered by Mayor Roe and Mr. Trudgeon as agendas were developed. Mayor Roe noted that agenda times could be further reduced by keeping on topic and focusing specifically on those items before the City Council rather than a broader discussion, with concurrence by Councilmember Etten for the need to stay on topic.
Mayor Roe requested that individual Councilmembers provide their top two (2) citizen applicants to each single vacancy on the Planning and Human Rights commissions; to allow staff to provide a matrix for consideration by the City Council at their next meeting for appointment. Mayor Roe clarified that it should just be their top two (2) choices without any ranking by individual Councilmembers and that the process was not required for the Police Civil Service commission due to only having 2 applicants.
16. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:57 pm.
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.