City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

January 23, 2017

 

1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present, along with various members of city staff.

 

2.         Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Item 8.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.

 

John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn addressed comments made by an individual council member to Roseville residents on Facebook related to what Mr. Kysylyczyn believes to be false perceptions of government-managed trash collection if the City of Roseville should institute that practice for the purpose of directing where trash went, and taking away the right of people to choose their own trash hauler.  Mr. Kysylyczyn cited a 2007 U. S. Supreme Court ruling as evidence, provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

5.         Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the city's new trial practice of scrolling announcements before and after Council meetings rather than taking time during the meeting to read them.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Prince of Peace Lutheran Church for the opportunity for him to participate in a recent forum they hosted to address ways residents could participate in city and school activities.

 

Councilmember Laliberte provided a brief update on the City Council subcommittee consisting of Mayor Roe and herself to review advisory commissions, still in process and subsequent plans to come before the full City Council with recommendations.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.            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 January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

§  Page 3, Line 16 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Change "...they were" to "U. S. Bank is"

§  Page 12, Line 12 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Delete "being of"

§  Page 15, Line 25 and all remaining instances (Roe)

Correct title of document to "Rules [and] Procedures" to "Rules [of] Procedure"

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve January 9, 2017 REDA Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the January 9, 2017 REDA Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections: (Roe)

Correct formatting numbers of entire document

                                               

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated January 23, 2017.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Councilmember McGehee stated that the City was selling some vehicles that would help to make up for the cost of new vehicles and equipment; an item she intended to also address later during tonight's budget discussion.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.

 

ACH Payments	$1,853,513.39
83940 - 84372	1,955,242.49
TOTAL	$3,808,755.88

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items," updated January 23, 2017.

 

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted.

                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.

 

d.            Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the 2016 Heinel Watermain Lining Project

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11391 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2016 Heinel Watermain Lining Project;" accepting work completed, starting the one-year warranty period, and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $25,618.85

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

e.            2015 Drainage Improvement Project - Phase I - Approve Final Payment

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11392 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2015 Drainage Improvement Project, Phase I;" accepting work completed, starting the one-year warranty period, and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $11,450.85

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.

 

f.             County Road B Sidewalk - Authorization for Approval and Authorization of Ramsey County Agreement

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11393 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Cooperative Agreement with Ramsey County for the County Road B Sidewalk Project;" for Ramsey County Project S.A.P. 062-625-063 (Agreement PW2017 - Attachment B)

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.

 

g.            Approve Resolutions Approving the Acquisitions of Easements

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11394 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Water Utility Easement at 1900 County Road C West by the City of Roseville."

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.

 

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11395 (Attachment) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Water Utility Easement at 2645 Fairview Avenue N by the City of Roseville."

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.

 

h.            Approve 2017 Street and Utility Preliminary Work Plan

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2017 Public Works Preliminary Work Plan for street and utility improvements as presented.

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated January 23, 2017.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his intent in removing this item from the consent agenda was to separate massage therapist licenses from other licenses for consideration.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he had an issue with the nature of therapist applications when they were so heavily redacted, making it difficult for individual council members to know who the applicants were or having any ability to track information on applicants.  While understanding the need for redacting information from the online docket, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference that that information be more readily available at the city council level for tracking.

 

Roe moved, Etten seconded, approval of four massage therapist licenses as detailed in the RCA of today's date.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that in the past, she too had felt the information provided on background checks for massage therapist licensees was insufficient to make her comfortable; and suggested that staff research other communities to obtain best practices in reviewing applicants.

 

Mayor Roe referenced a recent memorandum from City Manager Trudgeon related to consequences of a recent arrest related to a prior applicant, and staff's practice to no longer proceed in issuing a license in Roseville if there were any issues from previous licensure in another city by a Roseville massage therapist applicant.  Mayor Roe advised that with that recent change in staff's review of applicants, the practice was in line with current city ordinance.

 

Roll Call

Ayes:  Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of massage therapy establishment, cigarette/tobacco products, and temporary on-sale liquor licenses for terms as noted and as detailed in the RCA of today's date, pending successful background checks for licenses if and as applicable.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

10.        General Ordinances for Adoption

 

11.        Presentations

 

a.            Ramsey County Sheriff Jack Serier Introduction

Mayor Roe welcomed Ramsey County Sheriff Serier, who provided a brief presentation on activities of the department. 

 

Sheriff Serier reviewed recent technological updates with implementation of a new jail management system for court and medical information for jail staff in tracking an average of 400 pre-detention inmates typically housed at the jail facility.

 

Sheriff Serier also noted community outreach and connection efforts across the communities in Ramsey County, using the  "Coffee with a Cop" idea of other law enforcement agencies, and implementation of a new "Hot Dog with a Deputy" proving very successful.  Sheriff Serier noted that this involved meeting with families in a central location with a pop-up kitchen trailer at city and county parks, and involving water safety, K-nine and other county officers interested in participating and interacting with residents.

 

Sheriff Serier reviewed a recent staff idea to reward good behavior among longer-term inmates and encourage their positive steps in that direction through the PRIME (Positive Response InMate Exercise) program.  Sheriff Serier advised that this involved responsible behavior, participation by inmates in programming available at the jail facility (e.g. anger management classes, personal leadership, literacy classes, bridging to work, etc.) that led to privileges for inmates at the facility.  With the program initiated in 2016, Sheriff Serier reported it had achieved great success to-date, with a list of inmates seeking involvement; and creating a cascading effect making the facility safer for staff and inmates as well.

 

Sheriff Serier reminded Roseville residents of the availability of secure drug drop boxes at several locations for drop and destruction of unused prescription medications, particularly opiates, no questions asked.  The closest drop offs are at the substation at Hamline and Highway 96, 1411  Paul Kirkwold Drive and at the main Ramsey County Center at 425 Grove Street in St. Paul.

Sheriff Serier recognized the Ramsey County Sheriff's Foundation for partnering with the department in the annual Ramsey County Fright Farm last fall, with over 1,100 attendees per night at times, and funded by the Foundation and supporting student patrol and youth outreach programs, along with some staff equipment.  Sheriff Serier reported that over $100,000 had been raised last fall, and thanked all who attended and the volunteers involved in making the event possible and successful.

 

In conclusion, Sheriff Serier thanked the Roseville City Council, and Police Chief Rick Mathwig and his staff, for their partnership with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department.

Council Questions and Comments

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Sheriff Serier for this annual report.  Given her work with the health care industry, frequently at health fairs, Councilmember Laliberte noted that several of those fairs held in Hennepin County provided sheriff's department representatives staffing drug collection receptacles at those events.  Councilmember Laliberte asked Sheriff Serier if the city had a similar event, if the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department could provide a similar option in Roseville.

 

Sheriff Serier responded that, while he hadn't thought of that option, he would research the possibility if possible logistically and follow-up with City Manager Trudgeon.

 

Councilmember Etten also thanked Sheriff Serier for meeting with the City Council and reporting to residents, and the ways their department was working with and in Ramsey County communities.  As mentioned in past years with Sheriff Serier's predecessors, Councilmember Etten noted as an example the McCarron's Beach area not always regularly patrolled by Ramsey County Water Patrol.  On busy weekends, Councilmember Etten asked that Ramsey County provide a positive presence with Water Patrol periodically on site to make people aware of that presence and remind users of the beach and water amenities to make good and healthy choices.

 

Earlier in his career, Sheriff Serier noted that he had been in charge of Water Patrol, and therefore was also well aware of McCarron's beach being a heavily-trafficked beach.  Sheriff Serier reported that he had just presented a citizen award for work by an individual in helping an injured member of the community at that beach; and advised that he would ensure it remained on the department's radar for patrol on a regular basis.  Sheriff Serier also reported that, through the great partnership with citizens using the beach and in that area, a truncated 9-1-1 system had been developed to stay ahead of things before they evolve.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked Sheriff Serier for tonight's update, and sought clarification on the jail management system and information about the CAD system launched for dispatch and the ability for interaction and tracking of data among records management systems and for report transferring.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Sheriff Serier reviewed his departments' coordination with Ramsey County Public Health Department for improving addition and mental health services available in the jail, and screening for those issues before to prevent crisis situations not initially documented, along with providing addiction recovery services for inmates while incarcerated.

 

Mayor Roe noted his recollection in recent news reports of mental health-related calls coming into 9-1-1 being cued into expertise right away to avoid crisis situations.  Mayor Roe asked Sheriff Serier for an update on how that was working.

 

Sheriff Serier reported that the director of the Ramsey County 9-1-1system, Scott Williams, was doing an excellent job partnering with the St. Paul Police Department in triaging crisis management calls coming into the city and identifying the best people with the right expertise for sharing information and getting the appropriate mental health workers or officers involved in that decision-tree to help those in need in that first-level response situation.  Sheriff Serier reported on the strong interest in taking that further out to Ramsey County communities and patrol services to transition from police intervention to wellness intervention on the front end rather than having to sort it out later.  Sheriff Serier admitted that a lot had been learned in this area over the last decade, and the changing nature of mental health as it intersects with the law enforcement process.  With the development of a great program and partnership with the City of St. Paul, Sheriff Serier reported that the interest was now in expanding the success of that beta test to the broader Ramsey County community.

 

On behalf of the Roseville community, Mayor Roe encouraged that expansion.

 

Specific to records management, Mayor Roe sought clarification on the compatibility of the CAD system; noting that the City of Roseville's records management system had been implemented before that of Ramsey County, and asked if there was good and consistent transferability of that information among various systems.

 

Sheriff Serier reported that Ramsey County's system was far behind others, and now was finally coming up to speed and able to communicate well with other systems and under the larger umbrella company providing that CAD software.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Sheriff Serier for his attendance and updates, as well as providing the helpful information for the City Council and community.

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

13.        Budget Items

 

14.        Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Discuss the Revised Draft Community Engagement Plan and Adopt a Final Community Engagement Plan for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Process (PROJ-0037)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief introduction of tonight's discussion as detailed in the RCA of today's date; and reintroduced Ms. Lydia Major from the consultant team.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting briefly at approximately 6:46 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:47 p.m. to resolve technical difficulties with presentation equipment.

 

Lydia Major

Ms. Major provided a brief review of the update process today, and for tonight's discussion, specifically introduced the Community Engagement Plan (CEP) outline as referenced in the presentation and detailed in the LHB memorandum dated January 18, 2017.  In reviewing each area of the plan, Ms. Major sought City Council feedback going forward.

 

Key Messages - Taglines

With two options presented for a tagline for this effort, "Roseville 2040-Guiding our Future Together" or "Focus 2040," Ms. Major sought out input from council members.

 

Mayor Roe asked if any thought had been given to re-using the Imagine Roseville tag line used in the 2005 community visioning process with Ms. Major advising that since that tagline was still being used by the city in several areas, the thought was to avoid confusing this project with those efforts or overlapping in any way with those efforts.

 

Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus stated their preference for "Focus 2040."

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference for "Roseville 2040 - Guiding our Future Together."  Councilmember Laliberte opined that it included "Roseville" in the message, and suggested "Focus 2040" could be used as the tagline, but she liked the message sent out by the other, in working together with the community.

 

Councilmember Etten stated that he was supportive of "Focus 2040" until hearing Councilmember Laliberte's comments.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that he liked the use of "Roseville" in the first option, but wasn't sure about the "guiding" and suggested "finding" instead.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested an alternative option of "Roseville 2040."

 

After further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte suggested "Roseville 2040- Our Future Together."

 

Without objection, the tagline "Roseville 2040 - Our Future Together" was approved.

 

Role of the Planning Commission

Ms. Major reported that the Planning Commission's role as the steering committee for the plan update was clear, along with the intent for City Council involvement throughout the process as outlined.

 

Other Ongoing Engagement Efforts and Potential Event Locations

No discussion on details as outlined.

 

Notification/and Announcements

Councilmember McGehee opined that this section appeared heavy on media and light on hard copy communications and asked the consultant to work on that aspect.  Councilmember McGehee opined that personally she felt that at the kick-off and conclusion of the engagement process, there should be a mailing to all Roseville households respectively alerting them to the process and goals, and their review of the final document.

 

Mayor Roe opined that from his perspective it appeared that the consultant was simply attempting to cover all available media options, and as provided on page 4 of 9 of the LHB memorandum.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested using supplement flyer in the City News for those opportunities, since that appeared to be a highly read media source by residents.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that this may get more attention than an envelope mailed that may end up tossed out. 

Depending on the timing of the City News editions related to this process, Mayor Roe agreed  it was the vehicle that could be used for feature articles as well.

 

From his perspective, Councilmember Etten noted those options were covered on page 3 of 9 of the LHB memorandum.

 

Mayor Roe noted the options for Twitter updates, as well as suggesting Facebook pages or groups such as "Let's Revitalize Rice Street/Larpenteur"  or  "You know you're from Roseville if"

 

Ms. Major thanked council members for their feedback and suggestions, and recognized the importance of mailings, along with regular updates planned for the City of Roseville's Facebook page.

 

Engagement Metrics

Ms. Major noted that these goals were based on feedback received from the Community Engagement and Planning Commissions to-date.

 

Discussion ensued regarding how engagement metrics were measured by the consultant (e.g. number of unique page views) on the city's website, comprehensive plan website, and measurements of responses elsewhere, with unique views measured by entity based on different IP addresses.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Major for including that metric information, stating that it had been one of the keys in his choice of this firm as the consultant for this process.  Mayor Roe noted that it would allow the city to perceive any obvious gaps during the process.

 

Ms. Major thanked Mayor Roe for acknowledging that, noting it was an important of their process as well.  Ms. Major clarified that their team didn't collect statistically valid information at each event, but as noted in their outline, at some events and activities they used a more human survey to judge responses.

 

On page 5 related to under-represented demographics, Councilmember Etten opined that seniors may be the best-represented group at many Roseville meetings and events, and therefore didn't consider them as an "under-represented" group.

 

Mayor Roe opined, however, that beyond those frequenting city events and meetings, there remained a significant number of seniors who were less engaged.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of retaining seniors in the under-represented metric.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated, from his perspective of under-represented populations, he considered people of color to be the largest group needing to be engaged.  Councilmember Willmus opined that youth and the senior population were both incredibly engaged in the community; and therefore his focus would be to get folks of color involved.

 

To the extent of reaching those not engaged in the community, Mayor Roe reiterated the need to involve youth and seniors in the community to encourage their participation.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed that people of color are the most important under-represented group needing engagement now.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced the recent Urban Land Institute meeting providing a good and complete demographic presentation, Ms. Major agreed, noting that their team's presence there had been intentional and advised that that information would be incorporated as additional feedback into this process.

 

Proposed Process (pages 5 - 10 of the memorandum)

Planning Commission Meetings

Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for the ten additional Planning Commission meetings planed with monthly updates, input on a topical basis.

 

Ms. Major credited the Roseville Planning Commission with that idea and commitment.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a response card or other option to ask questions that could prove self-engaging of attendees before, during and after those meetings.

 

City Council Meetings

Ms. Major noted these dates will remain flexible throughout the process, and suggested, with agreement by Mayor Roe, that these meeting could use topical questions or concentrated discussions as well.

 

Community-wide Public Meetings

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the city's Communications Department staff was holding a place in each upcoming City News edition - depending on tonight's direction from the City Council - to include information on the comprehensive plan update process.

 

Given the timing for September/October public meetings, Councilmember Willmus suggested narrowing that timeframe after Labor Day and before MEA weekend to facilitate those residents going south for the winter months.

 

Ms. Major added that reminder for the team to be aware of that suggestion closer to scheduling that meeting.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked for more information on what was intended at a workshop, such as scheduled at the Fairview Community Center; and how input was collected and documented.

 

Ms. Major reported that there would be very little presentation done at the first meeting beyond answering key questions and telling people why they're there.  Ms. Major advised that the intent was to initiate interactive participation, through exercises people did when arriving, small group exercises, and providing options for people to talk to each other and the consultant team.  Ms. Major advised that this was part of the important process for the Roseville community to own the results of their planning efforts.  In response to Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Major advised that the information was gathered from self-information boards, comment cards, notes taken by the team throughout the room through questions and reporting back, and scanning or photographing displays, all of which would become part of the public record posted on the comprehensive plan website.

 

Councilmember Etten asked about the choice of location at a school facility versus a city-owned facility such as the Skating Center.  Councilmember Etten opined that the location may create a perception and identify who was running the event or activity.

 

Ms. Major clarified that the location remained a question mark at this point; with the need identified to allow enough meeting space and parking for the expected attendance, as yet to be better defined.

 

Recognizing the various options for community engagement, Mayor Roe noted the International City Managers' Association (ICMA) engagement spectrum and that more influencing type of engagement and expectation of those participating versus a more  informative-only approach and role for participants.  Mayor Roe asked if that will be framed up as part of overall activities and events as people arrive, including the input, information and suggestions they provide, to let them know what their participation means to the process and the overall plan itself.

 

Ms. Major responded that the intent was somewhere in the middle of those two options, not just informing the public and taking that verbatim response, but without using technical language, making the public aware of that landing spot.

 

Focus Group Meetings on Topics

Ms. Major referenced the spreadsheet included as an addendum to their memorandum, providing more detail on meeting availability across the board, projected times and locations.

 

Regarding the Economic Development topic, Councilmember Laliberte asked if additional coordination with the Roseville Business Council and/or the two Chambers of Commerce should be involved as well.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that made sense.

Ms. Major clarified that both chambers would be invited to participate, with their existing meeting schedules taken into consideration to better coordinate their participation.  However, Ms. Major also noted that attempts were made to cluster meetings for better concentration.  Ms. Major admitted that it was a balancing act between their availability and other considerations to provide more intensive sessions.

 

With confirmation by Ms. Major, Mayor Roe noted that events by invitation didn't preclude public comment and input.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the clustering of economic development, land use and education, opining that education had its own plan without any say from the city for those two school districts.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the diversity intercepts should be done at the Fairview Community Center during classes.  Councilmember McGehee referenced the recent economic development overview received from the Urban Land Institute providing insight into development in the community; and recognized the city's active involvement with both Chambers of Commerce and the Business Council.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that these are targeted groups, and not intended to replace other opportunities.

 

Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Etten and Willmus spoke in support of the list as presented by the consultant team.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted her concern was related to extra costs that might be incurred beyond the original consultant proposal for services.

 

Ms. Major clarified that the land use aspect was not included as part of the Urban Land Institute group and also unlike intercept boards at Fairview Community Center.  Ms. Major advised that representatives would be invited from organizations actively involved in these issues to talk to the team in addition to and versus receiving input from the public meetings.  While the meetings would be open to the public, Ms. Major noted that the team would be asking those representatives with specific expertise in those specific areas to talk; and further clarified that this would include participation by post-secondary schools beyond the two school districts (e.g. area colleges).

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she was also comfortable with these topics and proposed processes; stating that she saw it completely different from the recent Urban Land Institute presentation done for the City's benefit and leaning more heavily on housing than economic development from her perspective.  While that was good information to receive, Councilmember Laliberte noted this would provide additional economic development information from other experts in the field and others in the community (e.g. business owners and managers).

 

Similarly, Councilmember Willmus agreed that the Urban Land Institute panel presentation had proven interesting and highlighted community activities, but opined that the make-up of the panel and their presentation was solely focused on one aspect of the community (multi-family and senior housing).  Councilmember Willmus stated that he wouldn't want that to forego other means of input by relying solely on that panel input, when it may mean missing other significant items particularly in the business community.

 

Councilmember Etten reiterated that he was comfortable with this list.  Specific to the education aspect, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the need to partner with both the Roseville and Mounds View school districts, whether or not the city had a controlling interest, since it still impacted the broader community.

 

Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten, adding the importance of post-secondary education input as well.

 

Interagency Meetings

Ms. Major noted the intent for four topic-based interagency meetings specific to Housing/land use, economics, transportation/infrastructure, and water/open space.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her support of those interactions and topics to be covered.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested adding other agencies, including but not limited to Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS) and Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM) that were not currently on the list, but potential Roseville partners as well.  Councilmember Etten also noted other organizations, such as the Roseville Community Resource Center housed at the Roseville Covenant Church on Hamline Avenue, and coordinated social service work shared by several Roseville churches at that location for families in crisis or need in the community.  Councilmember Etten suggested further research on other groups working with various diversity groups.

 

Geography-based neighborhood "walkabout" meetings

Mayor Roe suggested consideration of larger multi-family areas (e.g. Rosedale Estates and/or smaller units around Lake McCarron"s) especially since one of the main under-represented groups is apartment dwellers.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Major clarified that the intent with the four geography-based neighborhood meetings was to initiate key input in a timely fashion scheduled for wrap-up in April, but if they proved very successful, this effort could be ongoing or expanded, with flexibility to discuss that further.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the community"s huge draw during summer"s "Discover Your Parks" series, suggesting the "meeting-in-a-box" approach may fit well with those activities.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in this coming back to the City Council after staff identified which areas of the community were being considered for this community engagement component, allowing the City Council to weigh in on those specifics.   Having just come off door-knocking during her reelection campaign, Councilmember Laliberte stated her interest in knowing which areas were being considered.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that the next step would be to get input from the Planning Commission as well; at which time staff and the consultant could come back to the City Council for that feedback as well.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, as this comes together more and areas of development and/or significant change were identified, those specific neighborhoods and residents and businesses that will be most impacted needed to be part of the follow-up meetings to address those specifics.  Councilmember McGehee noted from her perspective that had been a missing piece with past comprehensive plan updates.

 

Ms. Major stated her wholehearted agreement that this should be done as the process progressed, and noted the intent of allowing flexibility moving forward in order to make this exercise successful.

 

As an example, Councilmember McGehee noted that the northwest area of Roseville had numerous issues with single-family homes turning into rentals, suggesting there may be other unique issues in certain pockets of the community.

 

Mr. Lloyd suggested that the City Council identify some of those areas they felt were best suited for a walkabout; with Mayor Roe agreeing to do so as a follow-up to this meeting, directing those comments to staff so as not to miss something if done tonight at the dais.

 

Without objection, council members agreed to provide their thoughts to staff.

 

ECFE Sessions

Ms. Major advised that their team had found these sessions useful in the past to engage parents and children about Roseville issues and opportunities, and here their experiences.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the team working with ECFE staff to gain this interaction and a different perspective from those younger families not typically or otherwise interacting in the process.  However, Councilmember Etten cautioned that the perspective would vary depending on the days chosen, with two sites in Roseville, and several operating at the Fairview Community Center. 

 

"Future City" Sessions

Ms. Major advised that this idea for involving middle school students had been brought forward by the Planning Commission.

 

On-line Surveys (visioning and directions)

Ms. Major advised that these surveys were intended to parallel the first introductory meeting, and had proven cost-effective ways to supplement other in-person opportunities.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Major advised that at this point they had not planned for paper versions of the surveys available from City Hall, but as collating that information may prove extremely labor-intensive, and based on their past experience, hadn't provided for reaching a much wider audience.  However, if this is an area of concern, Ms. Major advised that the team could reconsider it, but anticipated that using the role of intercepts and meetings-in-a-box would reach that same audience, and actually may overlap unnecessarily.

 

Intercept runs (10-12 locations each)

While this concept was more detailed in the spreadsheet, Ms. Major noted the intent to plug the website and have pull-off flyers for additional information and/or resources available on line.

 

Mayor Roe opined that this may be the place to obtain information beyond neighborhood walkabouts or door-to-door canvassing in multi-family buildings.

 

In many of these ideas, Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern that there was no particular filter, noting her interest in input from those coming to work in Roseville by car, bus or carpool or input from businesses located in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee stated that frankly she didn't care that much about input from someone simply coming to shop in Roseville.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated her concern that this information may prove heavily weighted from non-residents or non-workers in the Roseville population, and questioned how the team intended to parse that information out.  At the end of the day, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a Roseville resident plan.

 

Mayor Roe asked if people were queried as to whether or not they were a Roseville resident.

 

Ms. Major advised that this question would be asked on the board; but cautioned that if no one was staffing the intercept board, it would be hard to correlate their answer to that with other questions.  Ms. Major responded that, based on past experience, they generally found that by nature non-residents didn't respond much; and that this was one of the only ways to reach out to visitors to Roseville.  To some degree, Ms. Major advised that the city was interested in visitor input and perceptions of the community.  Specific to weighting information, Ms. Major clarified that the information gathered wasn't counted as votes, but from their perspective, simply a gathering of ideas to correlate without any ranking.  Ms. Major noted that this was a balancing act, and required some professional judgment interpreting the data, an area of expertise with their consulting team. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Major reviewed the concept of intercept boards as a simplistic way of raising awareness in the community and peeking into what people think about it, through an informal "dot" voting opportunity. Given the information gathering at malls, Councilmember Etten expressed interest in how many people brought up traffic issues around Roseville, even if only shopping here and not a resident.  While the roads may or may not be owned by Roseville but other jurisdictions, Councilmember Etten noted the need for the city to be aware of those infrastructure issues.

 

Councilmembers suggested that consideration be given to intercept boards as other locations, including but no limited to the Keystone Food Shelf, Bridging, and NYFS in Shoreview.

 

Meeting-in- a-Box

Given that these typically don't work well in the fall, Ms. Major clarified the intent to implement this during the early phase (March).

 

Ms. Major thanked council members for the helpful suggestions.

 

Next Steps

Councilmember Etten expressed his trust in staff and the consultant to use tonight's feedback to move forward, at which point Mayor Roe entertained a motion to proceed.

 

Mayor Roe provided an opportunity for public feedback at this time, with no one appearing to speak.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of a final community engagement plan for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update process as amended with tonight's discussion.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

b.            Receive Presentation of Feedback Received at 211 N McCarron's (former Armory) Community Input Sessin0s and Direct Staff to Initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning Process

Community Development Director Kari Collins provided a brief presentation as detailed in the RCA and attachments based on past City Council direction to staff.  Ms. Collins noted inclusion of survey responses and comments in the packet materials, and provided a general overview of survey results, ranking community responses via graph for various land use preferences, including housing, institutional, parks and recreation, and commercial uses, with responses ranked in order.

 

Based on feedback at those community sessions, and written comment and data received to-date, Ms. Collins sought City Council direction to staff on comprehensive plan designation.  Subsequent to that direction, Ms. Collins noted additional opportunities for feedback on zoning designations through engaging the public at an open house, and at a public hearing at the Planning Commission level, and then consideration by the City Council prior to a final decision being made.  However, Ms. Collins clarified that for tonight's purpose, staff was seeking direction on comprehensive plan designation only.

 

Mayor Roe asked if there was anything precluding running the comprehensive plan and zoning plan process parallel from a legal standpoint.

 

Ms. Collins and City Attorney Gaughan both responded that there was not any legal restriction to their knowledge.

 

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one coming forward to speak.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, initiating a comprehensive plan amendment to Low Density Residential (LDR) and rezoning from Institutional to Low Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) with that density not to exceed 4 units per acre.

 

Specific to his maximum 4-unit per acre limitation under the LDR-1 designation, Councilmember Willmus stated this provided the neighborhood the best protection, with the option available for a future development to apply for another zoning designation and comprehensive plan amendment greater than the 40 units per acre for consideration.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her agreement in starting the LDR-1 and the ongoing process allowing for further discussion.

 

While not opposed, Councilmember McGehee referenced past comments, stating her preference to have green space automatically mapped out there, based on conversations from those living in the N McCarron's neighborhood specific to the undevelopable land in the corner, currently utilized and strongly desired to maintain that green space buffer on that side of the parcel.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed with the motion based on the stated low density use.  Specific to Councilmember McGehee's comments about retaining green space, Councilmember Etten opined that absent the city purchasing the land and separating it out for green space, he wasn't sure how to accomplish that. 

 

Mayor Roe agreed if would be difficult to designate a different zoning area as was previously noted.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it could be done with designated Green/Open space by making an arbitrary line, similarly to past practice (e.g. property off Victoria Street designated as Open Space), and able to change direction in the future.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was better to reserve it as Open Space now versus leaving it as part of the development parcel, recognizing the significant community interest in doing so.  Councilmember McGehee stated that should be looked into as soon as possible and brought back to the City Council for consideration.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, amendment to the original motion to guide and zone the western portion of the property as Open Space adjacent to Elmer Street.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed this seemed to be of great importance to the neighborhood; and if it could be mapped out accordingly to protect that pond before a developer comes forward, he could support that effort based on the strong commitment heard from the neighborhood.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he would not support the amendment, opining that it created a significant issue for planning the future use of the property and created multiple zoning districts on one parcel, further complicating future development.  From his perspective on the Roseville School District site used as an example, Councilmember Willmus clarified that dual zoning on that site proved a beneficial thing, but opined that typically it created issues from a planning perspective.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this discussion could be held when looking at park dedication and areas to look at for obtaining corridors as the site develops, with a process in place to consider land or fees. Councilmember Willmus stated his preference with that process versus the City Council attempting in its infinite wisdom to draw lines within a property to designate different zoning.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would not support the amendment based on being uncomfortable drawing artificial lines on property not owned by the city.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be supportive of considering park dedication funds and/or land when applicable, but was concerned in creating a zoned piece of land that would be difficult for a developer or property owner to redevelop.

 

Specific to park dedication comments, Mayor Roe noted that if land in lieu of cash was considered, it would be a more appropriate way to look at the site, especially if the land developed as single-family residential, probably resulting in a subdivision process being implemented at that point.  As a supporter of the Fairview Avenue site, Mayor Roe stated that he was now more comfortable with that decision for Institutional property versus development on a private site; and therefore, was not supportive of the amendment.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she would continue her efforts and not support an alternative, especially given the fact that she had yet to see this or any previous City Council take land in lieu of cash.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was the only way to protect this Open Space at the front end of its redevelopment.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Etten and McGehee. 

Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.

Motion failed.

 

Original motion

Councilmember Etten stated his support of the original motion per his previous comments.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support the original motion, feeling strongly that the community felt the need to retain this resource, necessitating more planning before moving forward.

 

Mayor Roe stated his support for the motion and for LDR as the least intensive use for this parcel and what residents had expressed as their preference for future redevelopment of the site.  Mayor Roe suggested that it was worth noting that if designated as LDR and the developer seeks designation as LDR-2 rather than LDR-1, it only required a simple majority of the City Council, not a super majority.  Mayor Roe stated his preference for land in lieu of cash, opining that single-family residential designation provided the most flexibility for a developer.  However, Mayor Roe noted that another path open to a developer would be the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process if that provided what the city was looking for (e.g. preservation of open space) in consideration of other exchanges on the site, with the City Council able to consider each on a case by case basis.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated the importance of having this record available for the Planning Commission as any redevelopment of the site moves forward, voicing the City Council's strong preference that the land along the west side of the parcel be  considered to complement that pond and access to it.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the Park & Recreation Commission should also be aware of this Council discussion and thanked the public for their engagement to-date, and re-emphasized the next steps and additional public comment opportunities including a developer open house public hearing before the Planning Commission, and ultimate final decision by the City Council.  At a minimum, Mayor Roe noted that this process would probably be a couple months in duration.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:58 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:04 p.m.

 

c.            Discussion on the 2018 Budget Process

City Manager Pat Trudgeon advised that at the end of any annual budget cycle, it was customary for him and Finance Director Miller to review the process and look for any improvements that were obvious.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent was to build on successes and to be aware of any shortfalls observed.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the areas identified by him and Mr. Miller as identified in the RCA, and deferred to Mr. Miller for more detail.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller noted five areas to consider addressing in the 2018 budget process, seeking feedback on staff recommendations for each category.  While the categories were separated in the RCA, discussion ensued in general regarding the entire 2017 budget process and future processes.

 

City Council Discussion/Direction to Staff

Mayor Roe suggested that it made sense in accordance with staff recommendation to set aside, identify, and acknowledge input at a number of different points during the process and incorporate that public input into conversations.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn't find this year's process to be that flawed, opining he found it to work fairly well.  Councilmember Willmus stated that the budget cards from residents worked well in providing information.  However, Councilmember Willmus cautioned that he didn't want staff to develop the expectation that as the budget process proceeded during the year, or receipt of the City Manager recommended budget, it automatically meant that would be the ultimate final budget.  As the year progressed and more information became available from time to time, Councilmember Willmus noted that the council would then need to make decisions reflective of that information.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she was extremely happy to see this RCA and identification of perceived issues from staff's perspective, opining that the process was not bad but could always be improved.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the budget process still created big surprises in December, as well as not looking out further ahead for maintenance costs impacted by decisions made in a given year.  This remains a concern to her when the City Council and public are not apprised of that expense and the Council has not discussed it or taken into consideration.  Councilmember McGehee noted that there used to be much more participation from the public at the Truth-in-Taxation hearings, with a core of citizens who used to attend.  Comment cards have been received, put not really discussed by the Council.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if staff had a proposed timeframe based on last year's process, specifically times it made sense to step up public input.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that the timeline would be developed based on the results of this discussion and direction from the City Council to staff, and depending on whether or not they wanted a deliberate step in the process to pause and reflect on citizen input or rather incorporating it on their own throughout the process.  If intended as a deliberate step in advance of the City Manager recommended budget, Mr. Miller noted that would dictate the timeline.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the need to make big decisions earlier in the process than done in the past, specifically setting a preliminary not-to-exceed levy increase to inform the City Manager recommended budget earlier in the process.  As a key point, Mayor Roe opined that once Ramsey County Assessor information on property values and any shifts  between residential  and commercial, in addition to other legislative impacts, had been received, that may prove a good point to obtain public input to guide the City Manager recommended budget.  Mayor Roe stated that may answer several points: allowing people to know what was coming, and to take a step to receive public input at that point and respond accordingly.  Mayor Roe noted that the next stages in the process would then allow for a public explanation of what was included or not included in the budget going forward and rationale for it.  Mayor Roe opined that this earlier input on larger budget items would allow for more specific targeted information on those decisions throughout the process.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe.  Specific to the budget response cards, Councilmember Willmus stated his strong interest in maintaining that one-on-one contact with his constituents and allowing for more detailed subsequent conversations with those taxpayers choosing to participate in that way.  Councilmember Willmus stated that one thing he found missing since the inception of the Finance Commission was not utilizing them for review of the City Manager recommended budget annually before presentation to the City Council.  Councilmember Willmus opined that they should be given the opportunity, with public comment at that level as well, to weigh in beyond use of reserves, but looking at the big picture in addition to the capital improvement program (CIP).

 

Overall, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she found last year's process productive; and suggested if there were additional or specific steps, that they be incorporated into that process versus creating additional steps.  Councilmember Laliberte also spoke in support of continuing use of the cards, and welcomed specific conversations about issues on the cards; in addition to independent feedback received by individual council members beyond the cards.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested it would be nice for the Finance Commission to review the annual process and make recommendations; agreeing that more ways were needed to plug them into the process.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified with Mayor Roe his apparent suggestion that the not-to-exceed levy percentage be provided before and used to inform the City Manager recommended budget (e.g. early spring).

 

Mayor Roe confirmed that as his intent, allowing the City Manager to present his recommended budget and rationale as to whether or not the city was able to meet that levy percentage based on other considerations, providing an opportunity early in the process for the Council as a whole and staff to work out that levy range, and possibly avoiding end-of-year percentage changes at the dais.  Mayor Roe stated that he was responsible for part of that, when his initial and ongoing preferred levy percentage was less than presented in the City Manager recommended budget.  Mayor Roe stated that he should have provided that information to the City Council and City Manager earlier in the process as a starting point and to frame subsequent conversations.

 

Specific to Councilmember Willmus' comments, Councilmember Etten asked if it was his intent for the Finance Commission to review the City Manager recommended budget and make recommendations for inclusion or omission of specific items.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified that he'd like them to have input on information or documents they'd like to look at, as well as making a recommendation on the City Manager recommended budget.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that for the last two years, the Finance Commission had received a copy of the City Manager recommended budget before presentation to the City Council, allowing them to know the impact on the bigger picture, but not coming forward with any recommendations as result of their review.

 

Mayor Roe suggested asking the Finance Commission for specific feedback to the City Council on the City Manager recommended budget based on their review.

 

Based on his understanding of comments tonight, Councilmember Etten stated the intent was for a not-to-exceed levy number earlier in the budget from individual Councilmembers based on their comfort level versus jumping from a higher percentage to a lower one later in the process.  Councilmember Etten agreed it would be more fruitful to precede the City Manager recommended budget with that information.  However, Councilmember Etten questioned the timing for that clarification, and whether it may prove arbitrary.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a target that related to outside influences for that number (e.g. inflationary, property values, etc.); and stated that he wouldn't classify it as a "not-to-exceed" levy percent, but suggesting it may prove more intellectually honest for the council to provide guidance as to the preferred levy increase earlier in the process.

 

 Councilmember McGehee opined that with unknowns on the cost of supplies, materials and equipment, it was absurd to presuppose what the budget may actually be.   However, if a majority of the City Council was already sure they weren't going to support a levy number beyond a certain threshold, it took unnecessary time and only created additional work for staff if the Council withheld that information until late in the budget process.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't think the activities undertaken and the discussions by the City Council at the December 5, 2016 meeting regarding the 2017 budget were transparent for the public or for some individual council members.   Rather than setting a not-to-exceed levy number, Councilmember McGehee suggested using a similar process to that used for the CIP, i.e. as those numbers became available, along with having the City Manager and staff look out ahead with the Community Development Department and Economic Development Authority for anticipated development or redevelopment activities and to anticipate future and ongoing expenses.   She noted as an example that there was also no current program in place for the annual miles of pathway created and for their ongoing maintenance and ultimate replacement.   She asserted that there was something wrong with how the inclusion of ongoing maintenance, or lack thereof, functioned in the City Council budget process

 

Mayor Roe sought to clarify that it was not his recommendation to set a not-to-exceed levy, but only to provide staff early in the process the Council's  preferred target for any levy increase.  Mayor Roe further clarified that this was only one component of the budget process, and didn't take into account staff's perspective and internal information.  By providing this information early in consideration of potential impact on the taxpayer, Mayor Roe opined that it would serve as an important piece to get the information on the table early in the process.  Mayor Roe reiterated that this was not intended to be the final number, but if insight is available to provide at that time, it could serve the overall process, including whether or not maintenance funds were being provided for mileage of sidewalks.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his wholehearted agreement with Mayor Roe's approach.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted it could cut both ways, if the City Council felt additional employees were needed in a given area, the City Manager needed to be aware of that earlier versus later in the process.  Regarding last year's decision-making, and specific to use of reserve fund balance and the Finance Commission's review of those reserves, Councilmember Willmus noted the jump in some of those reserves later in the year, with projections actually received in the meeting materials three days before the December 5, 2016 meeting on the final budget.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this created an obvious difference in budget carryover funds and projections; and suggested research on ways for the city to track those annually for better information.  As alluded to by Finance Director Miller in past discussions, Councilmember Willmus noted his suggestion for creating a fund to track that annual carryover.  Also, Councilmember Willmus clarified that the notion by some of his Council colleagues that utilizing prior year reserves needed to be paid back in subsequent years was not accurate.  If the Finance Commission weighs in earlier, Councilmember Willmus agreed that the City Manager and his staff would have a better indication of where individual council members were at in setting the next year's levy, creating a better overall budget process.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn't make up her mind hard and fast on any of the final budget components before making it known to the public.  While not minding including legislative and assessment impact information in the process, Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that neither it nor a preliminary levy figure would create a line in the sand for her but could allow a more honest way for the City Manager and staff to work from.  On that same token, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City Manager and staff needed to be aware of what council members were saying.  As an example, Councilmember Laliberte stated that it shouldn't be a big surprise to hear her same comments year after year that the City Manager recommended budget conform to the city's cost of living adjustment (COLA) policy.  While unsure if setting a particular levy number early in the process, Councilmember Laliberte agreed it should be part of the conversation to share those thoughts with each other and staff.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the flip side of the City Council providing levy feedback to staff was getting that input from staff on cost impacts earlier in the process, as part of Department Head review of what those projected impacts may big and bigger issues to consider or be aware of.  Mayor Roe stated that those things could influence him on the final levy increase, including once the external factors and tax impacts were available along with those internal factors for costs and budget drivers without each department.  Mayor Roe suggested that would also be a good place for Finance Commission feedback before the City Council makes that call for staff.

 

Technically as to when that legislative information becomes available (e.g. June), Councilmember Etten noted the impact that could have on the annual budget, but not known before July.  Given the proposed timeline, with that information available then and the previous year's annual audit received in May, Councilmember Etten suggested it may be appropriate to receive the City Manager recommended budget, including non-tax revenue and CPI information, coming later in the overall budget process.  Councilmember Etten noted ongoing information that would impact the overall budget and levy, and significantly reduce or increase the levy.  While liking the current process, Councilmember Etten recognized the need to continue looking at the budget process as openly as possible.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement with Councilmember Etten, noting that she was supportive of massive amounts of information being provided throughout the process, opining that the more available and as soon as possible, the better (e.g. anticipated or known property acquisitions or developments).  Councilmember McGehee noted the importance of the CIP to her personally; and while it was being received somewhat earlier, she was getting the impression that staff wanted council members to weigh in earlier, which she was happy to do.  However, Councilmember McGehee agreed with that but also noted that council members needed as much information as they could get beyond legislative input (e.g. property tax appeals). She opined that Council members also needed to be honest early on in the process and as additional information became available noting when some information may have changed the individual or collective perspective.

 

Specific to timing and in lieu of Councilmember Etten's comments, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council was pushing the process toward the second half of the  year to receive information but it wasn't fair to expect the City Manager recommended budget in that same timeframe.  Mayor Roe asked if there was a safety valve somewhere in the process to push out the City Manager recommended budget, especially since the preliminary levy wasn't due until the end of September now, making him question if a shift was needed in receipt of that preliminary budget information.  If information was available earlier in the year, Mayor Roe suggested that the information be provided then, but suggested the City Council commit to a July timeframe to provide feedback to staff on the cost and levy side, still allowing the City Manager time to develop his recommended budget.  Mayor Roe stated that under that scenario, he didn't know how or when the Finance Commission got involved, but suggested joint information could be provided both bodies at the same time.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he wouldn't disagree, but his only concern was keeping the Finance Commission involved throughout; and stated that he had no problem receiving the City Manager recommended budget later in the process.

 

In reviewing the 2016 budget process, Councilmember Etten noted receipt of the City Manager recommended budget mid-July; a joint meeting by the City Council and Finance Commission, followed by setting the Preliminary Budget.  Given that short timeframe, Councilmember Etten questioned how much flexibility was available to facilitate Finance Commission and public comment opportunities.

 

Mayor Roe suggested directing staff to revise the schedule based on tonight's discussion for review and approval by the City Council at a subsequent meeting.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that this was good direction and had been talked about by staff internally.

 

Mayor Roe stated the desire to be fair to the City Manager for providing his recommendations specific to the budget, while allowing the public time to review and digest the budget, acknowledging that final decisions were not made in September.

 

Back to the original message, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the budget cards could easily be done early on in the process, since they weren't dependent on legislative actions or cost estimates.  By frontloading that component, Councilmember Laliberte noted it allowed for more flexibility with the remaining budget schedule.

 

Mayor Roe agreed with that concept; along with synthesis and summary reporting on that information; with public comment heard in work session format without specific budget action items on that agenda.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested incorporating budget comments as part of comprehensive plan update kick-off activities, perhaps with the Finance Commission available to distribute budget comment cards with a dashboard of the 2017 budget to obtain early responses.

 

Specific to forecasting operational needs, Councilmember Etten agreed that those areas with concrete information (e.g. union contracts, insurance, etc.) be articulated in projections.

 

From her perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated the most important component for her was service levels or impacts to ongoing maintenance, with multi-year budgetary impacts tied to projects or decisions in any given year.  Councilmember McGehee asked that additional information be provided on as much of a factual basis as possible as part of the package when making budget decisions and involving everything from projects or operations.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff's suggestions, allowing the public to be more aware of budget impacts throughout the year, including laying out that information in the City News newsletter if available.

 

Mayor Roe stated that he was definitely supportive of a unified budget track, and its availability on the city's website and its status.  As discussed related to land use processes, Mayor Roe suggested that good information and budget reports made available to the City Council be included on the budget web page for public access at any time as well.  Mayor Roe noted his preference for graphical presentations whenever possible, changing bar graphs and categories accordingly and beyond one pie chart, including gross numbers and percentages of budget at any given time and how those things are related.  Mayor Roe noted that there were different ways available to present the same message depending on the audience, but building on the dashboard information as suggested by Councilmember McGehee.  Mayor Roe opined that the city was getting closer to what was needed, but that it still required some tweaking.

 

While agreeing with unified budget tracking but recognizing that information remained ever-changing, Councilmember Willmus opined that regardless of whether or not a not-to-exceed decision and date was accomplished, he found it disingenuous to not acknowledge for the public that there may be changes to that number.  Specific to the CIP, Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council needed to be more proactive in reviewing and prioritizing CIP needs on an ongoing basis and be more involved in in-depth conversations at the Department Head level and obtain their feedback along the way.  Given the substantial dollars involved that may need reallocation, Councilmember Willmus opined that was a conversation still lacking.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the CIP discussion was needed earlier in the process before the budget was set and in advance of 2018 and onward discussions and potential shift of one need before another.  Mayor Roe suggested that may involve department by department cost impacts received earlier in the year, and how they informed the broader CIP, without approving the formal CIP at that early stage.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he would support that concept.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced her personal discussions with Public Works Director Marc Culver on the 2017 Public Works Work Plan approved earlier on tonight's consent agenda.  As done with city streets, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in a similar map for pathways showing what had been accomplished to-date and identifying missing connections, and where the city was at in the process of updating or replacing infrastructure, including water and sewer projects.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, according to staff, most of that information was readily available through the asset management program, and suggested having the availability of such a map when these discussions come up as part of the budget process.  Councilmember McGehee recognized that water main breaks and other operational issues would obviously be needed and would possibly alter the schedules and plans.  However she spoke in favor of having more overall maps and plans and noted the advantage of having this information available, especially with pathways given community interest in that amenity.  She further opined that she understood that $5,000.00 should be set aside annually for every new mile of pathways for maintenance and ultimate reconstruction.   She was not sure that was even currently in the CIP and wondered if things were updated every time more pathways and trails were added.

 

In addition, Mayor Roe suggested a need to identify detailed Sewer and Water CIP assets for each budget cycle beyond the dollar amount, but actual projects, similar to that provided for parks and recreation assets via a spreadsheet identifying specific projects adding up to that dollar amount.  Mayor Roe suggested that become part of the annual CIP report.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal interest in seeing more graphically on a city map where and when one particular area was completed, allowing the city to move forward and staying on track.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that staff has that information available and frequently reviews it internally specific to CIP needs; but recognized the City Council's request for a broader discussion to obtain more input and justification on a project by project basis.  In addition, Mr. Trudgeon noted inclusion of the PPP City Council priorities and operational priorities from staff's perspective.  By having those vetted out earlier in the year, Mr. Trudgeon opined that the budget process could move forward to identify those things doable and those not, effectively informing the collective picture and to make an informed decision.

 

d.            Discussion of City Council and Advisory Commission Rules of Procedure

City Manager Trudgeon noted the redlined copy (Attachment A) of suggested changes to the City Council Rules of Procedure, including Advisory Commissions in this iteration.

Discussion and changes recommended during the discussion included:

§  Revising language at the top of the last page specific to formation of a task force or subcommittee from "shall" to "may;"

§  Revising language in that same paragraph to state "City Council majority" rather than "full City Council," and

§  Verifying that the most recently revised Uniform Commission Ordinance clarifies that advisory commissions need permission from the City Council to create any task forces from the broader community to allow the City Council to retain oversight of appointed commissions.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Council Rules of Procedures (Attachment B) as amended to lines 34 and 35 of the last page.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe called to attention the ability to reduce public speaker comment time to three minutes subject to appeal of that ruling of the chair by a majority of the City Council if longer time limits were requested.

 

CLOSED SESSION MEETING

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 8:58 p.m. and convening in Closed Executive Session, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 13.D and exceptions to Open Meeting Laws, for the purpose of discussing consideration of developing an offer on properties located at 2719 Lexington Avenue and 1145 Woodhill Drive.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 9:02 p.m.

 

In addition to the Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan and Chris Miller, Finance Director were also present.

 

RECONVENE OPEN SESSION

At approximately 9:31p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and reconvening in Open Session.

 

Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:32 p.m.

         

                        Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

            Nays: None.