View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

October 24, 2011


1.         Roll Call                                                                  

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for October: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe).   City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.


Executive Session Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to go into closed executive session to continue a discussion of labor negotiation strategy, in accordance with MN Statutes 13.d.03.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.             


Mayor Roe convened the Roseville City Council in closed executive session at approximately 6:05 p.m.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the closed executive session, and return to open session.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.             


[Closed Executive Session participants included Mayor Roe, Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus, Johnson and Pust, City Attorney Gaughan, City Manager Malinen and Human Resources Manager Bacon.]


Open Session

Mayor Roe adjourned the closed executive session at approximately 7:20 pm and reconvened the City Council in open session at approximately 7:24 pm.


2.            Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee noted that she had general questions on four (4) of the Consent Agenda items, but didn’t think that those items necessarily needed to be removed for those questions.  Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember McGehee’s questions be addressed during approval of the Consent Agenda.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.             


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.


5.            Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced and invited the public to attend the Farewell Ceremony for Fire Station No. 1 on Thursday, October 27, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. at the station located at corner of Lexington and Woodhill on the City Hall campus.  Mayor Roe advised that the community would gather to celebrate the history of Station No. 1 in the community prior to its upcoming demolition, with refreshments served.  For additional information, Mayor Roe suggested contacting Fire Chief Tim O’Neill.


Mayor Roe announced upcoming School Board elections on November 8, 2011, for School Districts 623 and 621; and encouraged residents to vote.


6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.         Proclaim American Indian Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring November 2011 as National American Indian Heritage Month.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming November 2011 as National American Indian Heritage Month in Roseville, urging all citizens to join in appreciation for our rich and diverse community.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None. 


6.         Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve Minutes of October 17, 2011  Meeting           

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2011, meeting as amended and as corrected.



As a bench handout, Councilmember Willmus had submitted additional corrections to pages 14 and 15 of the October 17, 2011, meeting minutes, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


City Manager Malinen noted that in the Closed Executive Session meeting minutes of October 17, 2011, staff would correct the reference to the applicable State Statute, which should be Chapter 13.d.03.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


Councilmember McGehee asked that the City Council consider at a later time, having quarterly staff reports and updates as regular agenda items for discussion, rather than simply presented as part of the consent agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments


65354 – 64388





Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, Pust seconded,, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those applicants as follows:



Type of License

Veolia ES, 309 Como Avenue, St. Paul, MN

Recycling Hauler

Solid Waste Hauler

Walters Recycling, P. O. Box 67

Circle Pines, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

Recycling Hauler


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Accept $500 Donation for Fire Department from Magellan Midstream Partners

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, acceptance of the $500.00 donation to the Fire Department from Magellan Midstream Partners – Roseville; and to deposit the funds in the Fire Department donation account to be used at a later date.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Receive Quarterly Imagine Roseville 2025 Update

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of the October 2011 Quarterly Update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long-Term Goals.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.            Receive Quarterly Shared Services Report

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of the October 2011 Quarterly Shared Services Update.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


f.             Receive Quarterly City Grant Application Report

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of the staff update for City Grant Applications in recent months.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


g.            Approve Request by CSM Investors, LLC for Outdoor Storage as a Conditional Use at 2360 County Road C

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10943 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage as a Conditional Use at 2360 County Road C (PF11-025).”


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


h.            Approve Pawn America Minnesota, LLC Currency Exchange License Renewal for 2012

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota LLC, 1715 N Rice Street, to renew their licenses to operate currency exchange business in Roseville for the 2012 calendar year.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


i.             Award Contract for Audit Services

As a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and as requested by Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller provided supplemental information regarding the new audit services contract via an e-mail dated October 21, 2011.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorizing City staff to approve a three (3) year agreement for audit services with Kern, DeWenter, Viere (KDV), including the standard Professional Services Agreement.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


j.             Approve Contract with Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI) to Update the Geothermal Master Plan for the Roseville City Campus

Councilmember McGehee questioned if this company was the original installers of the City’s geothermal system; with City Manager Malinen advising that they were the original designers of the system.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff had information on the cost savings of the last three (3) years with the geothermal system in place.


Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that information in report form to the City Council in the future.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of a contract with KFI in the amount of $5,000.00 to update the City of Roseville Geothermal Master Plan for the Roseville City Campus using current data and incorporating the addition of the new fire station.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


k.            Information on Various Budget-Related Initiatives

Councilmember McGehee apologized that this information had not been provided to the resident requesting it in the format they had originally requested.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of a 2012 Budget Fact Sheet (Attachment A) depicting the ESTIMATED financial impact on varying home values based on the 2012 preliminary tax levy; proposed utility rate increases; and debt service impacts from the proposed bond financing for a new fire station and various park improvements.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


14.         Public Hearings


a.            Public Hearing to Amend the City’s Redevelopment Plan and Industrial District #1 Plan in Conjunction with the Sale of Bonds to Finance the Construction of a New Fire Station and Park Improvements

Finance Director Chris Miller introduced this item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 24, 2011; and the background of the request to-date related to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation process and to provide for City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needs.  Mr. Miller noted that discussion on the City’s fire station needs have been occurring for the better part of a decade, and how to approach the community’s long-term emergency service needs; as well as how to address long-deferred CIP infrastructure needs.  Mr. Miller advised that those discussions had also included numerous open houses, community forums, City newsletter and on-line information on the City’s website.


Mr. Miller noted that tonight’s Public Hearing was subsequent to the City Council’s direction to staff to proceed with replacement of Fire Station No. 1 and the first phase of the Park Master Plan Implementation Program of approximately $19 million, with $2 million allotted to the Parks Implementation Program and $8 million toward a new Fire Station.  Mr. Miller advised that subsequent bond issues specific to the park system were proposed in 2012 and 2013.


While legal counsel was satisfied that the City’s current Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District #1 Plan, in the interest of being extra-transparent and extra-careful about the City’s intentions, an amendment was being brought forward to the Plan that would specifically call out redevelopment activities for a new fire station and addressing the first phase of park improvements outlined in the Park Master Plan.


Mr. Miller advised that the City’s Bond Counsel, Mary Ippel, was present in the audience to respond to any questions of the City Council or audience during tonight’s Hearing and action process.


Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council, immediately following the Public Hearing, would be considering three actions, as outlined in the staff reports related to Items 11.a, 12.a and 12.b.


Councilmember Willmus referenced the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet prepared by staff and included in tonight’s meeting packet (Item 7.k) and the projected combined impact on a typical single-family home of 25% over 2011, and what that projection was based upon.


Mr. Miller advised that the impacts reflected a series of items: if the City Council continued with their proposed 2012 tax levy, impacts of issuing $8 million in bonds for a new fire station, impacts of issuing $19 million in bonds for parks, and proposed increases to utility rates as outlined, all of which would equal an additional $25/month for a typical single-family homeowner.  However, Mr. Miller noted that this impact would not be felt in its entirety in 2012, with approximately half felt in 2012, with the rest phased in during 2013 and 2014, with the total maximum impact arriving in 2014, contingent upon the City Council proceeding with each of those items as they had originally indicated.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that this impact would be reduced if the City Council didn’t raise utility rates as much as anticipated; with Mr. Miller responding affirmatively.


Councilmember Willmus noted the proposed allocation of this first $10 million bond issue between the fire station and parks; and questioned if the City Council approved the bond issue tonight, if there was anything preventing the City Council, in subsequent action, to reallocate that 80/20 split between the fire station and parks.


Mr. Miller advised that, if the City Council proceeds with authorizing the bond issue, the City’s Bond Counsel would be holding subsequent discussions with bond agencies on the allocation; and there may be general concern expressed by those agencies on whether future action met the general intent of the bond issue terms and proceeds.


Ms. Ippel responded to Councilmember Willmus by noting that, at the time the bonds are sold and the City Council accepted the resolution accepting that bond sale and based on the present schedule for a November 24, 2011, bond sale date, the City Council should have established by then how the proceeds will be spent and specific allocations for each of the two (2) projects.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the Fire Department would not be utilizing all $8 million in the coming year, thus his question; with Mayor Roe responding that the allocation would need to be firmly clarified between now and November 24, 2011.


In an effort to follow-up on Councilmember Willmus’ first question on the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet Councilmember Pust asked staff to clarify the impacts to a typical single-family homeowner for the next fiscal year being the fire station, and only $10 million of the total $19 million for park improvements, creating a split impact, making the actual percentage increase – if all items occurred – about 15%, not 25%.


Mr. Miller responded that, actual impacts from the bond issue would not be felt until 2013, as there was a time delay to get the bond issues in place and on property tax levies, with 2013 being the first year that the levy would appear.  Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Pust’s percentage projections; reiterating that the full impact if everything was implemented, would not be felt until 2104; with about half felt in 2012, and the other half coming due in 2013 and 2014.

Councilmember Pust clarified that two (2) of the items had already been voted on, and residents were anticipating larger than projected impacts, and the full 25%, as outlined, realized in 2014 if the City Council stayed on this path.


Mayor Roe noted that the projected 25% change in property taxes was not all collected by the City as property taxes, but the amount paid for utilities and taxes were projected for an average household in Roseville.


Councilmember McGehee referenced to the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet, noting that the $11 amount for Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) was also coming out of taxpayer pockets, and should be included in this list of impacts.


Councilmember McGehee referenced the State Statutes in the draft resolution to modify the Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan, and their references to the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and questioned if the City’s Port Authority was going to be used in the same area, why it had to be denoted in any way.


Ms. Ippel advised that when the redevelopment project area and industrial development area terminus was established in 1990 and then enlarged in 1991, it was established as an HRA area and industrial area, not focusing on the HRA plan or any industrial development goals for these projects, simply speaking to the City’s HRA powers which the City has as a part of being granted Port Authority powers in 1987.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for using Port Authority powers, why not just use the City’s HRA powers.


Ms. Ippel clarified, that as per Minnesota State Statute, the City’s HRA did not have Port Authority authorities, but the City had been granted Port Authority powers under Port Authority laws; and that the City’s Port Authority also had the powers of an HRA.


Councilmember McGehee referenced specific sections of State Statute, and her understanding of their provisions; with Ms. Ippel advising that under HRA provisions, Port Authority and by cross fertilizations of them, the City had powers under the Industrial Development Act, with the City Council having multiple powers.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was some conflict between the powers, with Port Authority calling out things being marginal, or blighted under HRA definitions, and blurring the lines.


Ms. Ippel advised that there was no conflict, simply different statutory authorities that contain different statutory powers for a City Council.


                             Public Comment

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:58 p.m.; and reviewed the purpose of and protocol for speaking during the Public Hearing.


Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue

Mr. Lambert provided two (2) bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, respectively entitled, “How Roseville’s Per Person Costs would Compare to Other Ramsey County Cities if the Fire Station and Parks Bonding Expenses Were Added to Actual 2011 Levy;” and “Total Levy Per Person if Fire Station and Parks Bonding Expenses were added to Actual 2011 Levy…”


Mr. Lambert advised that he was speaking as a private citizen; and noted that by dividing the total levy amount by the number of people in Roseville, the proposed bond issues would make the City of Roseville at the absolute top for taxes; and questioned the absolute need for all of the items proposed in the bond issue.  Mr. Lambert asked that the City Council reconsider spending this much money; and the significant impact to citizens without their having the opportunity to vote such an expenditure up or down through a referendum, rather than the City Council attempting to “short circuit” the process.


Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue

Mr. McDonald opined that this use of the City’s Port Authority was not to manage any genuine port, but simply to use that authority to sell bonds to be used for high dollar projects; and in that project to avoid a public referendum otherwise required by law.  While its citizens usually supported such projects in Roseville, Mr. McDonald questioned the City Council’s rationale in using such extreme measures to deny the public its voice in this matter.  Mr. McDonald further opined that it was sad that the City Council felt it was necessary to use such administrative levers and legislative loopholes, when the projects would most likely be supported by a majority of the community and were in the best interests of the community.


Raymond Schreurs, 3058 N Wilder

Mr. Schreurs noted, as a long-time resident of Roseville, that he had witnessed many changes in the village and now city; and asked the following questions of the Mayor and City Council.

1)    Is democracy dead in Roseville; 2) Isn’t there a City Council policy to ask voters of Roseville to decide on expenditures over $3 million; 3) Are you afraid of resident voters; and 4) Would we not vote in the best interest of Roseville?


Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue

Mr. Houck referenced media sources and ongoing headlines about homelessness, diminishing senior retirement incomes, joblessness, food shelf shortages, and other results of the recent economic downturn, and questioned if the City Council was reading these same headlines, questioning how they could up with this proposed bond issue if they were doing so.  Mr. Houck stated that there were severe hardships out there, and opined that it was immoral in this economy to raise taxes.  Mr. Houck further opined that previous City Council’s would not have set a policy to limit expenditures to $3 million without a referendum; however, this City Council had authorized the City’s bond counsel to find a way to seek $27 million without public approval by a referendum. Mr. Houck opined that this was a devious plan to pick the pockets of Roseville citizens; when if it was a valid project, the City Council should be able to sell it to the Roseville voters through a referendum, but that they should ensure that it was actually the will of the people.


Bruce Dishinger, 2141 N Avon Street

Mr. Dishinger opined that by declaring parts of Roseville blighted, the City Council could circumvent a referendum going to people; however, he further opined that the very people responsible for taking care of parks and fire stations, were the people who let the situation reach a blighted condition.  Mr. Dishinger used maintenance of his home as an analogy and his responsibility for its maintenance without seeking money from a lender to take care of something he should have been taking care of.  Mr. Dishinger asked that the City Council reconsider their decision, and bring the issue before the voters, letting them decide what was or was not right for Roseville.  Mr. Dishinger assured Councilmembers that citizens could decide what is right, and being good people who elected individual Councilmembers, opined that Councilmembers needed to trustworthily and faithfully honor the trust those voters had placed in each of them.  While recognizing that there were things that needed to be repaired in Roseville, he opined that the decision should be up to the people of Roseville.


Bob Bierscheid, 1065 Harriet Lane

In an effort for full disclosure, Mr. Biersheid noted that he had over forty-two (42) years of professional experience in the Parks and Recreation field, including a substantial number of years in Roseville.  Mr. Biersheid advise that his son was a new firefighter for Roseville, and expressed concern about his health and welfare, with the current condition of the City’s fire stations, which he opined were in critical need of repair.  In terms of the use of bonds for Parks and Recreation facilities and their maintenance, Mr. Biersheid noted that bond funds were intended for major maintenance of existing facilities, which had not been kept up-to-date in the City for some time.  Mr. Biersheid opined that the City’s risk manager would say that the City had more exposure to financial risk through continuing to neglect this maintenance.   Mr. Biersheid opined that he had never seen a more comprehensive asset analysis than that conducted during the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process.  Mr. Biersheid brought forth an old adage that seemed applicable to him in this situation: to bring things up to standard now, or in a few years, pay more to board them up, tear them down, or patch them up.


Carol Koester , 1739 Eldridge Avenue

Ms. Koester  referenced the 2012 Budget Fact Sheet, opining that the potential negative impacts to Roseville residents, many suffering from joblessness, loss of retirement income, or mortgages currently under water, would be catastrophic.  Ms. Koester  stated that, while dreams are nice, the reality was that parks improvements needed to be deferred for 3-5 years until the economy improved; and also that the fire station plans needed to be reviewed and scaled back.  Ms. Koester  opined that many Roseville residents were not able to afford much more than they were already paying.  While recognizing that the City needed a new fire station, she questioned the need for an $8 million fire station; and questioned if other alternatives were considered to scale things back.  If, at that time, it was determined that the entire $8 million was not actually needed, Ms. Koester  suggested that the budget request be reduced, as well as reducing the cost for park improvements.  As an example, Ms. Koester  questioned the need for a sprinkler system in various parks, opining that this seemed to her to be an extravagance that the City could do without.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg noted that he and Ms. Koester  had been the requesters of the 2012 Budget Impact Fact Sheet prepared by staff, and thanked Finance Director Miller for compiling that information and provided it to the public, in order to provide a comprehensive look at the cumulative impact on bonds being considered, along with the proposed utility fee increase.  Mr. Grefenberg encouraged all Roseville residents to seek out a copy for their personal review; and opined that the number of residents in attendance at tonight’s meeting could attest to the fact that many residents had previously been unaware of the totality of the impact. Since so many residents had apparently been unaware of these impacts before, Mr. Grefenberg questioned the need for the City Council to rush in making this decision, opining that he for one couldn’t afford an additional 25% increase to his property taxes, similarly to other Roseville senior citizens, especially during this time of economic uncertainty and underemployment.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that Roseville citizens, specifically many of his neighbors, were simply asking that the City reprioritize, reshape and reschedule this bond issue and expenditures by seeking other financing options beyond raising property taxes, such as through the City’s reserve funds.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that the City’s property tax levy had increased 64% over the last decade, while at the same time, the City maintained a reserve fund of at least $20 million; thus not requiring the City Council to put any additional burden on its property taxpayers.  Mr. Grefenberg questioned if the City Council had considered selling the existing fire station on Fairview Avenue, or other ways to recoup costs.  Mr. Grefenberg, while supporting the Parks Master Plan findings in general, questioned what was served by issuing the entire $19 million at this time within the next two (2) years; opining that the City Council needed to make a decision on whether its citizens had the ability to pay for it.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council proceed cautiously and phase in the impacts through a bond issue in a more conservative approach, allowing taxpayers some relief at this time and in this current economy.


Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Mr. Neprash spoke in support of the proposed increases in utility rates, from his perspective as being involved in that field, and speaking from that authority in the field, advised that the City was taking the right step in addressing its utility infrastructure through increased fees for those capital improvements.  Mr. Neprash opined that the infrastructure costs would only continue to escalate in the future, as well as become a legal requirement of the City, along with being a public health and ethical responsible.  Mr. Neprash advised that, in his work with League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) staff, they were carrying the message across the State of MN that inevitable increases in running utility systems would be forthcoming.  Therefore, Mr. Neprash opined that it only seemed prudent and responsible of the City Council to take those actions now.  Regarding the property tax levy and proposed bond sale for a fire station, Mr. Neprash opined that this also seemed appropriate and prudent; further opining that a new fire station was long overdue. 


However, Mr. Neprash spoke against a bond sale for park improvements, as it seemed like too much money at the wrong time in terms of the general economic climate and financial well-being of Roseville residents; and opined that it seemed that the process was flawed, and suggested that a reasonable step be taken back to further review this plan.  While having great respect for Mr. Biersheid, Mr. Neprash opined that regarding a past lack of maintenance of the City’s park system and its facilities, he recommended that the City Council seriously look at its maintenance procedures and protocol throughout the City to rectify those problems from the past and to avoid them in the future.


Shirley Bradway, 3024 Highcrest

Speaking on behalf of the area League of Women Voters (LWV) and as a member of the LWV for over thirty (30) years, Ms. Bradway provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled “Statement of the Roseville-Maplewood-Falcon Heights Chapter of the Minnesota League of Women Voters.”  Ms. Bradway summarized this statement, noting that the LMV members supported the bonding issue passed by the City Council on September 12, 2011, that provided for a maintenance bond for the fire station.  Ms. Bradway noted that public safety was a priority to the LMV; and advised that LMV members had toured fire stations #1 and 3 in May of this year; and that members concurred with the need for improved fire station facilities, that had been studied for the last decade.  Ms. Bradway referenced issues with current facilities, including not meeting OSHA and ADA standards, no sprinkler system in existing facilities; and a lack of gender appropriate areas.  Ms. Bradway opined that this was a public and employee issue; and requested that the City Council reaffirm their decision for expenditure.


Ann Berry, 1059 Woodhill Drive

As a member of the LWV for over forty-five (45) years, Ms. Berry concurred with the statement provided by Ms. Bradway.  While experiencing continuing declining values in her home, Ms. Berry continued to support the bond issue; seeking City Council reaffirmation of their decision to address this public safety issue for the Fire Department.


Ms. Roni Janos, 1778 Ryan Avenue

Ms. Janos expressed her pleasure in being a Roseville resident, stating that it was a great city, but also held a lot of family heritage for her.  However, Ms. Janos opined that she felt she was being taxed out of her house as a senior citizen, even though the City needed a good fire department, she wanted to stay in her home until she died.


Scott Ritchie, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Ritchie noted that he had spoken several years ago about rising property taxes, and impacts on those seniors and others on fixed incomes, with limited or no COLA.  While the former Mayor had predicted that the economy would start to improve by now, Mr. Ritchie observed that this was obviously not an accurate prediction, and opined that it would be a long wait for economic recovery to actually happen; and the housing market until 2017 for values to get back to 2007 levels, if then.  Mr. Ritchie noted that those are the facts as residents see them; and to have all these proposals come in a perfect storm on top of that economy for property taxpayers, it was just too much.  Mr. Ritchie noted that costs continued to mount; and while not disputing that the City needed a fire station, he questioned the statement that people would not move to Roseville without good parks, thus the $19 million expenditure.  Mr. Ritchie opined that people move to a community for a good house and good schools; however, he further opined that maintenance of those homes would continue to deteriorate when homeowners could no longer afford to keep them maintained.  Mr. Ritchie expressed his cluelessness in understanding a proposal where a portion of bond funds would be used for irrigation, noting that while the area was currently in an eight year drought, the ballfields were green, and questioned why they needed to be irrigated, and charge taxpayers to do, at the same time charging them an additional 60% for water rates.  At a minimum, Mr. Ritchie opined that the City needed to pare down the parks proposal, and questioned who the City Council was listening to in the proposed need for $19 million for its park system in a declining economy with beleaguered taxpayers who couldn’t afford it.  While recognizing a previous comment that the City Council phase in the park improvements, Mr. Ritchie opined that the proposal still needed additional vetting by to make a reasonable decision on this bonding proposal.


Ms. Lee Schreurs, 3058 N Wilder

Ms. Schreurs questioned why the City Council had not budgeted annually for maintenance of its parks and fire stations; or whether they had been included in the budget but not used for those needs.  Ms. Schreurs opined that if the City couldn’t maintain its existing parks and facilities, or its fire stations, how could it maintain more parks and a new and larger fire station.  Ms. Schreurs further opined that this seemed to be a problem in this decision-making process on a bond issue, with taxpayers forced to pay significant interest on bonds when those funds should be available in the budget to maintain parks and fire stations.


Harold Ristow, 2356 Tophill Circle (Parks and Recreation Commissioner)

Mr. Ristow, as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, opined that the reason there was no money for parks maintenance and facilities was due to the Parks and Recreation Department budget being cut year after year; now creating an urgent time when the money is necessary. Mr. Ristow referenced the condition of park shelters, and examples.  Mr. Ristow opined that if the City continued to put its collective heads in the sand, it would continue to go backwards instead of moving ahead; and further opined that it could not continue to be deferred or left for the next generation; but required action now through cooperatively working together.


Bill Davies, 464 Lovell Avenue (Roseville Area Youth Baseball)

Mr. Davies, as a volunteer and member of the Roseville Area Youth Baseball organization, spoke on behalf of ballfields and irrigation of them.  Mr. Davies reviewed the heavy use of the fields by Roseville youth and those traveling into Roseville for games and tournaments from various communities; and the comments of those visitors on the deteriorating condition of ballfields.  Mr. Davies noted that, using Evergreen Park at County Road B and Fairview Avenue that fields may have been built at a different time with different circumstances, and had no irrigation or sufficient drainage systems, and presented real challenges to those using the fields.  Mr. Davies opined that the bottom line was that the City needed to serve its youth and do so in a safe manner.  Mr. Davies noted that the reason the fields looked plush this year was due to the amount of moisture received.  Mr. Davies opined that his organization and the City wanted to be proud of their community and provide a good product for those visiting the community for summer activities used to keep youth involved in the community and to help them learn team building skills to develop into young adults.  Mr. Davies concurred that the City was obligated to maintain its facilities and parks, in addition to providing a fire station that was legal and met today’s standards, not just because it was a legal requirement, but because it was the right thing to do.  Mr. Davies offered his services as a volunteer for the fire station process; and recognized the differing opinions among younger and older residents.  Mr. Davies opined that the City had an obligation to move forward; and further opined that residents wanted parks for their kids to play in.


Richard (Jake) Jacobson, 583 Owasso Hills Drive

Mr. Jacobson noted that he had been a Parks and Recreation Commissioner for a number of years; and when he had moved to Roseville the condition of the City’s parks and playground equipment, especially Oasis Park in his neighborhood, was not that great.  However, Mr. Jacobson noted that, through his volunteer participation and the leadership of Mr. Biersheid as Parks and Recreation Director at that time, a program was developed for priority replacement of specific playground equipment, and advised that often, rather than neglected maintenance, many things were simply due to equipment and/or facilities at the end of their life cycle.  Mr. Jacobson opined that, when compared to facilities in other communities, such as hockey and ice arenas, the City of Roseville’s facilities were very good; however, they did need ongoing maintenance.  As part of the Master Plan process for Parks, Mr. Jacobson noted that this had been addressed, that was now being attempted through the Implementation portion of the Plan.  Mr. Jacobson noted that the Master Plan process had been community-wide and solicited input from a multitude of stakeholders and demographics in Roseville; and that now it was time to move forward with that process.   Mr. Jacobson expressed how overwhelmed he was with the volunteerism in Roseville by individuals and various youth recreation boards and association in keeping actual costs down, ultimately affecting the bottom line.  As a fervent believer in supporting the park system, Mr. Jacobson noted that the deliverables from various implementation task forces spelled out the priorities; and asked that the City Council consider those recommendations seriously in their decision-making; with the Master Plan process in play for a number of years, and now being the time to move forward.


Karen Schaffer, 2100 Fairview Avenue (resident next to Evergreen Park)

While sharing in the viewpoints and comments of many speakers tonight, Ms. Schaffer opined that the City Council had been put in a box or in a spot, with a manufactured crisis.  Ms. Schaffer questioned what was so urgent that a City Council policy limiting expenditures to $3 million without a voter referendum could be ignored.  Ms. Schaffer questioned the need for, rather than issuing a General Obligation bond, the City Council felt the need to research arcane documents that the average citizen couldn’t understand just to avoid a public referendum, alleging that this was a less expensive financing option.  While everyone was supportive of the City’s park system, its maintenance and improvement; Ms. Shaffer questioned why the City had not obtained a more recent study of fire station needs, at least more recently than that done ten (10) years ago; and providing for an independent capital improvement need (CIP) analysis of the location, size, number, amenities and functionality of fire stations.  With respect to a CIP for parks, Ms. Schaffer opined that there were certainly more choices between zero or $19 million; however, those choices had not been presented to the City Council; thus the manufactures crisis similar to that found in congress earlier this year; with the City Council needing more information to exercise its discretion, which should be a routine process. While being sympathetic to the box the City Council has been placed in, Ms. Schaffer asked that they step back and exercise that discretion entrusted to them by voters.  Regarding Evergreen Park ballfields, Ms. Shaffer advised that, when they were installed, they were financed by the Little League, as their neighborhood was not going to obtain a regular neighborhood family park because someone determined that the Little League needs were greater; and the Little League put in the money.  Ms. Schaffer questioned if the Little League was going to continue with this funding, or if the City’s taxpayers were now being asked to take that funding over, when the park could only be used for Little League, not older youth or adults.


Jim DeBenedet, 808 Mil  lwood Avenue

Mr. DeBenedet advised that he and his wife Stephanie had been residents of Roseville for over thirty-five (35) years, and noted he was here tonight to speak to the fire station issue only, but would return in December when the City Council discussed utility rates to share additional comments.  Mr. DeBenedet opined that the proposed fire station was a long-delayed project, and was not only addressing mold issues; but further noted that the existing building could not be brought into compliance with OSHA and ADA requirements, and continued to violate those codes.  Mr. DeBenedet further noted the changes in the firefighter models, with the force no longer being a volunteer force, but operating with hired, coed staffing, operating in facilities that were not adequate for gender separation as required.  While generally supportive of the City Council going to referendum and trusting the good judgment of its citizens, given recent erroneous news articles and the many risks the City could be facing with current facilities, Mr. DeBenedet expressed concern that voters would look at the actual realities of the needs.  In performing an analysis of his personal Ramsey County tax statement and proposed increases in raw dollars, Mr. DeBenedet advised that – should the City Council hold with their maximum, preliminary tax levy at 4.2%, and other proposed increases, he would experience a 2.5% increase in his property taxes.  Although he was also on a fixed income and shared concerns about increased costs, Mr. DeBenedet opined that this increase was affordable and the right thing to do at this time for the future of Roseville; and that the uses of the bond issue should no longer be deferred or delayed; and opined that the City should do what the law allowed it to do for the best value possible.  Mr. DeBenedet advised that this was what he had elected Councilmembers to do and asked that they make the decision to move ahead.


Gale Pederson, 929 W Roselawn

Ms. Pederson, un-officially known as the “Parks and Recreation lady,” and as a thirty-seven (37) year resident of Roseville, noted that while her husband had retired and was on a fixed income, she continued to work at a blue collar job.  However, Ms. Pederson expressed her firm belief in this community; and noted that the fire department worked in outdated, hazardous facilities jeopardizing their health and safety while being expected to save the homes and lives of Roseville residents and visitors to the community.  Ms. Pederson opined that they deserved a new facility, and she had no problem paying for such a facility through her taxes.  Ms. Pederson noted that the City’s Parks Master Plan had been studied seriously over the last 3-5 years, receiving more community input than any other survey done in the community; and should speak clearly about Roseville residents, and their recognition that the situation needed to be taken care of and paid for accordingly.  Ms. Pedersen noted the continually declining funding in the Park Fund over the last 15-20 years, resulting in deferred maintenance and replacement of facilities and equipment; and noted that this $19 million for the first implementation phase was not asking for new parks or a great facility; but was simply to address basic upkeep and maintenance of existing facilities and equipment, or to preserve what the City currently had.  Sometime in the future, Ms. Pederson admitted that the Parks and Recreation Commission may seek new facilities or greater improvements; however, she resented the statement that no new studies had been done, when the Parks and Recreation Department through the Master Plan process, and the Fire Department through a recently-updated and independent study, had done their due diligence over and above expectations.  Ms. Pederson noted that the City Council was fully aware of these studies and ongoing updates over the last several years; and respectfully asked that they do what had to be done; and expressed her willingness as a citizen to pay for it.  Ms. Pederson opined that the community of Roseville was vibrant, and she only wanted it to be well-maintained, further opining that this was what the City Council was elected to do for its citizens.


Brandon Rettke, 2451 Farrington Circle

Mr. Rettke recognized that Roseville was a multi-generational community and that this probably created the varying opinions being expressed tonight; however, he opined that kids needed safe and quality fields, and that there were not currently enough now to handle those needs.  Regarding Evergreen Park, and his involvement with Roseville baseball and basketball, Mr. Rettke noted that kid and parent volunteers did the maintenance work there, and intended to continue doing so on an annual basis, including equipment installation.  While that volunteer work was cooperatively done with other cities, associations, the School District and private organizations to upgrade fields, Mr. Rettke opined that there remained the need to move forward with maintenance at City parks, noting the record number of youth baseball participants this year, and the difficulty in scheduling practices and games at existing fields.  Coming from a different angle, Mr. Rettke opined that the City Council was elected to make hard decisions, and while those hard decisions were often neglected or deferred on a federal or state level, and pushed onto School Districts and local government, he still supported a voter referendum to ensure democracy and let the voters decide if the bond issue was the right thing to do.


Bob Murphy, 1667 Millwood Avenue    

Mr. Murphy spoke in support of a bond issue for the fire station; having served as a firefighter, as well as deputy fire chief, and just having retired in 2001.  Mr. Murphy advised that he had been privileged to participate in the August 2010-2011 Roseville Fire Department Building Facility Needs Committee, and displayed a copy of the report from that Committee, provided to the City Council in March of 2011.  Mr. Murphy opined that a new fire station is not a City “want,” but a City “need;” and would address continuing reduced response times, a centrally-located fire station on city-owned land; and for those in tonight’s audience claiming that additional study was needed, he provided excerpts of the above-referenced study, and work of the Committee in addition to the 2008 study.  Mr. Murphy referenced an earlier speaker opining that it was “immoral to have a referendum,” by opining that it was “immoral not to provide public safety” when the City had the ability to do so.  In addressing public comments regarding a preference for the City to scale back and study other alternatives; based on the reports done to-date, Mr. Murphy noted that the City was going from three (3) to one (1) station while maintaining the same response time; was purchasing and using less apparatus while maintaining the City’s ISO rating; and was doing so with the same staffing; and questioned what more residents could ask for.  Mr. Murphy read the 2010-2011 study conclusions; and requested that the City Council act on the proposed fire station bond issue.


Bruce Branigan, 2082 Cohansey Boulevard

Mr. Branigan opined that Roseville was a great City with exceptional volunteer efforts; and noted that two (2) specific examples of exceptional departments were being discussed for bonding assistance.  Mr. Branigan noted that the City’s Fire Department was highly rated and trained; and its Park Department was nationally recognized for its system of good parks.  Mr. Branigan noted that those were some of the reasons he and his family had moved to Roseville; and noted that both of the issues currently before the City Council for this bond issue had been studied repeatedly and in-depth for years, and had been addressed through newspaper articles, the City’s newsletter, and posted on line – all providing for well-published information for citizens and discussing alternatives over the last few years.  Mr. Branigan opined that both departments had performed their due diligence in bringing forward the best recommendation possible to serve current needs, as well as planning for the future and the City’s ever-increasing and diverse population, also a responsibility of Roseville citizens.  While recognizing the different views expressed by speakers tonight, Mr. Branigan noted that no one had addressed current interest rates and the positive timing of a bond issue to get historically low rates on the bonds, providing a great opportunity.  Mr. Branigan also noted the opportune time for construction and infrastructure renewal contractors hungry for projects, providing for lower bids for the proposed projects as well.  Mr. Branigan opined that the City had a historic opportunity to get a great bargain for their money, and now was the time to move forward and approve these two projects, for current and future generations, as well as providing for the safety of the City’s well-trained firefighters.


John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street

Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the parks and fire station debate mirrored that of the Vikings stadium debate, with people wearing blinders and not thinking clearly.  Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the question was not really about long-term implications and the ability to pay or not pay of their fellow residents; but actually what was right or moral for the City Council and whether people should be able to twist laws to the point of absurdity as long as they got their way.  While all private citizens were entitled to their own opinions, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the City Council needed to rise above the fire station and parks issues, and as elected officials care about how the process was done and about long-term implications and interests of all residents, not just those attending a public meeting; and to the bets of the City Council’s ability.  Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that government should be operated in the original intent of the laws and business conducted in a moral and ethical manner; and recognizing that everyone supported the fire department and park department; the actual decision before the City Council tonight was whether it was ethically and morally correct to use laws written for transportation needs to attempt to borrow an unlimited amount of money without voter approval.  Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that a facilities upgrade project, ignoring the $3 million City Council expenditure limit on spending without voter approval, and changing the City’s Industrial Development Plan had little to do with the final goal of the City Council borrowing $30 million without a voter referendum.  Mr. Kysylyczyn reviewed his perception of the annual and long-term impacts to taxpayers, and outlined a series of questions, all with the same consideration: whether such an action was ethically or morally correct.  Mr. Kysylyczyn alleged that the legal opinions provided by the City’s bond counsel had been withheld by staff from the public and City Council until the last minute in an attempt to institute a plan that created the ability for the City Council today and forever in the future to borrow an unlimited amount of money for any imaginable project and to quadruple the community’s debt through this process; all in a community with a long history of voter referendums.  Mr. Kysylyczyn alleged that the City currently had the cash available today to build a fire station or to address parks, without any of the proposed bond issue process.  Mr. Kysylyczyn referred to his tenure as a City of Roseville mayor and the choices he made in renovating City Hall, replacing the Public Works building, and updating fire station; and his ethical and moral choices in going to the voters at the ballot box, including a number of Public Hearings, open houses, and other public opportunities to provide information to the public before the election.  Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that he had sent the City Council’s proposal to several legislators, and while they recognized the City Council’s authority to proceed, admitted that it would be circumventing voters; and one of the comments he’d received indicated that some legislators are stepping forward to eliminate this legislation and authority.


Bill Farmer, 640 Heinel Drive

Mr. Farmer advised that, when he spoke proudly of Roseville, he listed several reasons for that pride, including: 1) racial tolerance; 2) a spirit of volunteerism; 3) a great school district; and 4) the overall environment of the community itself, including its park system.  Mr. Farmer apologized to the City’s first responders in not including them in that list, since he appreciated them as well.  In his fifteen (15) years as a Roseville resident, Mr. Farmer noted that he had done a lot of volunteering in various aspects, and noted the vision required to achieve and maintain high standards.  Mr. Farmer noted that, in relationship to the parks, the Master Plan provided a twenty (20) year vision to restore the character of Roseville’s park system to a high standard; not to enhance or greatly improve them, but to simply restore them to a basic standard for Roseville parks, opining that this was a long-overdue and needed investment.  Mr. Farmer opined that the City’s parks system had been underfunded over a long period resulting in the current need to invest a significant amount of money to bring it back up to standard.  While recognizing the differing opinions, and the financial hardships of some, Mr. Farmer opined that if citizens made a commitment to follow-through with this now, a way would and could be found to accomplish it, rather than continuing the malaise that created the current situation.  Mr. Farmer further opined that the longer things were put off, the more expensive they would be; and asked that the City Council follow through and support the bond issue to fund the park system as put forward.


Ernie Willenbring, 832 Lovell Avenue

Mr. Willenbring opined that, given the amount of public media available, and the obvious need for the facilities in question, to simply let the people decide.


Gary Grefenberg

As a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, Mr. Grefenberg provided four (4) pages total of a petition signed by SouthWest Area of Roseville Neighbors (SWARN) – Midland Grove Neighborhood – summarized as follows:

“…All this at a time of economic uncertainty, high unemployment, stagnant wages, and falling home values we believe it is unfair to ask Roseville property taxpayers to bear the sole burden of all these proposed initiatives, and respectfully ask the Council to reconsider their support of these initiatives at their current proposed funding level, and find other means of financing them.”



Karen Radjek, SW RV

Ms. Radjek noted that there was no park close to their home except the Evergreen Park ballfield; and asked that the City Council define the difference between a ballfield and a park, opining that ballfields required a lot of maintenance, while parks didn’t.  As a life-time member of FOR Parks, Ms. Radjek noted that she was a frequent fundraiser for parks not anywhere near her home simply because she valued parks so much.   Ms. Radjek expressed her confusion, with the obvious controversy of both of these issues, why they were grouped together and not considered as separate issues; and opined that residents should be allowed to vote on both issues. Ms. Radjek opined that, without organized sports, parks were less expensive to maintain; and further opined that irrigation systems could actually save water and money in the long run.  Ms. Radjek noted the significant volunteer core available in the community, and their creativity in problem solving, as well as ball associations and organizations; and opined that if you participate in those sports, you should help maintain those fields; and again questioned if it was fair to push this through without asking the public to vote on the parks portion.


Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:35 p.m.; and thanked all for their comments; and reviewed the three (3) actions before the City Council tonight.


Council Discussion

Mayor Roe summarized and reviewed the questions raised by the public; and asked that Councilmembers address those questions and comments as part of their position statements and approach to the various issues and upcoming requested actions to follow. 


Mayor Roe asked if the City Council adopted a resolution tonight amending the Plan or adopting the ordinance, was there any restriction that they had to issue the other two (2) bond issues subsequent to the first one.


Both Mr. Miller and Ms. Ippel responded negatively.


Mayor Roe questioned if the City approved the $10 million bond at this time with the amendment to the Plan, would the City be obligated to issue the other bond issues targeted to be issued if proceeding, basically questioning the timing for the second and third bond issues.


Mr. Miller noted the tentative time line as set out in the RCA, with $10 million anticipated for issue in November of 2011; with another issue in the spring of 2012, and then depending on a number of factors, returning with another issue the end of 2012 and leading into 2013; with the City Council making the final determination for final consideration and action of remaining bond issues.  Mr. Miller advised that the rationale for and structure of this bond issue process and schedule was to allow all $27 million of the financing improvements to be deemed bank qualified, allowing for a larger pool of potential bidders that would drive interest rates down further and save the City significant money.


Councilmember McGehee referenced the sliding chart in Exhibit B of the RCA; questioning if this was like an adjustable rate mortgage, and why the payments increased as the bonds aged. 


Mr. Miller responded that this was done to keep the City’s annual debt service even,; and that the longer the investment horizon, the higher command on interest rates, with interest rates increasing over time, and the principle decreasing over time; and in total, payments remaining roughly the same on an annual basis.


Councilmember McGehee noted the statement of Mr. Kysylyczyn that the City of Roseville held $20 million in available reserves, and questioned the actual amount available and not classified for a specific use.


Mr. Miller advised that the City held approximately $4.5 million in unspecified reserves, while the remaining amount in reserve, approximately $16-17 million, and were specifically designated, either by an outside legal entity or by the City Council itself.  For those City Council-designated funds, Mr. Miller advised that the City Council could choose a new purpose for those funds.

At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to the current interest rate being realized on the City’s investments and the anticipated interest rate on proposed bond payments, Mr. Miller responded that the City was receiving approximately 4% on those investments, and anticipated less than 4% interest rate on the bond issue, depending on the timing of their issue.


McGehee moved, Pust seconded, NOT ADOPTING the proposed resolution (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving Modifications to the Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan (Attachment B);” in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements.


Councilmember Pust thanked those in the audience for their very thoughtful testimony tonight; and agreed that the City needed a new fire station, and not just due to mold issues, but in her role as an employment lawyer, it was not advisable to make employees work in unsafe workplaces; and also speaking as an appreciative recipient of the excellent services provided by the City’s Fire Department.


Relating to the park improvements, Councilmember Pust advised that she believed those improvements were also needed, and especially as she considered the favorable and impressive public input process over the last 18 months, as well as over the last 3-5 years by the various work teams addressing park system needs.  Councilmember Pust opined that the improvements were needed, and that parks were a good place for the community’s children to be.


Councilmember Pust also agreed with statements that money was cheap at this time, that things were in disrepair, and the City could do its part in putting back to work to get the economy going.


Councilmember Pust reiterated her support for both of the projects, but disagreed that either or both were just maintenance issues, and taking care of normal wear and tear.  Councilmember Pust opined that that normal wear and tear should be taken care of through annual levying at 2-5% in order to maintain what the City currently had, a responsibility she held as an elected City Councilmember. 


However, Councilmember Pust opined that this was actually capital improvements (CIP) as detailed in the proposed resolution, with park system improvements and construction of a public safety facility, both capital expenditures; and that such expenditures needed to go before the voters.  Councilmember Pust noted that she had previously expressed her willingness to lead that charge to the voters, and would be 100% behind the projects; and while recognizing that the voter support was probably there, she noted her strong belief that it was important to get the voter’s approval.  Councilmember Pust noted the significant increase to property taxes on an annual basis and that this would become a base going forward for decades; and far beyond the 2-5% increase for maintenance that the voters had elected her for maintaining the City’s infrastructure and facilities.  With past City Councils adopting a policy that any expenditure over $3 million would go for voter referendum, Councilmember Pust opined that it was still not a moral or ethical issue as suggested, but that it was an issue of democracy. 


Councilmember Pust advised that, based on that rationale, she would be supporting this motion.


Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of Councilmember Pust; and in addition, in her new role as a Councilmember, lauded the Parks and Recreation Commission for their use of public input, but after her detailed review of the Master Plan findings and Implementation Plan that originally called for a voter referendum, it also suggested other funding options (e.g. legacy funds, grants, community partnerships, and contributions).  Councilmember McGehee noted that the original timeframe for implementation recommended a voter referendum in 2011; and also noted that the park public survey did not reflect many of those priorities for this first phase of implementation.  Councilmember McGehee opined that a voter referendum would allow more public discussion about the plan and match a broader range of goals, using an example of the little support from the survey for better and/or bigger warming houses.


As far as the fire station is concerned, Councilmember McGehee opined that she absolutely agreed that a new station was needed; however, her problem was that even though this was a public building, the public had nothing to say about it, while she was asked to approve an $8 million bond without a concept being brought forward for that decision-making.  Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for the amount of square footage suggested; as well as the need for exercise and/or training rooms, when the City’s Police Department already had those facilities.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there were many options that hadn’t been presented; and while she supported the need for a fire station in general; she also supported a referendum to allow more citizen involvement and to provide more focused though for the plan.


Councilmember Willmus spoke against the motion to not proceed, based on similar rationale as expressed by Councilmembers Pust and McGhee, but from a different perspective and on the opposite side. 


Councilmember Willmus noted that the needs of the community had been taken into account in actions by the City Council to-date moving forward over the next decade, since those needs had not been adequately addressed in the previous decade, putting the City in its current position.   Councilmember Willmus noted the Master Plan process itself and the significant number of citizens involved in that process; the parks-specific community survey and feedback obtained from citizens; and the response of those charged with paring down that data into a series of phases for implementation in what he opined was brought forward in an incredibly responsible manner and process.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the overall Parks Master Plan implementation dollar amount was significantly higher than the proposed first implementation phase of $19 million; and could not support those subsequent phases without a voter referendum.  However, for this first phase, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was supportive to get the park system back to a viable, usable system; something that was incredibly important to him personally, and a great number of residents in the community.


Similarly with the fire station, Councilmember Willmus advised that this proposed facility provided a great model moving forward for the Fire Department; and opined that it was incumbent of this City Council to make these hard choices and do what is right; and reiterated his intent to vote against the motion currently on the table.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, moved to extend the meeting curfew until 10:15 pm to finish discussion of this item.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Councilmember Johnson elected to offer no comment on this motion.


Mayor Roe recognized the concerns expressed; however, he opined that this was the first step to move forward with the City’s Port Authority, as staff had been directed by previous City Council action to proceed with these projects, and to do so in a manner that would take advantage of the best financing options available at the least impact.  Mayor Roe opined that this could not occur if the City waited until the next opportunity for a referendum, one year from now; and therefore, he supported this option as an alternative other than through a park abatement bonding that was also not subject to a referendum.


Regarding the fire station project, Mayor Roe noted that the option for equipment bonds would be subject to a reverse referendum, requiring a petition of 5% of participants from the last city election to bring to the voters. 


While being a supporter of using referendums, Mayor Roe advised that he did not make the decision for this alternative lightly, and respected the City’s past history of voter referendums and City Council policy.  Mayor Roe noted that the City Council, for purposes of upgrading the refrigeration system at the OVAL, had also bonded without referendum, so there was some precedent already.  However, Mayor Roe recognized that this was larger in magnitude, and didn’t deny it; however, he opined that the Port Authority statutes were not outside of what the law allowed the City to accomplish; and he was supportive of using that approach in this case.  Mayor Roe noted the complicated process in using a park abatement bond process; and further noted the less cumbersome administrative and issue process in using this option, while also allowing the City to get the best possible interest rates.  While reluctant to use the Port Authority powers of the City Council, in this case, Mayor Roe expressed his support of doing so.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee and Pust.

Nays: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe.

Motion failed.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded adoption of Resolution No. 10944 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving Modifications to the Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan (Attachment B);” in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements.


While not taking the decision lightly, Councilmember Johnson expressed his total support for the park improvement and fire station bonding; opining that this was the best step forward for the City.  Councilmember Johnson noted that he had looked at the various challenges for these two (2) extremely worthy projects; and while there remained a difference of opinion as to whether they were maintenance items, he believed the projects were maintenance-related and did not require a voter referendum.  Councilmember Johnson stated that he had been elected by voters of the City to take care of what had been provided by the City’s forefathers; and both projects represented areas that had been previously under maintained.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt an Ordinance to Exercise the Use of the City’s Port Authority for the Purposes of Financing the Construction of a New Fire Station and Park Improvements

Councilmember McGehee moved to NOT ADOPT an ordinance authorizing issuance of General Obligation Bonds in exercising the City’s Port Authority powers.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to the lack of a second.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1419 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance authorizing the City of Roseville to Issue General Obligation Bonds in the Exercise of the City’s Port Authority Powers;” for the purposes of financing the construction of a new fire station and park improvements.


Councilmember McGehee offered a friendly amendment to exercise the City’s Port Authority powers for a reverse referendum, under section 053 of the applicable state statute.


Councilmember Willmus, as maker of the motion, did not accept the friendly amendment.


Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed due to lack of a second; and noted that the City’s bond counsel had already explained that section 053 did not apply to this.


Mayor Roe, in response to public comment tonight as to whether democracy was dead or if the City Council was afraid of its own residents, opined that, given the level of support for both or either of these projects, he had no question that a referendum would pass, and assured residents that the City Council was not afraid of the will of its residents.  Mayor Roe advised that it was the City Council majority’s intent to move forward with this in a timely manner, and in its efforts to provide due diligence, using the support apparent throughout the Master Plan process and the phased proposal of the Implementation groups for the parks improvements.  Mayor Roe advised that the City had missed the timing needed to do a referendum in 2011; and that the City Council was attempting to be responsible for its actions within those timing constraints; and assured residents that democracy was not dead.

            Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.


b.            Authorize the Sale of $10 Million in Bonds to Finance the Construction of a New Fire Station and Park Improvements

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10945 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $10,000,000.00 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A;” to finance the construction of a new fire station and park improvements.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City Council consider an attempted friendly amendment that would defer some of the amount proposed for a bond issue; through deferring a bond issue at this time and using reserves to complete the planning process, and have that in place for a future bond issue.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe announced for public information that through previous City Council action at their October 17, 2011, meeting, Public Hearings would be held before issuance of each of the remaining bond issues over the next several years.


Due to the lateness of the hour, Mayor Roe advised that Agenda Items 12.a and 13.a and b would be deferred to a future meeting.


16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Willmus requested a future item, and prior to November 21, 2011, be included to discuss allocation of funds from this initial bond issue between parks and the fire station.


Mayor Roe advised that this would need to occur on the November 14, 2011, agenda.


18.         Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:16 pm.

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.