View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
thanked citizens for their participation in the 2016 budget process by submitting
their comments. Mayor Roe encouraged additional comment through various options
available online, in person or by phone contact with City Manager Trudgeon at
792-7021. Mayor Roe expressed pleasure in the number and variety of input
received to-date; and publically thanked Councilmember McGehee for her idea in suggesting
this outreach opportunity.
Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Receive the 2016 City Manager Recommended Budget
budget comments received from residents after distribution of the meeting
materials were provided as a bench handout, and made part of attachments to the
staff report detailing the 2016 City Manager Recommended Budget dated July 13,
Patrick Trudgeon presented broad highlights of the 2016 City Manager
Recommended Budget, providing a copy of the presentation slides as part of the
staff report. Mr. Trudgeon advised that his priorities in this budget are to
continue the level of and quality of services for residents, and to provide a
context from which the City Council can make decisions on the not-to-exceed
preliminary levy on September 14, 2015. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he and staff
had referenced community aspirations, the most recent community survey, and
public input to-date in developing 2016 budget goals.
As detailed in
the staff report and presentation slides, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed budget
priorities; a breakdown of non-property and property tax expenditures and
percentages impacting the levy in addition to fees and other revenue sources
beyond the levy itself; and how they differentiated.
In an effort to
further clarify Mayor Roe noted that the presentation includes references to
both expenditures and to the revenues that support those expenditures. Thus,
there are references both to how much the projected spending will increase or
decrease relative to this year's budget, but also how much different revenue
sources will increase or decrease, and that the percentages are not always the
same as a result of whether they refer to spending levels or revenues. City
Manager Trudgeon noted the 2016 non-property tax-supported budget is projected
at $23,367,130, a decrease based on fewer capital expenditures from sanitary
sewer and stormwater funds, which occurred cyclically and the breakdown shown
on the graph presentations.
Mayor Roe noted
these expenditures went beyond maintenance, with payments for charges included
to the Metropolitan Council for water and sanitary sewer charges.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the
water/sanitary sewer fees also impacted the City's residents and businesses.
Trudgeon continued with the presentation, including percentage increases in
levy and non-levy areas specific to projected spending and comparisons with the
2015 budget and actual expenditures to-date. Mr. Trudgeon noted the majority
of increases were due to capital costs and personnel services. Mr. Trudgeon
further addressed additional spending allotted for the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) beyond that originally programmed or planned based on revised
needs and projections. Mr. Trudgeon noted that 60% of the 2016 budget was
represented in CIP spending, and 40% toward the operating tax levy increase.
Trudgeon addressed each proposed area, including a proposed increase in the
cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 2% for employees as per the
previously-adopted City Council policy based on the consumer price index (CPI)
and Minneapolis/St. Paul ECI using current data, which will be adjusted as the
year progresses, with 2nd quarter numbers scheduled for release the
end of July.
included local versus national CPI data, with Finance Director Miller advising
that they were comparable; and City Manager Trudgeon advising that both will be
reviewed as the year progresses for accuracy. However, City Manager Trudgeon
encouraged the City Council to support a 2% COLA for employees for consistency
with union employees and to remain competitive in the marketplace with peer
communities and retention efforts of experienced employees.
recommendation for seven new full-time equivalent (FTE) employee positions as
outlined in the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed each, rationale for each
position, and how those positions would be funded and levy impacts for each position
as well as those positions proposed from non-levy funds.
Trudgeon advised that, even though requested by individual departments during
their previous presentations, he was not recommending the positions for a
mental health impact police officer, or that of an intern for the administration
department. While both positions had merit, Mr. Trudgeon noted that he was not
recommending them at this time.
Trudgeon advised that, after having seriously taken each of the following
requests into consideration from initial department requests, he had not included
the following requests in this 2016 City Manager Recommended Budget:
Police Department request for a mental health impact officer
Administration Department request for an Intern position
Parks & Recreation Department request for additional emerald
ash borer (EAB) funding
Fire and Park & Recreation Department requests for additional
building management services for the Fire Station and Skating Center (deferred
for another year with review for the 2017 budget, and allowing more opportunity
to see how this arrangement is working with McGough Facility Services
Public Works Department request for funds to remodel Public Works
Fire Department request for additional medical supply funding
rental income for new or updated park facilities, City Manager Trudgeon advised
that revenue was not at 100% to cover operational costs, utilities and maintenance;
and therefore he was recommending a.50 FTE to better monitor and coordinate
proposed Finance Department Intern position, Councilmember McGehee suggested
having a part-time employee versus an intern in that position in order to
ensure specialized customer service continues. Councilmember McGehee opined
that the current employee has that experience now and further opined that
residents would not be as well-served by intern college services as with a
regular city employee. Councilmember McGehee stated she has no problem in
splitting the position between employees, since it is such an isolated spot
already, but reiterated that with the current employee already performing that
work, an entry level receptionist position would better serve the entire community.
Trudgeon assured Councilmembers that administration would continue to review
the position and its make-up, but the goal was to provide consistency, as well
as being sensitive to the cost of employees versus students, while also
avoiding a "revolving door" situation as well.
Trudgeon reviewed the lucrative potential of the Deputy Registrar office
(license center) and potential increased revenue with expanded dedicated staffing
and organization to address passport and auto dealer license needs, as well as
enhancing supervision. Mr. Trudgeon noted the interest in growing that revenue
source as well as responding to competition received from other area Deputy
As detailed in
the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon addressed proposed positions in the Information
Technology (IT) area to address the dramatically increased needs of Roseville
itself, as well as those other agencies and municipalities supported by this
function and their applicable cost-share. Having taken the opportunity over
the weekend for a ride-along in a squad car, Mr. Trudgeon reported on his observations,
opining he had a new appreciation for officers and the complications in using
technology advances to perform their jobs, both in the Police Department, but
also in the Fire Department with their new CAD system. Mr. Trudgeon noted the
need for IT staff to address technology problem and issues as they occur to allow
public safety personnel to perform their jobs; and advised that this goal was
driving a lot of the local needs identified in this area of the 2016 budget.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the projected costs for the
City of Roseville for the new staff positions was inclusive of benefits, not
recommendation for using reserves, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he was
proposing the use of $375,000 in General Fund reserves to moderate the 2016
levy increase. While he recognized this was not a sustainable practice long-term,
Mr. Trudgeon noted this would leave that reserve fund at 37% projected, in line
with the City Council policy of holding reserves between 35% and 45%.
Trudgeon publically acknowledged the work of Department Heads and their
respective staffs in allowing reductions for the 2016 budget from the 2015
budget as outlined in the RCA.
among Councilmembers and staff included projected retirement of the current
Fire Marshal in 2016 and planned staffing of that position by adding those
duties to one of the Battalion Chief positions based on their expertise;
continued elimination of the Fire Inspector position and Fleet/Facilities
Superintendent positions as addressed in 2015; clarification that the $419,000
identified as additional expenditures in the 2016 property tax-supported budget
did not include transfers, nor were they specific to line item expenses.
discussion included the eliminated request for medical supplies clarified as
those over and above current supplies replenished as required from Allina to
the Fire Department; and clarification of the tax levy and impact projected for
homeowners (lines 175 - 183 of the RCA) based only on the City portion of the
tax bill and for a median value home, at this time verified by Finance Director
Miller at $216,000.
City Manager Trudgeon reviewed identified priorities and goals as they
connected to the proposed 2016 budget and tax levy through growing non-property
tax revenues through expansion of City business enterprises; through leveraging
partnerships to reduce costs while increasing productivity; by reorganizing
service delivery to more efficiently utilize tax dollars and lessen future
costs; and through the strategic use of reserve funds. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
a lot of staff focus and hard work had gone into this proposed budget; and from
his perspective, opined it was the absolute minimum moving forward and represented
staff's best efforts in identifying what was needed to continue to operate
realistically. While recognizing there may be some desire to further lower
those numbers, Mr. Trudgeon opined it would hurt service delivery, and noted
that if the levy capital increases were factored out, an increase of only 1.4%
was identified in the operational portion of the budget. Mr. Trudgeon noted
that past City Council directives, targets, and discussions had driven
development of this recommended budget.
Trudgeon reviewed the next steps in the 2016 budget process and projected
July 14, 2015
Presentation of City Manager
Recommended 2016 Budget to the Finance Commission
August 10, 2015
Public hearing at the City
Public hearing at the Finance
August 17, 2015
Joint meeting of the City
Council and Finance Commission
September 14, 2015*
City Council adoption of the
2016 Preliminary Budget and Levy
October 19, 2015
City Council discussion on a
2016 Final Budget and levy
November 30, 2015
Final City Council discussion
of 2016 Budget/Levy
December 7, 2015
City Council Adoption of 2016
Budget, Levy, Utility Rates, and Fees
*City Manager Trudgeon noted
that there had been no legislative changes affecting the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) budget and levy, so a Preliminary Levy would
need to be adopted on September 14, and a Final on December 7, 2015.
At the request
of Mayor Roe specific to potential levy impacts for 2016, City Manager Trudgeon
advised that final analysis based on actual costs and projections for 2016 were
still pending as specific to utility fees. While recognizing that spending in
several of those utilities had decreased, Mr. Trudgeon noted that whenever
utility fees were used to fund a position, it increased fees proportionally.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus regarding the impact to homeowners (RCA page 4), Mayor
Roe and City Manager Trudgeon identified and clarified for the public the
different percentage increases and average taxpayer impacts used based on levy
and dollar increases. Mr. Trudgeon noted the percentage to pay attention to at
this time was the projected levy increase of 3.65% from 2015 to 2016. At the
request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller further clarified the
2015 budgeted amount for COLA was 1.4%; and confirmed that at this point in
2015, the CPI was flat based on May figures until updated as previously noted.
McGehee stated that she still had a problem with the budget process, and read
through the 2016 CIP expenses per department, but not yet vetted by staff, the
City Council or the public. Councilmember McGehee opined that this happened
every year in not performing that vetting until later in the process and
usually immediately before the final levy is adopted and not allowing for any
meaningful dialogue or consideration about funding, creating misperceptions or
misunderstanding of what is or is not being funded based on those last-minute updates,
or pulling funding from reserves. Councilmember McGehee proposed that this
practice no longer be continued to avoid getting the City in the same fix it
was in eight years ago when the CIP had to be recreated. With this CIP
document providing a clear, long-term projection of CIP costs, not just a "wish
list," Councilmember McGehee suggested it be addressed as part of the first
budget glimpse allowing for ongoing transparency in line with the budget
process and City Council policy. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City's
governance would be better served by not fixing a levy percentage before incorporating
CIP information early in the budget process.
budget in general, Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for and opined
that this was the best presentation she'd seen as far as clarity; and not just
how it's always been done which was not always the best way. By including the
CIP, utility charges, and other fees as part of this initial thought process
before November, Councilmember McGehee opined it would provide a better picture
of the total potential impact on homeowners, and would keep that impact in the
picture earlier in the game. Councilmember McGehee suggested it become the
practice for staff to vet the CIP, utilities and fees, as part of presenting
numbers to the City Council and Finance Committee before moving forward in the
Specific to the
CIP, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the numbers provided in the CIP are
those based on previous City Council discussions and therefore programmed in
accordingly. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent was to provide opportunities
in August to dig deeper into the CIP for accuracy and timing updates, but the
proposed CIP budget currently reflects those past discussions and decisions.
Mr. Trudgeon acknowledged Councilmember McGehee's desire to have information
available earlier for the total package driving the budget and level, as well
as the total cost of utilities.
Specific to CIP
funding, Mayor Roe noted it was made up of two-parts: those things needed for
purchase next year, and the long term costs that need to be funded from the tax
levy. Mayor Roe noted it wasn't a "one for one" deal, and as an example, the
2015 CIP funding had been saved for over the last few years similar to a
savings account. Mayor Roe noted an apparent disconnect between the initial
annual $398,000 projected over the next twenty years was currently only a best
guess, and additional dollars were added in 2015, as they would be going
forward in the future to adjust that savings account adequately fund those
items as they're updated annually.
McGehee clarified that she was talking about the levy funding needed to support
those line items annually; and the need to review them to determine their
accuracy and whether the $398,000 set aside is sufficient.
concurred that, at this point in the budget process, understanding and vetting
utility fees and other fees, as well as the CIP, would be beneficial earlier on
based on the most up-to-date information. Mayor Roe noted this may suggest that,
as the Finance Commission reviews the budget schedule, adjustments may be required
for the 2017 process that would incorporate the CIP and fee schedule by this
time in 2016.
McGehee and Laliberte spoke in support of that as a policy and process.
Laliberte agreed completely, noting that having those components earlier and
then pulling everything together later in the year would provide a more
accurate picture and allow for more dialogue earlier in the process. Councilmember
Laliberte expressed her interest in having CIP analysis to determine if it was
still on track and the costs remained in line with the last analysis. Councilmember
Laliberte noted only one meeting of the Finance Commission was scheduled after
that to analyze the CIP. Councilmember Laliberte opined some additional work
may be needed before the City Council is asked to adopt something.
suggested two analyses for the CIP: one by the Finance Commission and their
recommendations to the City Council, and one allowing for additional
considerations before the third meeting out.
Laliberte noted previous discussions of the City Council and decisions not to
fully-fund the CIP in past years and how that is impacting 2016 and beyond
projected needs and funding.
As part of the
analysis, and recognizing the need to catch up, Mayor Roe noted the learning
curve with the updated CIP since it's only been operational for the last 2-3
years; and shifts made during the 2014 and 2015 budgets based on each year's
updated those CIP projections.
beginning of 2015, Councilmember Laliberte noted discussions about the future
status of the Fairview Avenue fire station; as well as discussions about the
future location of the License Center if other than at the current leased
facility. Before positions and responsibilities are fully considered, or
additional monies put toward the License Center, Councilmember Laliberte
suggested reviewing the other pieces going into that consideration, including
whether or not to change hours to meet customer needs. Also, if the License
Center stays in that location, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it needed
some cosmetic updates, to make it more presentable to clientele to make sure
clients preferred to come to the Roseville License Center versus a competing
Deputy Registrar's office. In other words, Councilmember Laliberte suggested
ways to increase revenue versus just adding additional staffing.
Trudgeon responded that, at some time in the near future, staff would be
bringing both those issues before the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
Finance Director Miller and License Center supervisory staff monitored and
adjusted hours frequently to meet current needs; and felt the current hours
sufficiently serves customers. While more customers may be found if hours were
extended, Mr. Trudgeon noted the additional cost of employees, etc. did not
justify extending those hours at this point. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that
some minimal investment had been made in the building over the last few years, but
if the License Center was not relocated, more significant remodeling would be
required, whether in 2016 or in the near future.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller confirmed that only a few
thousand dollars had been spent for those minor remodeling or maintenance
issues to-date. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller further
clarified that identified mold issues had been immediately addressed last year.
Based on her
experience visiting the License Center, Councilmember Laliberte opined it was
very cluttered, and needed some branding to identify the facility as a City of
Roseville facility. While not advocating making the current facility a huge
service center, if the City intended to stay at that current location, if
needed some sprucing up.
Specific to the
old Fire Station and in response to Councilmember Laliberte's comments, City
Manager Trudgeon advised that the building is used for significant storage by
the City, and if it was sold, repurposed or otherwise used, an alternative
storage option for those materials would also be needed. In his discussions
earlier today with Community Development Director Paul Bilotta, Mr. Trudgeon
advised that they had discussed some options, in addition to finding an option
for storage needs for the facility's future use. Mr. Trudgeon noted the advantage
in the City owning the property, and advised that focus would be given to
holding those discussions in the near future to address City Council and
resident expectations, costs and other considerations as part of that analysis.
Fire Department, Councilmember Laliberte sought further discussion and
explanation regarding current and proposed duties of Battalion Chiefs and
absorbing the duties of the Fire Marshal at his retirement; and how that impacted
the full-time structure of the department's reorganization.
City Manager Trudgeon responded that the initial restructuring to full-time included
Captain positions at the level immediately below that of Battalion Chief; but
after further consideration and as a cost-saving benefit, he and the Fire Chief
had determined using Battalion Chiefs and an Assistant Fire Chief - as recently
presented to the City Council - would provide a better approach for full-time supervision
of shifts. Whether supervision was accomplished through Battalion Chiefs or
new Captain positions was immaterial, and Mr. Trudgeon advised that by using
Battalion Chiefs available for 24 hour coverage, it created some redundancy
issues with adding the Captain positions to cover that supervision; and
therefore had been eliminated as an option. Mr. Trudgeon further noted the advantage
that by using the three Battalion Chiefs and adjusting those shift duties and
tasks under that one position on duty, it created a more effective chain of
command and took advantage of each Battalion Chief's different expertise; and
by them directly reporting to the Fire Chief, it also established a set process
without adding an additional Captain layer to that chain of command. At the
request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon addressed staffing positions
and compensation advantages and disadvantages; and advised that he would take
her comments and concerns into consideration and respond in more detail in the near
Etten stated that, overall he appreciated this budget, but agreed it would be
advantageous to look at the CIP and utility rates and fees earlier in the
process. Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in the City Manager's Recommended
budget to the Finance Commission; and in noting this was staff's first shot at
the 2016 budget, reminded his colleagues and the public that everything could
not be accomplished at once, necessitating the need to address some components
over the next few weeks as outlined in the City Council-adopted budget process
and calendar. Councilmember Etten noted that the City was relying and
recognizing the professional expertise of the City Manager in gaining
additional information as it became available and to forward additional
recommendations to the City Council and community at that time, and as further
input came forward from the public.
sought clarification for the new IT position added in 2015, and his
understanding it was not levy-supported for the Roseville portion of its costs
funded through tower lease fees.
Director Miller clarified that the IT position added in 2015 was initially
funded by the License Center; and at the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager
Trudgeon advised it was the plan to continue that funding allotment going forward.
McGehee stated her interest in providing additional information, including
those discussions held recently in closed session, impacting the Fire
Department staffing and structure and the timing of more permanent staff.
suggested a "plan B" or alternative approach for fire shift supervision.
Laliberte noted the City's dependence in receiving fee information from the
Saint Paul Regional Water Services and the Metropolitan Council and/or other
agencies to recommend utility rates. However, with the City Council requesting
that staff bring that information forward sooner, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned if that was feasible.
Trudgeon advised that, throughout most of the year and as annual membership
requests and fees come forward, staff makes the best guess possible or
assumptions based on the most current information. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
each would obviously need to be adjusted, and if significant, staff would
highlight it as that impact affected the overall fee structure.
audience members of the presentation by City Manager Trudgeon again tomorrow
night at the Finance Commission and upcoming public hearings, Mayor Roe invited
public comment at this time; with no one appearing to speak.
Receive Community Engagement Update from Mayor Roe and Councilmember
As presented to
the Community Engagement Commission (CEC) previously, Mayor Roe introduced this
discussion based on his and Councilmember Laliberte's attendance at a League of
Minnesota Cities (LMC) workshop entitled, "Experienced Elected Official
Training." Attachments included some of the training handouts specific to
public participation and engagement strategies.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Laliberte provided a summary of the training as
documents were displayed; and impacts of looking at community engagement
involvement through efforts of the CEC beyond the charge and areas of focus already
identified when they were created. Councilmember Laliberte suggested a more
process-based versus project-based focus, with a clear vision for goals and
measurement of those goals; allowing the CEC to identify issues needing
community thought and solutions (e.g. SE Roseville already in process).
Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Laliberte emphasized that community engagement was not the same
as civic engagement, as previously defined and enlighteningly illuminated by
Commissioner Theresa Gardella at a recent CEC meeting; and the need to be aware
that government need not nor should it be at the epicenter of those community
engagement efforts, but only one part, along with service/civic organizations,
non-profits, citizens, businesses, and faith-based communities. Councilmember
Laliberte noted that government was only a part of the picture and community
engagement did not revolve around the City.
Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Laliberte reviewed slides and initiated discussion on their
content, including "Ten Steps for Effective Citizen Engagement;" "International
Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Core Values of Public Participation;"
"Institute for Local Government (ILG) Principles of Local Government Public
Engagement;" "International City Manager Association (ICMA) Citizen Engagement
and Public Participation- General Organizational Assessment;" IAP2's Public
Participation Spectrum (2 versions); "ILG's Spectrum of Public Engagement
guided discussion as Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte highlighted broader
efforts for the City Council and public to understand the "why" of community
engagement; and building a commitment to do it well and with a final goal or
purpose in mind. Mayor Roe opined that the City Council needed to commit to
and adopt those core public participation values early in the process.
discussion topics by Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte included being aware
of gaps or people perceptions in engagement; being aware of and open to
stakeholders from a broader perspective; connections and involvement; and being
open to any opportunities to engage peoples in a valuable way to achieve the
best possible outcome. Additional considerations included measuring results to
determine if the outcome satisfied people or if they felt they influenced the
decision-making; and defining which engagement tools worked well and which did
not for evaluation and future reference.
Laliberte again referenced comments by CEC Commissioner Gardella regarding
tracking priorities beyond outreach; and as information comes forward, the need
to acknowledge it, express appreciation, and show how that information was
used; opining that was a piece needing work by the City Council. Councilmember
Laliberte further opined that there was no system or process in place for that,
or a habitual routine for the City Council and/or advisory commissions to use
and upon which to focus, as well as at the staff level. Councilmember
Laliberte noted the need for that incoming information to be reciprocal. Councilmember
Laliberte clarified that the public participation piece was specific to the
City's civic engagement portion, and how it worked with the community to make
decision; with the community engagement piece much broader, and not within the
Mayor Roe referred
to the CEC to make a recommendation to the City Council on principles of local
government public engagement specific to the commitment to core participation
values for City Council policy.
Mayor Roe then
referenced the ICMA checklist/survey for assessing the organization and
determining where improvement was needed. Mayor Roe suggested the CEC have a
role in working with staff, commissions and the City Council in performing that
assessment; beyond the overall assessments of the organization and those
related to specific departments and inventorying what was being done and what
needed to be done.
Laliberte noted anytime you performed an assessment you were essentially
performing an inventory of available tools, or by creating a task force or
commission, that tool box continued to grow; but this identified a formal step
to use in assessing itself and the organization, and identify gaps and
opportunities that were the greatest, the quickest, and having the most impact.
Mayor Roe noted
the philosophy of engagement was basically to identify what you wanted out of
the engagement and expectations of the people implementing the engagement
process and those participating in it. Mayor Roe noted part of those public
participation goals and the promise to the public included ranges between informing
to consulting, involving, collaborating, and empowering - all increasing
impacts on the decision and using various tools depending on the type of engagement
concluded by highlighting his and Councilmember Laliberte's recommendations to
the City Council moving forward:
Determining the role of the CEC in the process to inventory the
Coming up with values or principles that are Roseville specific;
Looking at various spectrums to identify the engagement process
and where it's at in that spectrum;
Determining how stakeholders can be involved, and recommendations
for that process moving forward, using the SE Roseville situation as one
example currently underway and what additional components were still needed;
How to create that public engagement process going forward, and
adopted by the City Council, as future projects (e.g. Comprehensive Plan Update
and/or Community Visioning Update) come forward with the CEC reviewing and
becoming stewards of that process.
the City will be involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Community
Visioning Update, Councilmember Laliberte stated she would look to the CEC to work
with applicable commissions to review how it was done last time, determine
whether or not it worked, and whether to repeat that past practice or develop a
revised process, and make recommendations to the City Council accordingly.
Mayor Roe noted
that this represented a very broad summary of over one and one-half days of
information provided to him and Councilmember Laliberte. Mayor Roe welcomed
thoughts from the City Council going forward and informing decisions, such as
the next agenda item, and how these principles may fit.
McGehee expressed appreciation for the materials presented; and agreed with
Councilmember Laliberte's identification of a current City Council weakness in
recognizing public comment. Councilmember McGehee asked if, when asking for
public participation, the City Council was committed to the process to engage
citizen participation and their expectations of that process, and in listening
to that comment rather than a simple "thank you" but simply proceeding with an already
determined plan of action. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the CEC,
with collaboration of staff, in developing an assessment tool to then allow
assessment, whether by the community, the City Council or an outside party.
clarified that he was not suggesting the CEC take on the sole role of assessor,
but to collaborate as experts on community engagement; and providing a
conversational approach or training for those performing the assessment. Mayor
Roe opined that if individual assessors were simply presented with a checklist
that they didn't fully understand the purpose of, it made it difficult to make
a valid assessment.
As an example, Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of training Departments to evaluate this program, performing
that assessment under the direction of the City Manager; but questioned if the
City Council could look at the assessment tool and actually perform it.
opined that it may depend on the situation, using the example of a group
exercise at the LMC training and various interpretations by participants and
pre-conceived perceptions, which could also equate to the City Council and potential
perceptions it held of citizens that were not necessarily accurate.
Laliberte also referenced misperceptions the public may have of the City
Council or visa versa, such as "the fix is in," or "they've already made up
Mayor Roe noted
those perceptions were often informed by past experience; and as he interacts
with the public, he frequently hears them state that once they understand the
issue or project, they no longer have a certain perception, but are appreciative
of having a better understanding. Mayor Roe noted the need for all parties to
own up to their particular misperceptions as part of the engagement process.
McGehee referenced the recent Dale Street Project and its collaborative process
as a very positive example of empowering residents through that process, and
creating a large coalescing of neighborhoods or citizens around an issue.
Willmus opined it may become difficult when comparing the Dale Street process,
with a city-controlled property, when trying to implement or carry forward with
that same process when it involves a third party or private property.
Mayor Roe noted
the need at that time to identify the community engagement process; with the
key going into it to acknowledge where that process was at the spectrum of
engagement and depending on the situation as noted by Councilmember Willmus.
Mayor Roe opined that the real need was to get that spectrum identification out
upfront, whether the City is controlling a project or only informing citizens
or something in-between.
involved staff, the City Council, or CEC, Councilmember Laliberte added that
while the City often referenced where something was at in the process, since
people respond to visuals, she suggested using graphics to clearly identify the
whole continuum and current status, such as is done in Planning Commission land
use situations as part of the front page of each staff report, providing a
clear picture of expectations.
concurred, noting that not only identified where the process or project was at
in the spectrum, but also created a promise to participants and a timeline for
Grefenberg, CEC Commissioner
on community engagement for over ten years, originally emanating from his
service on an Imagine Roseville 2025 Task Force, Mr. Grefenberg
expressed his appreciation for this information and the direction being taken
by the City at this point. Speaking on behalf of the CEC, Mr. Grefenberg
opined that the CEC would like to actively partner with the City Council and
staff. Mr. Grefenberg noted his belief in the City's current staff and their
commitment, but opined that commitment needed to be emulated and reflected in
some of the departments and long-term staff. Mr. Grefenberg opined that, when
this information was initially provided by Mayor Roe and Councilmember
Laliberte to the CEC, he had been overwhelmed. Based on his initial response,
Mr. Grefenberg opined that it could not be a total initiative of the CEC, but
should receive devoted attention by staff and a buy-in at staff's higher
echelons in addressing it as a challenge. Mr. Grefenberg further suggested the
City Council's commitment of financial resources, whether through a consultant
or other tool, or by allowing an intern to work with the CEC and staff liaison
above and beyond a commitment of financial resources. Mr. Grefenberg thanked
the City Council for reaching this real, authentic effort for engagement, and
publically acknowledged it as a direct result of the leadership of City Manager
Trudgeon and this City Council. Mr. Grefenberg reiterated that the CEC could
not be the leader, but was eager to serve as a junior partner to these
community engagement efforts.
Ms. Gardella recognized
references by Councilmember Laliberte to her work for the CEC on definitions
and distinctions, prefacing that on why it was important for the community in
looking at values and principles, whether for civic participation or community
engagement and measuring whatever goals the City Council decides upon. Ms.
Gardella noted the need to be accountable, or have assessment tools in place
moving forward; opining it was of value to the CEC's work and the City as
well. Ms. Gardella echoed the partnership comments of Mr. Grefenberg, noting
the CEC could only go so far.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Gardella provided her definitions as referenced.
Community Engagement: A broader term including lots of
different strategies, including civic engagement or participation rooted in
relationships to provide ways to listen to and respond to the community about
how to live the best life they can, and while not necessarily be part of the
City Council's strategic effort, what residents want and how to make it happen.
Civic Participation or Engagement: A more narrow term in
scope around a citizen's relationship to government or the government process;
involving people in civic participation with a goal in mind, such as to improve
Laliberte thanked CEC Commissioners Grefenberg and Gardella for their efforts to-date;
and noted the community engagement process would continue to evolve.
Mayor Roe acknowledged that, opining that this was only the end of the beginning.
suggestion of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe concurred that as it fits into
the process, it may be necessary to hold more than one joint meeting per year
with the CEC as well.
Christiansen, Human Rights Commissioner
Christiansen spoke specifically to the IAP2 document regarding community
engagement versus only civic engagement. Ms. Christiansen opined that in the
City Council considering partnering with the CEC, it should consider utilizing
each of its advisory commissions, since that is their purpose to serve as
advisors to the City Council representing all parts of the community over the
entire spectrum, of budget, finance, human rights, etc. If the City Council is
seriously considering community engagement, Ms. Christiansen suggested it start
by involving other members beyond the single aspect of the CEC. If the City Council
wanted to know how good of a job it was doing, Ms. Christiansen noted that
advisory commissioners were representing government and the public.
community engagement measurements by using advisory commissioner expertise, Ms.
Christiansen suggested caution, since a person may have applied to a particular
commission based on their interest, but many not be an expert in the field.
Ms. Christiansen opined this emphasized the need to consider the whole spectrum
of talent and backgrounds, by looking to all advisory commissioners for input
and involvement. Ms. Christiansen noted whether or not the City Council chose
to use an outside consultant if supported by the budget, there were already
people having expressed an interest; and further noted the need to customize,
implement and measure efforts. Ms. Christiansen spoke in support of using
graphics for the important component in showing the community where an issue or
project was at in the process; but cautioned the need to keep it simple, since
people didn't have time to search out the information by reading a narrative,
but were more amenable to small bites of information provided via graphics.
McGehee agreed with that suggestion.
Mayor Roe noted
that got to the assessment item for follow-up by getting commissions involved
in the assessment process, using all advisory commissions and their expertise
and in determining measurements.
Christiansen noted the interest of the full CEC, and agreed with meeting more
than once a year, perhaps quarterly for quick updates by the CEC, and if expectations
of advisory commissions are clearly stated by the City Council, it could provide
a quick update and check-in on what a commission should work on or what a
relevant project may be. Ms. Christianson noted this would also provide for customizing
and measuring as previously stated as a goal; and expressed appreciation that
the City Council agreed the community engagement process should not be static,
and while it may be trial and error, it needed to be organic as communities and
people change through growth, requiring reassessment after measurement.
McCormick, 2950 Wheeler Street North
suggested, in addition to advisory commissions, the City involve members of the
public-at-large to participate in assessments of evaluating the process. Ms.
McCormick expressed her appreciation with this discussion and commended the
City Council for its work in bringing this forward. While hearing a commitment
to community engagement, Ms. McCormick questioned where it was at in the
process, recognizing that it took time and the community would continue to grow
in the process.
pointed out to Mayor Roe her appreciation of the comments in customizing the
IAP-2 process, and suggested formation of a task force to look at this, perhaps
moving ahead of some of the principles noted in the handouts, and customizing
it to Roseville. Ms. McCormick referenced a recent statement of her neighbor
Kathy Erickson, in recognizing the unique flavors of neighborhoods in Roseville
that were not apparent in other first-ring suburbs, and thereby supporting the
idea of customizing the engagement process and evaluation tools for Roseville.
comments about the Dale Street Project and ownership of land versus private
ownership, Ms. McCormick questioned if that may be another misconception,
opining that until stakeholders were involved in the process, it may be found
that they're closer together than initially thought. Further opining that everyone
wants what's best for the community.
comments from several meetings ago, Ms. McCormick spoke to the development of a
Code of Ethics, and displayed an example entitled, "IAP2 Code of Ethics for
Public Participation Practitioners" also provided in training materials from
the LMC conference attended by Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte; and
suggested it be included for consideration.
McCormick thanked the City Council for their good work.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:01 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:08 p.m.
Community Engagement and Human Rights Commission (HRC) Structure
Roe referenced the RCA as the City Council considered whether or not to
advertise the three current vacancies on the Human Rights Commission.
Manager Trudgeon reviewed vacancies, and parallel work being done by the CEC,
providing some options for consideration. Mr. Trudgeon introduced Kari
Collins, Assistant to the City Manager, and staff liaison to the HRC; noting
staff liaison to the CEC, Communications Manager Garry Bowman, was also present
in the audience. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that he was not advocating for any of
the options; but only provided the information for the City Council to explore;
and if no change was indicated at the end of those discussions, sought
direction from the City Council to move forward with a future agenda action
item to proceed in filling the vacancies.
Assistant to City Manager/City Clerk and Staff Liaison to Human Resources
part of this review and presentation of options, Ms. Collins advised that staff
had entered into a service enterprise process and diagnostic of all volunteer
opportunities in the organization, including how to grow participation, how to
make service meaningful. Ms. Collins noted that this came on the heels of
process in assessing the overall organization and exploring the most efficient
detailed in the RCA, Ms. Collins referenced the three options outlined by staff
for consideration by the City Council. Ms. Collins noted this included the
frustrations she and Mr. Bowman witness as staff liaisons to their respective
advisory commissions; and parallel frustrations of commissioners who varied in
their roles as "doers" versus "planners/advisors." While opining that there
were opportunities for either and/or both roles, Ms. Collins noted the
frustrations of "doers" who desired to work toward a specific goal for their
community; and interest of staff in minimizing struggles between "doing" and
Collins identified the three options outlined in the RCA and their specific advantages
and disadvantages; examples from other community advisory commissions (Cities
of Falcon Heights, Arden Hills, Wayzata, and Brooklyn Park) and their community
engagement efforts based on the demographics for each respective community. If
the City Council considered going with Option C, Ms. Collins urged them to
provide greater clarify about the functions and roles; and while there are good
intentions for advisory commissions to be organic, it often added to
uncertainty for commissioners, subsequently leading to frustration.
the City Council does consider a change in advisory commission structure for the
HRC and/or CEC, Ms. Collins suggested allowing commissions to continue their
efforts for the remainder of the year, and instate that restructuring in April
of 2016 as terms expire; and given the activities scheduled by the respective
focusing discussion, Mayor Roe suggested questions to staff at this point, and
holding opinions and City Council feedback until public comment was heard to
include it as part of the subsequent City Council discussion.
respect to the HRC, Councilmember Willmus noted mention that they are a venue
for human rights complaints or concerns; and asked for elaboration between the
local and state human rights league; and retaining that aspect locally.
most local human rights commissions created during the 1960's in a climate of
very real human rights complaints Ms. Collins noted the local opportunities
work in officially reporting those complaints to the state. However, Ms.
Collins noted the State Department of Human Rights now addressed those
complaints directly. Ms. Collins noted the difference in the local HRC
providing an entity to voice concerns versus the more formal and intimidating
prospect of complaining to the State Department; and differences in voicing
those concerns in a less formal atmosphere or cultural vibe. Ms. Collins noted
the local HRC can provide that opportunity to allow voicing of those concerns,
and attempting to resolve those issues without the formal complaint process.
on her experience when serving as an HRC Commissioner, Councilmember McGehee
provided an example of local mediation based on cultural differences between
neighbors and how the HRC facilitated that understanding without it rising to
the formal level of a complaint to the state department. Whether or not that
was specifically in the purview of the HRC, Councilmember McGehee noted that
the concern had been brought to the attention of the HRC and been resolved
Specific to the
annual Human Rights Essay Contest, Councilmember Willmus asked about the status
and interest of Roseville schools in carrying that forward.
Collins noted HRC Chair Wayne Groff's and HRC Commissioner Arlene Christiansen
in tonight's audience to elaborate further if requested. Ms. Collins advised
that the Human Rights League invited essay prompts annually, and this year the
Roseville HRC had submitted an essay question regarding the right to vote;
which had been accepted by the State League, and given the City's high involvement
with the League, noted that Roseville's essay question was frequently selected
for use in crafting that year's essay effort throughout participants across the
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins noted recent meetings of HRC
Commissioners with Roseville Area School instructors in addressing how to fit
the essay question into their curriculum. Ms. Collins noted it was often frustrating
for instructors to fit it into the curriculum other than through extra credit
back a number of years, Councilmember Willmus noted the interest and
participation by numerous schools, including those from the private sector; and
questioned why that was no longer evidenced, with only one school participating
in the 2015 essay contest.
Collins responded that other schools were invited to participate in 2015, but
had not done so. Ms. Collins opined that the HRC has found a niche in working
cooperatively with instructors and their curriculum about cultural awareness
and education and efforts to bring cultural understanding to the forefront. If
that is a continued direction by the City Council to the HRC, Ms. Collins asked
that it be clearly communicated.
the City Council considered Option B, Councilmember Etten asked how a meeting
would be structured or a year's worth of agendas to meet the different aspects
of a much-broader group and much-broader interests.
Collins advised that she would recommend a larger commission; and task those
participants, at a future meeting, to craft functions for greater clarity on
which to focus efforts. If a 9-11 member commission was created, Ms. Collins
suggested using different subgroups to address those efforts, which she recommended
the City Council direct those charges with the Commission and take time to
detail tangible goals versus the current generic goal to "create greater awareness
to community" If the City Council desires a cultural celebration of some
variety, Ms. Collins suggested that goal be written down as a collaborative
effort by residents and the City Council to develop those details beyond this
initial outline represented by the RCA.
Wayne Groff, HRC
response to why people join the HRC, Mr. Groff noted one reason was because of
their concern that people's voices had not been heard historically; and noted
the distinction between the HRC and CEC on that note. Mr. Groff noted that
most people groups had experienced some form of discrimination in the past; and
the local HRC provided a non-threatening voice for them, providing a way to address
those concerns locally versus at the state level where their complaint may not
rise high enough to be addressed. As an example from his past service on the
HRC in another community, Mr. Groff noted the ability to facilitate a quick resolution
in providing a human face of the City and in a less formal atmosphere than that
found at a City Council meeting which many found intimidating or threatening.
Willmus clarified that he was not seeking a reason for a local HRC, but simply
what its role involved or what it did; not why, but the actual process and
differentiating between the formal state level complaint process and the local
Groff responded that the HRC could also ensure fairness in the community for
those feeling they've been treated unfairly; and noted the HRC's advocacy on
behalf of the Karen community in housing issues and resolving issues that could
have potentially resulted in evictions. Mr. Groff opined the HRC provided an interface
between the Karen community organization (KOM) and the City administration.
Groff reviewed other roles of the HRC in hosting naturalization ceremonies, the
annual essay contest, and serving as advisors to the City Council. Mr. Groff
noted a new youth commissioner is waiting to be sworn in, with her specific interest
with the rights and public perceptions for handicapped people.
the newest member of the HRC, Ms. Christiansen agreed with the separate role of
the local HRC from the State; and as an immigrant, opined there was a need to
understand human rights and difference in cultures; with the HRC serving as a
safe place to talk about things or help others understand or be aware of
response to Councilmember Willmus regarding the annual essay contest, Ms. Christiansen
provided a review of the 2016 process, and revisions to the process and
information to teachers, most in response to meetings of HRC representatives
and instructors regarding timing and their curriculum. Ms. Christiansen
addressed relevancy of the 2016 question; and crafting of information for
students and instructors to make it easier for their participation.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Christiansen confirmed that the 2016
Essay Contest will be open to all Roseville 6th, 7th and 8th
graders at all Roseville Schools, whether public or private. With
Councilmember Willmus' concerns regarding declining school participation, Ms.
Christiansen expressed her excitement with and provided a sample of the essay
contest packet recently created by the HRC for the 2016 contest - and provided
to the Human Rights League for their distribution across the state - to build
excitement and respond to instructor request for a concise process and
information providing more inclusivity. Ms. Christiansen advised that the
entry form, poster and instructions would be mailed to the principles of all
public and private schools in Roseville using a mailing list provided by staff
and then she would personally follow up with a phone call.
Willmus stated his reason for pressing this issue was his observation of HRC
meetings earlier in 2015 and essay contest discussions that provided
conflicting information flowing back and forth.
addressing specific logistics if the HRC and CEC is combined, Mr. Groff questioned
how the HRC could get more done than currently being undertaken with
constraints of time with a seven member commission of volunteers within a two
hour timeframes. If that remains the expectation of a combined commission, Mr.
Groff opined that was not a viable solution.
the City Council decides on the option for one combined commission, Ms.
Christiansen asked that they ensure everyone would be heard, since there were a
lot of expectations and a variety of goals; and the City Council would need to
be very clear as to its expectations. Ms. Christiansen opined that, with the
current size of the HRC, they need to not feel they'd been swallowed up by the
CEC, or no longer had a voice in whatever commission was created. Whatever a
9-12 member commission was called, Ms. Christiansen opined it was important to
have it even bigger with more volunteers (e.g. 12-15 people) to allow
participation in a meaningful way, while recognizing the reality that
volunteers also had family and other commitments; moved, or had other changes
occurring; and their time and needs should be respected. As an example, Ms.
Christiansen noted the hours she had spent, in cooperation with Mr. Bowman, in
creating the essay contest packet.
McGehee noted her change in direction with this issue after listening to
comment tonight. Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the City Council is
serious about the civic engagement process, that process resided with the CEC.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal value of the HRC in the annual
essay contest, presenting ethnicity issues in the community as it continued to
become more diverse, and having a non-threatening place to go locally for
concerns. In terms of cultural awareness, whether part of Rosefest or not,
Councilmember McGehee opined that while they were important programs, ethnic
groups could volunteer to promote those important programs. Councilmember
McGehee opined that there were two components: a policy or process component,
and a community component. Councilmember McGehee opined that the things the
HRC has been working on were the community engagement component; and the civic
engagement component is where the City Council helped in the process and
evaluation. In conclusion, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of retaining
two commissions, or Option C.
Etten agreed that his view had shifted some; but opined these were not the only
two commissions that should be under discussions; suggesting that maybe the HRC
and Ethics Commission should be combined and meet quarterly with their roles
and goals clearly revised. Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation in
hearing the passion and relevant ideas of the HRC; and suggested reviewing and
revamping how advisory commissions worked as a whole, rather than simply
focusing on these two. While there may be positive reasons to combine the HRC
and CEC, after hearing comments from commissioners, Councilmember Etten
suggesting leaving them separate for now to see how things grew; while
recognizing that maybe some other combination would allow more vitality and
excitement for those volunteer participants.
recognizing the merit in all of the options, Councilmember Laliberte expressed
concern in merging the HRC and CEC. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the
CEC should not have more responsibilities added to their plate by expanding
membership at this time, or by increasing their scope of duties or functions,
which she found unfair to them as a newly-created commission. On the other
side, Councilmember Laliberte agreed to be open to look at the role of the HRC,
opining that the work they did, from her perspective, was not the work of an
HRC whether from a complaint-based or other scenario. While it would be great
to have that in place if a complaint occurs, of course, Councilmember Laliberte
opined she was their role more in the celebration, education, awareness, and
diversity and sensitivity training realm. Whether called an HRC or by another
name not in line with the state human rights function, Councilmember Laliberte
suggested it and the Ethics Commission needed meaningful work to avoid frustration.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that clear direction be provided to any
commission going forward, to make sure their charge was meaningful. While appreciating
the role of the HRC in bringing the naturalization ceremony to Roseville,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the HRC needed to continue that
handholding, opining staff could potentially continue to sponsor or host it on
an annual basis without the HRC owning that work. If there is still live in
the annual essay contest, based on her observation and comments heard about its
dysfunction in the past and Roseville being the only participate at the state level,
Councilmember Laliberte stated she could support that, as long as it was
recognized that the City of Roseville's role was not to support state human
rights efforts. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was open to renaming two
individual commissions, combining them, or changing their schedule pending on
the specifics the City Council wanted each to accomplish. However,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the current "loosey-goosey" status could
not continue to create frustrations for those advisors.
creating the Finance and CEC Commissions, Councilmember Willmus noted
discussions at that time included the possibility of the HRC becoming the CEC.
At that time, Councilmember Willmus stated he had fought for the HRC and CEC to
remain separate, with the CEC a standalone commission. Councilmember Willmus
stated his further concern in overburdening the CEC as it currently exists; and
his comments to staff when first discussing this was to have everyone in the
room to weigh in. That said, Councilmember Willmus opined that the HRC, even
when fully populated, experienced issues with materials, a lack of commitment
from some commissioners making it difficult for remaining members willing to go
the extra mile and eventually and unfortunately burning out those committed
commissioners. Councilmember Willmus noted the need to be cognizant of that no
matter the decision made. For now, Councilmember Willmus spoke to leaving the
HRC and CEC as two separate commissions; but reviewing their respective charge
and scope of duties to determine what is still viable in today's reality.
Roe agreed with keeping the HRC and CEC separate, and agreed with reviewing
their respective charges. When revising the HRC charge before, Mayor Roe
opined that it wasn't revised enough. While also hesitant, as Councilmember
Laliberte had expressed, appointing people to serve on the Ethics Commission,
Mayor Roe opined it was worth looking at potential combining the HRC and Ethics
Commission, and suggested deferring the joint meeting with the HRC scheduled
for August to allow them to hold public and internal discussions with their new
members as part of that process. Therefore, Mayor Roe agreed that it made
sense to make any changes at the start of the new term in April of 2016, and continue
discussion on that process later in 2015 in anticipation of that.
McGehee noted the ability for any advisory commission in creating
out-of-commission task forces as needed.
Roe referenced the Brooklyn Park model, recognizing that you don't need to be
on an advisory commission to become involved as a "doer," allowing residents to
determine how and where they can make their community better by ad hoc service
from the aspect of volunteer coordination, which could be part of all advisory
Laliberte spoke in support of deferring the joint meeting with the HRC, and
staff's recommendation to allow the HRC to complete their 2015 work. However,
Councilmember Laliberte tasked the HRC with giving thought to their charge
going forward or if combined with the CEC or another commission (e.g. Ethics);
and expressed her concern in moving forward for the remainder of 2015 with only
four commissioners on the HRC, while also expressing concern about appointing
new commissioners if the HRC evolves into something else.
Roe noted the appointments are not all for full terms.
the next agenda item working on a uniform commission code, Councilmember
Laliberte suggested changing that particular HRC tonight to five members for
the remainder of 2015. When talking about the scope or function of the HRC, Councilmember
Laliberte noted the difference in "doers" and "advisors," but clarified that
all of the commissions are intended to be advisory commissions, with the exception
of the HRC wanting to be doers, and questioned if that took on some other type
of format since she didn't see the HRC coming forward as other commissions did
in making policy recommendations to the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte
noted the care taken in creating the CEC in being clear that it was advisory on
policy and process versus "doing," and reiterating the exception with the HRC.
When working on a revised scope for the HRC, Councilmember Laliberte noted the
need to be aware of that distinction or history.
Etten stated his discomfort in seating three new commissioners on the HRC if it
remained up in the air; but expressed his preference in making it work
short-term with those current commissioners having an understanding of the HRC
and new people having a learning curve. Councilmember Etten spoke in support
of deferring the joint meeting the HRC to October and look at a new process in
January of 2016.
Willmus agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining that the City Council needed
to take time to identify any changes to the HRC's charge, which would be
difficult for new commissioners coming on board without having a clear
direction for their role at this point.
Roe sought clarification of a technical point with City Attorney Gaughan
regarding code language stating that the HRC had seven members and the current
reduced level and what constituted a quorum, 3 or 4.
Attorney Gaughan responded that it depended on the actual code language; but
opined that the City Council had a mandate to fill any vacancies within a reasonable
timeframe; and typically a quorum was based on the actual number of members.
After further review of the code, City Attorney Gaughan noted the HRC "shall"
consist of seven members, and the City Council was therefore mandated to
appoint seven members.
discussion included vacancy timeframes and expirations of terms, with City
Manager Trudgeon advising terms expired respectively in 2016, 2017 and 2018;
with the result that vacancies did not need to be filled at this time if a quorum
Roe opined that it made sense to not appoint new commissioners for the
short-term and continue to work with those available.
discussion included the historical perspective of commissioners versus those
newly appointed; potential amendment of the code specific to the HRC to
accommodate any quorum issues in the interim for adoption at the next meeting;
and further review of specific issues by the remaining four members of the HRC
at their next meeting and before the next discussion by the City Council.
Laliberte asked the HRC to advise City Manager Trudgeon of their discussion and
preferences for dissemination to the City Council.
Roe concluded that the City Council was supportive of retaining two
commissions; agreed on the need to work on the duties/functions of the HRC and
their title and any other issues; agreed to defer the joint meeting of the HRC
and City Council; and work to resolve not filling or increasing membership
until the HRC's new charge is defined.
Manager Trudgeon expressed concern in getting that accomplished by the next
meeting of the City Council; with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte
strongly encouraging that be accomplished; or a special meeting scheduled if other
items were also pending.
clarity, City Manager Trudgeon reiterated the request of staff was to determine
what would constitute a quorum, and how to deal with changing the specific
number of commissions for a quorum.
a second and separate piece, Councilmember Laliberte noted the deferral of the
joint meeting from August to later in 2015.
Discuss Uniform Commission Code
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly addressed issues in
developing a uniform code to governing the organizational structures for
advisory commissions occurring over the last few years in attempting to
consolidate common threads of regulations, resulting in the creation of a new
Chapter 201 to City Code (Attachment B). As provided in current City Code,
Title 2 - Commissions (Attachment A) - and the new draft (Attachment B), Mr.
Trudgeon noted those additions and those areas for deletion unless statutory
requirements; and thanked Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte for their input,
as well as other Councilmembers over the past few years. Mr. Trudgeon
clarified that this draft is not intended for adoption tonight, and only as a
starting off point for discussion and consideration of the concept of a uniform
New Chapter 201 - Advisory Commissions (Attachment B)
Etten spoke in support of the new chapter, suggested several revisions and
additional elements to the draft.
2, Section 201.06: Organization
C: Specific to creation of committees, subcommittees and/or task forces within
commissions, Councilmember Etten noted the need to differentiate between those
that needed to come before the City Council for approval and those not
necessary to do so.
Laliberte agreed; opining that she saw them almost as opposites based on
various comments and input to-date. However, Councilmember Laliberte suggested
that the first sentence provide that differentiation with the key words, "their
own members," with those subcommittees made up of their own commission members,
and reporting to the full body.
the formation of other subcommittees or task forces, if more clarity is needed,
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that prior to a commission creating a new
task force, in many cases that may bring in other people without a sworn oath
to work on a specific issue. Before they begin inviting the community to
participate, Councilmember Laliberte suggested the commission make sure the
sitting City Council is in agreement with that effort, and not created outside
the purview of the commission's charge from the City Council. Councilmember
Laliberte clarified that this was the intent of the language that such
initiatives be brought to a joint meeting of the City Council and commission
for their direction and approval before beginning.
Roe suggested the last sentence provided that directive, "only after approval
of the City Council." Since subcommittees are only to be made of up commission
members, Mayor Roe suggested striking the second reference to "subcommittees."
McGehee questioned why volunteers needed to take an oath.
Roe noted this was a separate topic outside the amendments to Section 201.06.C.
2-3, Section 201.06: Organization
D: Under the last sentence, Councilmember Etten suggested listing that
sentence:,: "commissioners also agree to be available to residents of the city
by providing a preferred phone number or email address that can be used on the
city website and/or on print materials;" as a separate lettered item entitled,
Section F: Councilmember Etten further questioned if there was a need to have
each served by a staff liaison, since it is mentioned at one point that a staff
liaison will be available, but don't actually know who will serve that function
at that point. As a new item "F" under organization, Councilmember Etten
suggested stating that each commission will be served by a liaison - as a
conduit - and include a definition for that liaison role in this document.
Laliberte spoke in support of having that definition included.
Section G: Also under organization, Councilmember Etten suggested an additional
item "G" regarding "New Commissioner Training," that ensures newly-appointed
commissioners will receive such training by the Chairperson and staff liaison
prior to their first meeting. Councilmember Etten opined that training could
be defined later but should include conduct, topics the commission is working
on, and anything else that will help bring them up-to-speed.
Laliberte also supported that addition. Councilmember Laliberte noted training
also involved annual ethics training. Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding
language to include that orientation specific to that commission as a separate
section of broader training for expectations in addition to ethics training.
Willmus responded that in addition to ethics training, the training referenced
by Councilmember Etten would be unique to that individual commission.
Councilmember Willmus noted the need to include meeting a generic orientation
for each commission, including protocol and conduct with televised meetings.
Etten concurred, noting the intent for it to serve as an orientation for new
commissioners: how to conduct business, the main items being worked on by the
commission, and provided for by the chairperson and staff liaison.
Roe suggested training for specific commissions included open meeting laws,
data privacy, etc.; and can be broad and cover those issues, but supported the
addition of it as a new item "G" under organization.
2, Section 201.04: Terms
B: Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for oaths; with Councilmember
Laliberte responding that it was similar to those taken by the City Council.
Roe suggested adding to that section a statement, "and standards of conduct
(not yet available.)"
Attorney Gaughan cautioned that requirements could not be created that didn't
Roe suggested referencing when and if something exists; with Councilmember
Willmus expressing the preference to amend language at that time.
2, Section 201.05: Compensation
Roe noted there were times when commissioners may purchase supplies and seek
reimbursement, with language stating they would serve without compensation.
Attorney Gaughan clarified this was reimbursement, not compensation.
2, Section 201.07: Meetings and Reports
G: Councilmember Etten questioned if the expectation for subcommittees was to
record their meetings to be articulated back to the larger commission.
Willmus opined it would be beneficial if there was informal meeting notes at a
minimum, to which Councilmember Laliberte agreed.
Roe noted that if the subcommittee reported to the full body their discussion,
it would be recorded in the official commission meeting minutes.
Etten sought to ensure those noted were discussed with the full body and
Manager Trudgeon suggested additional language to Section "201.06: Organization,
Item C:" to the effect that subcommittees and/or task forces will report back
to the full body by extension in meeting minutes."
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
on behalf of the CEC recommendations of 2014, Mr. Grefenberg noted that one
missing item was requiring all commissions to provide for public comment.
Laliberte and Mayor Roe referenced Section 201.07.F.
Grefenberg opined that it needed to be made clearer that it may not necessarily
be related to generic public comment, but to a specific agenda issue.
Roe clarified Mr. Grefenberg's intent for having it as a standing item on each
agenda similar to that of the City Council.
Laliberte recognized the need for two different comment sections, one calling
verbally for comment at the beginning of a meeting, and then for each item; but
expressed her difficulty in wording that intent.
Grefenberg opined that "at the meeting" seemed ambiguous, but suggested
language provided more clarification as long as it was assured that public
comment on each agenda item would be heard prior to them taking action on it.
ensued regarding when and how to provide for this intent, with suggestions of
individual councilmember. At the conclusion, City Manager Trudgeon suggested
the following language, supported by the body without opposition: "A commission
must allow public comment for each agenda item and for a general time for
public comment at the beginning of each meeting."
restructuring the HRC, Mr. Grefenberg referenced language related to civic
Roe, as he had mentioned earlier, noted the need to remove that language.
Grefenberg suggested removing language from the specific HRC chapter (page 2,
D.3) under "Scope, Duties, Functions," which had been added during the time the
HRC was responsible to advise the City Council on civic engagement.
consensus of the body and expressing appreciation to Mr. Grefenberg for that
point, Mayor Roe advised that, for the time being, language would remain as is
as it also touched on broader things.
Grefenberg opined that much of what the City Council had accomplished was excellent,
even though it was a long time coming. Mr. Grefenberg supported the need for
accountability for commissioners in attending meetings; and concluded by noting
the CEC recommended adoption of this document soon.
201 (Attachment B)
Laliberte sought assurance from her colleagues of their understanding that the
new section addresses "Scope, Duties, and Functions," and a way of operating as
a general by-law for all commissions under which to operate, and would not
provide separate by-laws for each group.
concurred with that statement.
McGehee opined something was still needed to address conduct.
Laliberte agreed, but admitted it was not yet available, and as noted by City
Attorney Gaughan, the City Council could not adopt something not yet ready.
the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee agreed that she was willing to
adopt this document, as revised, but wanted to ensure the other piece about
conduct was not forgotten.
Grefenberg opined that the CEC oath of office didn't refer to the duties of a
commission, but instead referred to the constitution; and suggested that
standard oath needed revised.
Roe corrected that the oath said: "discharge the duties of the office of the"
(e.g. CEC);" with Councilmember Laliberte and City Manager Trudgeon agreeing
with that verbiage.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to correct each individual Chapter in reference to Chapter 201 to indicate
"Chapter," rather than "Section" in all references throughout the individual
Chapters. Mayor Roe also suggested finding a better way to address that
initial reference would be in Section 202.01: Establishment and Membership: by
adding language such as (e.g. Chapter 202 Planning Commission): "A City
Planning Commission for the City is hereby established, [which shall be
subject to Chapter 201of this code ]" and then striking those redline
areas from individual chapters.
Human Rights Commission
questioned if "Section 205.01: Establishment and Membership" was the area to
add language to appoint one new commissioner; with Mayor Roe responding that
Laliberte noted some commission language included appointment of youth
commissioners, and asked if that specificity was desired across the board.
Roe noted that Chapter 201 talked about youth commissioners for all
McGehee opined it was dependent on the interest of students.
ensued, with the consensus to strike the entire sentence referencing youth
commissioners from Chapters 204 (Parks & Recreation), 205 (HRC), and 209
(CEC), as that language was addressed in Chapter 201, Section 03.B.
Roe noted that the language stated, "may," and therefore was not a mandate for
the City Council to do so unless appropriate and applicable.
on the Council discussion, Mayor Roe directed staff to bring back another
draft, and after discussion on the anticipated meeting to review that draft,
consensus was for staff to have it available at the August 10, 2015 meeting.
Twin Lakes Infrastructure TIF Bonding Discussion
detailed in the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon noted mandatory timing until September
3, 2015 for the City to spend tax increment financing (TIF) dollars in Twin
Lakes District 17 at which time any future expenditures will be significantly
impacted, creating the need to spend funds by that date or lose the ability to
use the majority of funds going forward. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if the
City pursues the bonding process, the funds would qualify as spent. Given the
tight timeframe, Mr. Trudgeon noted staff's intent to bring this forward at the
next meeting for City Council consideration for initiating the process of
issuing bonds; and given the tight timeframe, it would be necessary to take
action one way or another at that meeting to meet bond issue requirements.
noted in the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed proposed projects, which had
already been discussed by the City Council, and as identified on the displayed
map, all of which had been identified as part of the original AUAR and
involving existing conditions as well as future development, at an estimated
total cost of $3.2 million. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had been
consulting with the City's financial consultant, Springsted, for the best
possible scenario, and including the WalMart, vacant PIK and existing Dorso
sites. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the additional development of the new hotels,
and pending developments would factor into and improve revenues over the life
of the district, and were estimated at approximately $30,000 additional in
increment over the conservatively sufficient dollars to fund the bond issue.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff is confident the bond is well within the reach
of what the City can accomplish, and advised that it did not include
development of the final plat to the south or the Sherman project should that
proceed; and clarified that neither would impact TIF revenue.
Manager Trudgeon offered to answer any questions of the City Council tonight,
with the assistance of Public Works Director/Engineer Marc Culver, Community
Development Director Paul Bilotta, and Finance Director Chris Miller, all in
the audience if needed. Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that City Council action would
be required at the July 20, 2015 in order to start a bonding process under this
tight deadline, and advised that representatives from Springsted would also be
available at that meeting for any technical questions, in addition to Bond
Counsel Mary Ippel, who has already initiated processing documents if and as
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed rationale for this
bond issue at this time under this particular TIF District created under legislation
with a five year rule, and due to the recession, extended to ten years by the
state legislature, expiring on September 3, 2015. As previously stated, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that if funds were not spent by that date, the City could only
use 25% from increments in the district, creating a substantial hit. Mr.
Trudgeon noted discussions had been ongoing for some time among Councilmembers
and staff about how best to invest these TIF dollars, avoid property
assessments for new developments, and complete infrastructure needs in this
area to facilitate development by having sites ready. Mr. Trudgeon advised
that the City would still be able to use funds from Hazardous TIF Districts to
clean-up sites and make them ready for Greenfield development, further leveling
the playing field as developers continue to come forward. Mr. Trudgeon noted
the limitations of the City in accomplishing these goals, and thus staff's
recommendation to move forward and incent development by attracting developers
and quality businesses to shovel ready properties.
the request of Councilmember Etten, City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Culver
confirmed that the traffic light at Terrace Drive and Fairview Avenue was
covered under the $2.2 million.
brought to his attention by a resident, Councilmember Etten questioned why the
City didn't bring a T-1 line down this corridor as part of infrastructure improvements
and with the potential to attract a major technical company to hook in to City
fiber optics, creating another unique and beneficial draw.
Manager Trudgeon advised that this had been discussed in other areas of the
community, and while providing incentives, it would also depend on how Twin
Lakes develops. At this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had not defined
how that would work or the cost, but may lead to other conversations.
Etten noted the line currently extends to Sand Castle Park, close to County
Road D, and would serve as another way to separate Roseville from offerings in
adjacent communities competing for development.
Roe cautioned the need to consider what was already available in the private
market, referencing private data lines that may already be in place along
County Road C. Mayor Roe opined there may be serious policy considerations if
the City attempted to compete with the private sector to provide that fiber optic
service to businesses.
Works Director Culver confirmed Mayor Roe's statement.
McGehee spoke in opposition to the proposed bond issue, opining it would not
bring development, and noting that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) would
define what type and quality of development, including business uses,
especially if the City owned the land. Councilmember McGehee noted the
demonstrated history in this area that simply having a road available is not
what the public wants, and therefore, is not a good use of public funds, nor
would it bring development or enhance anything currently happening. Councilmember
McGehee further opined that the City's greatest advantage are the traffic generators
along Cleveland Avenue and County Road D that keep things moving, and were
proving not as onerous as originally thought. Councilmember McGehee noted past
experience based on the comments of Police Chief Mathwig, in the easier access
is, the easier crime becomes when moving traffic into residential
neighborhoods. As stated at the beginning of the meeting, Councilmember
McGehee noted the need to bring in decent jobs through enticing high quality development;
and if the City has more control, it won't spend this money on a road.
the request of Mayor Roe, seeking information regarding how much land the City
could purchase with $3.17 million, City Manager Trudgeon responded that the
cost of the last section purchased from PIK was $1 million; average square foot
costs in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area were running between $10 and $12 per
square foot; and Walmart had paid $20 per square foot for their roadway properties.
Roe referenced the displayed map and the small portion of land that could be
purchased for the cost of this bond issue.
a rhetorical question, Councilmember McGehee noted the City's ownership of
185,000 square feet of easement now that could be sold, and questioned if there
was any reason the City couldn't or shouldn't bond for more than $3.1 million.
Roe clarified that amount, after analysis, was all that the TIF District would
support based on current development.
Councilmember McGehee opined that, with the City's Port Authority ability, it
could do the $3.1 million and partner to do additional work.
Roe concurred that the City could use Port Authority bonding at any time if
they chose to do so.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the
City could not sell land purchased for rights-of-way or easement, and if not
needed by the City chose not to hold it, it would revert back to the original
property owner. At the request of additional Councilmembers, Mr. Gaughan
advised that property owners would not return any money to the City as the City
did not have the right to sell the property as a third party; with the original
property owner then getting the property back and retaining the original
purchase money from the City.
Manager Trudgeon noted that the federal government would also want their money
returned that was used to purchase the last segment.
McGehee opined it would make a nice pathway to the Langton Lake Park.
Roe confirmed with City Manager Trudgeon that requested action at the July 20,
2015 meeting would be to authorize a sale date for bond issuance.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed the
limitations for using bonds based on eligible expenditures, which could be answered
in more detail at the July 20 meeting by Bond Counsel.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon addressed specified bond
purpose and a time clock for selling the bonds; and using this conservative proposal
as presented, advised if there was further development in the area, it would
the City to pay off the bonds sooner or use funds for another purpose, depending
on variables that may change over the bond term.
the request of Mayor Roe regarding a time frame (e.g. 10 years) to spend the
TIF funds, and decertification of the district as the other option, Community Development
Director Bilotta advised that the District could continue, but the City would
be limited to no more than 25%, and while it could continue gathering increment
it would be without any benefit for the City.
that scenario, City Manager Trudgeon opined that staff would probably recommend
decertifying the TIF District if a bond issue was not undertaken; with Mr.
Bilotta noted any future projects would have to be recertified as new TIF districts,
with not as much flexibility as legislated under this existing TIF District 17.
Discussion of 2015 - 2017 Policy Priority Planning Document
Due to time
constraints, this item was deferred to a future August 2015 meeting agenda.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:59 p.m.