City
Council Meeting Minutes
November 21, 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 November: Willmus; Pust; Johnson;
McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2.
Approve Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that a Closed Executive Session had been to
proposed for addition to tonight’s agenda, accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 13.D, for the purpose of discussing pending litigation; following a
hearing earlier this morning at the Ramsey County District Court.
Mayor Roe announced that the City
Council would go into the proposed Closed Session immediately following
approval of tonight’s agenda.
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled “Renew Joint Powers Agreement to Continue
to Provide Geographic Information System (GIS) Services to the City of No. St.
Paul.”
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended, adding the Closed Executive Session to
discuss litigation, and removing item 7.e from the Consent Agenda...
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
recessing into Closed Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation
related with the City of Roseville v. the Responsible Government for Roseville
group.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe announced that, due to
technical issues in the adjacent conference room off City Hall, the City
Council would need to meet in Council Chambers; and respectfully asked that
people clear the Chambers until the meeting reconvened in regular session.
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Roe convened the City Council
in Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:05 p.m. for discussion of
pending litigation.
At the conclusion of the
discussion, Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive
Session.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe adjourned the Closed
Executive Session at approximately 6:37 p.m.
Mayor Roe reconvened in Open
Session at approximately 6:40 p.m. and thanked those in attendance for their
patience.
2.
Approve Agenda (continued)
As a result of the Closed Session,
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, further amendment to tonight’s agenda to
include Item 12.e entitled, “Revise the Sale Date for the City’s 2011 Bonds to
Finance the Construction of a new Fire Station and Park Improvements;”
specifically revising the previously-adopted resolution setting that sale date.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; 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.
5.
Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
6.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to draft
minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and
those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
a.
Approve Minutes of November 14, 2011 Meeting
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the November 14, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 19, Line 27 (Roe)
Correct seconder of the motion to
Councilmember McGehee.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
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.
a.
Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$85,691.75
|
|
64598 – 63654
|
46,980.23
|
|
Total
|
$132,672.98
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Award Bid for Waste Removal from City of Roseville Public
Facilities
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that potential anticipated amount of excess waste was
addressed in the RCA dated November 21, 2011.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, award
of three (3) year bid for waste removal from City of Roseville Public
Facilities for the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 to
Veolia Environmental Services for the base bid amount not to exceed
$20,203.77;and $15.00 per cubic yard for waste in excess of the amount described
in the specifications.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Adopt a Resolution Providing for PERA Pension Benefits for a
Party-time Firefighter
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10946 (Attachment A) entitled “Part-Time Firefighter PERA Declaration
for Cory Burton.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Adopt a Resolution Approving Request by MN State Fair for Renewed
Approval of Ten (10) Temporary Park and Ride Facilities as an Interim Use
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10947 (Attachment F) entitled “A Resolution
Approving Minnesota State Fair Park and Ride Facilities as Interim Uses at
Several Institutional Locations (PF07-017);” renewing sites for a five (5) year
period and located at nine (9) church and school locations as detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 21, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Roseville
and PIK Terminal Company and Pikovsky Management LLC (PI) for the Use of DEED
Contamination Investigation Grant Funds
At the request of
Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that Pikovsky Management had signed off
on the MOU, as detailed in the RCA dated November 21, 2011.
Johnson
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment
A) between the City of Roseville and PIK Terminal Company and Pikovsky Management,
LLC pertaining to the use of DEED Contamination Investigation grant funds.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Pust; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Approve Amendment and Extension for Metropolitan Council’s
Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant (LCDA) for Sienna Green Phase
II
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the Amendment and Extension for the Siena Green Phase II LCDA Grant
Agreement (Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
h.
Appoint Youth Representatives on Human Rights Commission (HRC)
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
appointment of Youth Representatives Joan Dao and Kayo Kadir to the City’s
Human Rights Commission until July 31, 2012.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
e.
Renew Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to Continue to Provide Geographic
Information System (GIS) Services to the City of No. St. Paul
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request
for Council Action (RCA) dated November 21, 2011.
Councilmember McGehee
questioned how charges for other cities/agencies were identified or if the City
was subsidizing their operations versus the City receiving full compensation.
Community
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that this position reflected
salary and benefits of the GIS position; with the employee actually working out
of the No. St. Paul office one day per week, creating no additional overhead
for the City of Roseville; in addition to a contingency in place for administration
cost to Roseville for the position.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned if there were travel expenses paid by Roseville, with Mr.
Trudgeon responding negatively.
Councilmember McGehee
questioned if or how Roseville charged other entities for additional networking
or equipment costs; with Mr. Trudgeon advising that those calculators were
addressed in each specific JPA with that entity.
At the request of
Councilmember McGehee regarding whether Roseville’s indemnification was
sufficient, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the JPA had been drafted by the City of
Roseville’s City Attorney to protect those interests.
McGehee moved, Johnson
seconded, approval of the JPA Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of
Roseville and the City of No. St. Paul for provision by Roseville staff to
provide GIS services to the City of No. St. Paul.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
a. Quarterly
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
HRA Executive Director Patrick
Trudgeon and Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey provided the quarterly HRA
Report.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that all
activities continued to operate under the HRA’s Strategic Plan, with the motto
of “A Hand Up, Not a Hand Out.” Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Strategic Plan
was scheduled for an update in 2012.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed ongoing
activities of the HRA or those achieved since the last quarterly update,
including completion of the fourth year of the Neighborhood Enhancement Program
(NEP) with the temporary code enforcement inspector Brian Coughlin continuing
to see residents receiving the program very well; and violation rate of this
second NEP cycle reduced from 8% to 4%. Mr. Trudgeon noted that all known rental
properties were also inspected for exterior violations during the walkthrough.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed additional
activities, including Roseville HRA hosting the second Roseville Realtor Day;
provision of approximately ninety (90) residential energy audits; completion of
the Green Remodeling Book; and finalizing the 2012 Living Smarter Fair to be
held in February.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the 2011
Foreclosure Report, noting that it was trending higher in comparison to
available data since 2008; with staff continuing to provide resource
information to Roseville residents at every opportunity.
Noting a request by the HRA for
staff to research the results to those foreclosures in Roseville during 2008,
Mr. Trudgeon advised that of the forty-five (45) single-family foreclosed home
in 2008; 93% were resold to another private party, while the remainder were
retained by their original property owners. Mr. Trudgeon noted that 70% of those
foreclosed homes had made some type of improvement that required a City permit
(ranging from re-roofing and residing to new furnaces or decks); with the
overall results that the homes had transitioned into new ownership.
At the request of Mayor Roe related
to Roseville Realtor Day, Ms. Kelsey responded that Roseville partnered with
the St. Paul Realtors Association for marketing, registration and tracking
continuing education credits for realtors attending; with City staff putting
together the program outline and class syllabus; and advised that commercial
realtors were invited, but only attended if the topics were of value to them,
with none known to have attended this year.
Mayor Roe suggested, given the
City’s recent attendance at the “New Normal” workshop and interest in
development or redevelopment of commercial interests in the community, it may
be prudent to find a way to incent commercial realtors’ future involvement in
the event.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Ms. Kelsey advised that the St. Paul Realtors Association scheduled
the continuing education opportunities 2-3 times annually among various communities
expressing an interest in participating. Ms. Kelsey advised that Roseville was
one of a few that have continued participating; with realtors needing to
acquire fifteen (15) hours of continuing education credits annually, and this
event qualifying them for three (3) hours credit.
Ms. Kelsey reminded Councilmembers
and the public of the HRA’s Living Smarter Website @ www.livingsmarter.org.
Ms. Kelsey reviewed the
recently-completed online “Green Remodeling Handbook;” and reviewed some of its
features; and the City’s partnership with the Family Housing Fund and
cost-share for the intern working on the project through coursework on environmental
sustainability. Ms. Kelsey noted that additional costs for consultant fees had
been paid for by the Family Housing Fund; and a review of the Book had been
completed by eight (8) other experts in various areas; with the intent that the
Book would become accessible to other communities and organizations; with the
MN GreenStar Program already expressing interest in linking to the site from
their website; advising that it was currently the only certification program
that does a complete underwriting of remodeling homes.
Mr. Trudgeon distributed, as a
bench handout, a one-page fact sheet on the Green Remodeling Plan Book, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Ms. Kelsey reviewed the Xcel Energy’s
underwriting of residential energy audits, with the HRA picking up the balance
providing overall benefit to the community for home improvements and energy
fixes. Ms. Kelsey noted that the Plan Book was wrapped around that concept;
determining how home runs currently before remodeling; and briefly reviewed the
various sections included in the online Book. Ms. Kelsey advised that the Book
was specifically designed for the general public, not professionals in the
field, to help they understand and address a variety of home styles throughout
the process. Ms. Kelsey opined that this had been a huge HRA accomplishment,
one of which the City should be proud; and one of which its leadership had yet
again shown forth.
Ms. Kelsey announced the upcoming
2012 Living Smarter Fair on February 18, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at
the Fairview Community Center; with plans being finalized at this time and more
information available in the near future.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
the Green Remodeling Plan Book was an excellent website and resource; and
questioned if the City could promote partnerships with companies, stores or
vendors that sold the kind of products referenced.
Ms. Kelsey advised that the City
had intentionally and strategically avoided recommendations of anyone’s service
or product; based on concerns in keeping the government entity separate from
such recommendations; attempting to make the public aware of various resources
of value without promoting specific companies or products.
Councilmember Johnson
congratulated the HRA and Ms. Kelsey for this wonderful product; and commended
them for again putting Roseville on the cutting edge and creating a healthy
attitude to promote energy efficiencies in Roseville.
Ms. Kelsey recognized the work of
George Hornick and his group for their work with staff as the design work
contractor; opining that the City had really benefited from that relationship
and his firm’s expertise.
b.
Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) Board Presentation
GLWMO Board members attending for
presentation or in the audience included Chair Karen Eckman, Vice Chair Chuck
Westerberg, Members Jonathan Miller, Mary Kay Von De Linde, and Steve Barrett.
The Board’s Technical/Administration Consultant Tom Petersen was also present.
Staff provided their
recommendation as detailed in the RCA dated November 21, 2011.
GLWMO Board Member Jonathan
Miller
Mr. Miller John Miller presented
“A Report of the Governance and Financing Task Force for the Grass Lakes
Watershed Management Organization” (Attachment A), and dated November 15, 2011;
detailing the majority recommendation of the GLWMO Board. Mr. Miller advised
that this majority recommendation had not been unanimous among GLWMO Board
members, adopted on a 3/1 vote of the five (5) GLWMO Board members, with four
(4) of those members in attendance at the November 4, 2011 Special GLWMO Board
meeting at which time the vote was taken. While the report is intended to be
objective and present the majority recommendation, Mr. Miller advised that
there was a minority opinion, with Mr. Jim DeBenedet a member of the GLWMO
Finance/Governance Task Force in attendance at tonight’s meeting to present
that minority opinion.
On behalf of the GLWMO Board, Mr.
Miller proceeded to present the findings of the Government/Finance Task Force;
with the meeting packet also including a revised three (3) year proposed
implementation budget (Attachment B); an amended Joint Powers Agreement with
member cities Shoreview and Roseville (Attachment C) and a copy of the existing
Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment D).
Mr. Miller’s presentation included
cost per parcel comparisons, through tax assessment, among the three (3)
option: an Improved GLWMO, merger with the Ramsey/Washington Metropolitan Area
Watershed District (WSD), or merger with the Vadnais Lakes Area Water
Management Organization (WMO).
Mr. Miller noted that major
discussion among the GLWMO Board in their decision-making process included
impacts of losing local control if no longer an independent WMO; funds being
used for projects benefitting the overall district outside the GLWMO citizen
boundary; the high performance of both organizations with a potential merger
and their deliver to GLWMO citizens and its water resources; and how an
Improved GLWMO could become more effective through increased focus, monitoring
efforts and education through the addition of two (2) FTE’s, as well as addressing
citizen concerns in keeping up with needed improvements within the GLWMO.
Mr. Miller reviewed the scoring/ranking
process for each option based on “high-medium-low” weighting.
In conclusion, Mr. Miller advised
that the majority GLWMO Board recommendation as to ask the respective member
City Councils to approve the revised JPA and implement a specific fee for an
Improved GLWMO to remain independent.
Discussion among Councilmembers,
Mr. Miller and Mr. Petersen included the lack of a unanimous GLWMO Board
recommendation on the future of the GLWMO; the complexity of the question
apparently being rushed to a request; the process to-date in the GLWMO’s
development of the Third Generation Plan for the next decade, and finding out
late in the process of the requirements that an approved JPA be in place prior
to the Plan receiving its final ninety (90)- public agency review and
subsequent approval by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR).
Additional discussion included the
proposed role of an Improved GLWMO and staffing versus merger with another WSD
or WMO agency in implementing the Third Generation Plan; identifying the
consulting firm who drafted the Plan update from the previous ten (10)-year
Second Generation Plan; recognizing the significant funding increase for member
cities for implementation of the Plan; the strict review by BWSR of the Plan to
encourage the GLWMO to address implementation of the Plan to meet State
mandates; and the apparently momentum from BWSR staff to consolidate the GLWMO
and move toward larger WSD’s rather than operating as smaller, independent
WMO’s.
Further discussion included the
validity of the Plan itself; whether water quality would be better served from
a broader, more regional concept based on staffing and continuity across that
broader geography; the reputation of both organizations under consideration for
merging; the points brought forward in the Minority Report prepared and
provided via e-mail by Mr. DeBenedet; funding estimates and whether they were
sufficient to implement the Plan at a minimum of over the next three (3) years;
and a context of the task force research in cooperation with the GLWMO Board
itself and subsequent voting exclusively by the GLWMO Board.
Mayor Roe clarified with City
Manager Malinen that the purpose of tonight’s discussion was for the
presentation and information gathering, with action proposed at the City
Council’s November 28, 2011 regular business meeting.
Additional discussion included
lack of unanimous consensus among Task Force members as well as GLWMO Board
members; reference to the City Attorney’s comments and recommendations included
in the meeting packet materials specific to member cities retaining their right
to set a budget, and the City Attorney interpretation of the proposed JPA where
the GLWMO would submit a budget to member cities for their comment, but the
GLWMO retaining ultimate rights to establish its own budget, pending a binding
arbitration procedure for all parties in appealing those budgets and
associated costs for such binding arbitration.
Mayor Roe noted the need for a
City Council policy discussion on whether an arbitration process was the best
way to make budget decisions and questioned if the GLWMO Board had thought that
through.
Mr. Miller advised that the
revised JPA was acceptable to BWSR allowing the GLWMO Board to keep control of
annual budgets.
Mayor Roe noted that a potential
merger would relinquish local control by member cities over the budget.
Further discussion included how
member cities could negotiate the JPA; comparison with existing organizations
for a potential merger and how they would address member city preferences for
water quality issues; ability of each organizational option to levy funds with
varying degrees of how those funds would be spend and the local control
available in that expenditure and for projects to be undertaken; make-up of the
VLAWMO with its Board made up of one Councilmember from each of its six (6)
member cities; and costs to taxpayers for each of the three (3) options.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
appreciation to the GLWMO Board for their time and their presentation; as well
as their candid approach with the majority and minority positions and
recommendations. However, Councilmember noted that he hadn’t heard the value
for Roseville citizens in creating an Improved GLWMO versus merging with
another organization. Councilmember Johnson noted that water quality would be
protected under any of the three (3) options; and he had yet to see what would
set apart an Improved GLWMO versus a merger; or how remaining independent would
be to the advantage and provide a return on that investment by member cities to
its constituency.
Mr. Miller responded that, of
course, the overall goal was to protect the GLWMO’s water quality for its
residents; and that in merging with a broader organization, in some instances,
money collected from within GLWMO boundaries may be used to support water
resources outside those boundaries; specifically any project(s) downstream from
the GLWMO and not specific to water bodies within the GLWMO itself.
Councilmember Pust opined that
water quality was regional by nature, and not restricted to the GLWMO’s and/or
City’s resources alone; and that since there was no fence around Roseville, we
should all care about and share responsibility for waters from a regional
focus; with the overall goal to achieve better efforts for more people in a
more cost-effective manner.
Mr. Miller noted that, as one of
the minority opinions, he was in agreement with Councilmember Pust; and
suggested that one of the other Board members in the majority may be better to
address that concept.
Councilmember McGehee noted the
potential increases in tax assessments through a merger versus an Improved
GLWMO.
Mr. Miller clarified that the
proposed assessments for the various options were based on an average property
value, with some properties paying more and some paying less.
Mr. Petersen noted that current
rates for a Ramsey/Washington Area WSD merger were based on at $26.00 per
$100,000 in market value; with projected cost for an Improved GLWMO based at
$25.00 per year, no matter the home’s market value.
At this time, Mayor Roe invited
public comment on this issue.
Public Comment
Steve Barrett, a member of the
GLWMO Board supportive of the majority opinion thanked Mr. Miller for his
objective presentation of the majority recommendation. As a member of the
three (3) person majority opinion, Mr. Barrett note that one major discussion
among the GLWMO Board and Task Force citizen advisors was comparing known
entities (R/WAWSD and VLAWMO) with what the Board envisioned for an Improved
GLWMO and the difficulty in comparing those known and established entities
with the goals of the Improved GLWMO. In the end, Mr. Barrett opined that this
created a subjective opinion; while cost remained a major consideration,
especially if the cost was projected to double with a merger. Mr. Barrett
opined that public comment heard to-date strongly supported retaining local
control; since this was a local WMO and monies collected were preferred not to
be spent elsewhere. Also, Mr. Barrett noted that another consideration that
had caused him to lean toward the majority recommendation for an Improved GLWMO
was whether, once dissolved and found to be less effective for GLWMO constituents
than originally thought, could the decision be reversed. Mr. Barrett noted that
with the Third Generation Plan well established, it was the majority’s hope
that an Improved GLWMO would prove more effective with better results, while
providing a low-cost option for taxpayers as well.
Jim DeBenedet, 808 Millwood
Avenue, Roseville (GLWMO Task Force Member)
Mr. DeBenedet noted that he had
previously provided the Minority Report to the City Council, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. DeBenedet provided a history of the
process for this decision initiated in early October and tonight’s deadline for
the member City Councils; opining that it was too short of a timeframe to allow
a full review of alternatives and to have a fruitful discussion and accomplish
goals in the most cost-effective manner. Mr. DeBenedet provided his rationale
for the Minority Report; and his frustration at the November 4, 2011 GLWMO
Special Meeting when he found out that the Task Force members were not intended
to be full participants in the decision-making, with only GLWMO Board members
voting on reprioritizing and re-grading criteria. At that point, Mr. DeBenedet
stated that he became concerned that there was a hidden agenda at play; and
while staying for the majority of the meeting as an observer while the GLWMO
Board members present reviewed alternatives from a high-medium-low ranking, it
was his impression that the decision had already been made. While awaiting the
Majority Report and Recommendation, Mr. DeBenedet advised that he had written
his letter and also contacted another Task Force member from member City
Shoreview, John Moriarty, who was in agreement with Mr. DeBenedet and
volunteered to alert the Shoreview City Council to the Minority Report at their
meeting tonight; along with GLWMO Board member Jonathan Miller voting in
opposition to the Majority Report and Recommendation.
Given the management of the
process and discussion of an Improved GLWMO, Mr. DeBenedet opined that in that
case, there was no real or clear plan of what an Improved GLWMO constituted;
and further opined that this was problematic since the cost estimates included
in the revised three (3) year budget projections could not be funded with a
$25.00 per resident assessment, based on the GLWMO Board’s own calculations.
Mr. DeBenedet noted that the GLWMO Board attempted to increase the fees to
$32.00 per year, but opined that this was still not sustainable; in addition to
the prospect of the GLWMO adding two (2) FTE’s to manage the Plan and the WMO,
neither of which was realistic and without defining that funding source. Mr.
DeBenedet opined that the only source for such funding would be through higher
fees, equating an Improved GLWMO with resident costs for merging with the
Ramsey/Washington Area WSD. Prior to the City Council approving a revised JPA,
Mr. DeBenedet strongly encouraged additional consideration of those issues.
Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr.
DeBenedet for providing a Minority Report and stating from the outset that the
research time was too limited; and opined that many of these questions should
have been answered before this presentation was brought forward; and that she
couldn’t personally see how funding for an Improved GLWMO could work with a
flat fee per parcel.
Mr. DeBenedet responded that it
couldn’t work; and didn’t effectively change the final cost; further opining
that Ramsey/Washington Area WSD already had available sufficient staff with
varying levels of expertise.
Karen Eckman, GLWMO Board Chairperson
Ms. Eckman noted that she and
GLWMO Board Member Mary Kay Von De Linde had met with representatives of both
organizations proposed as merger options in February and March of 2011; even
though the task force process was fast-tracked. Ms. Eckman advised that the
process was necessitated in part due to changing directives from BWSR during
this complicated process, and their subsequent rejection of the Third
Generation Plan until a revised JPA was updated and in place. Ms. Eckman
advised that this finance/governance consideration had been initially started,
and then put on hold, until after the Plan had been finalized, at the
suggestion of a former GLWMO Board member.
Ms. Eckman reviewed three (3)
other WMO’s in the metropolitan area that had come up for BWSR review, two (2)
of which had dissolved.
Ms. Eckman advised that she was
also a minority member of the GLWMO Board, and while not in attendance at the
November 4, 2011 Special GLWMO Board meeting, she would have added her vote to
that of the minority. Ms. Eckman opined that the GLWMO was simply too small to
succeed; and having been on the GLWMO Board for almost six (6) years, she was
not able to determine how it could be done.
Chuck Westerberg, GLWMO Member
/ Vice Chair
Mr. Westerberg advised that he was
completing his third year on the GLWMO Board; and after listening to public
comment at the Public Hearing on the Third Generation Plan held last Friday
evening, it was obvious to him that there was a strong sentiment to remain
independent to retain local control of the WMO and to use those dollars locally
rather than solve problems of neighbors to the east, many with more highly
urbanized watersheds with multiple levels of heavy metals and toxins, with more
resources required to address those problems. Mr. Westerberg noted that those
problems were not prevalent in the GLWMO; and that through increased staffing
and funding, and in implementing recommendations of the past BARR Engineering
report to address problems specific to the GLWMO, and good faith efforts to
implement strategies of the Third Generation Plan, it would significantly
improve water quality in the GLWMO.
Mr. Westerberg expressed his
frustration in the paradoxical nature of the oversight of WMO’s by BWSR and
their consolidation efforts for WMO’s when the MPCA and EPA were taking the
opposite position in addressing the most vexing problems affecting water
quality resources by focusing on local land use practices and working with
individual property owners to address loading.
Mayor Roe suggested additional
discussion at a future meeting; and suggested that City Manager Malinen consult
with his counterparts in member city Shoreview and their City Council on their
discussions and intent to proceed. Mayor Roe opined that it may be useful to
consider a joint meeting of the two (2) member cities; however, he was not
directing staff to schedule it at this time, just keep it in mind as a
consideration going forward.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
support of some of the comments of Mr. DeBenedet, based on his experience in
the marketplace with his personal work; and the benefits of larger
organizations having more resources available.
c.
Fire Station Conceptual Drawing Review and Sustainability
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill
reintroduced members of the Project Planning Team, including Principal
Architect Quinn Hutson and Sustainability Architect Wayne Hilbert of CNH
Architects, Inc.; and introduced Design Architect David Acomb charged with
Public Safety Design of the Stony Brooke Design Studio.
Chief O’Neill advised that the
three (3) specific directions being sought from the City Council by the Design
Team at tonight’s meeting included:
1. Should the
project include sustainable features within the design of the site and the
building?
2. If sustainable
features are included, should the project seek to obtain 3rd party
certification or not?
3. If 3rd
party is desired, should the City pursue Green Globe certification or LEED
certification?
Sustainable
Features/Certification Preferences
Mr. Hutson presented a Preliminary
Site Plan Sketch with no specific changes from that presented previously; with
the Design Team focusing at the floor plan level at this time. Mr. Hutson
noted that there a strong baseline of sustainability was already built into the
program, and the existing campus geothermal system provided a significant
benefit in achieving sustainability efforts. Mr. Hutson noted that many of the
items already planned in the initial design would result in environmental
benefits, energy savings and would qualify for certification. Mr. Hutson
opined that, whether the City chose to have the project third-party certified
or not, the value of sustainability provided the public with an intent to
design the building accordingly. Mr. Hutson noted that there were projects
that fell under “green washing,” that tended to negate third party
certification.
Mr. Hutson reviewed the two (2)
proposed systems previously discussed: the Green Globe system or LEED system
(originating in the United States), both with third party certification; how
both were recognized through the nation, with the Green Globe system originating
in Canada, but now becoming more familiar in the United States; with both
systems using the same basic principles. Mr. Hutson noted that Green Globes
certification was done through a third party site visit at the end of the
project; while LEED used a documentation process, thus creating a more
expensive system.
Discussion included differences in
the processes; LEED documentation and divided by points and proving how you
achieved those specific points via documentation throughout the process;
geothermal not being part of the point system, even though saving energy;
benchmark levels for efficiency in the LEED system, with geothermal helping to
achieve those points; creation of a baseline for a generic building with no
energy efficiency aspects, and energy-modeling a final design for anticipated
energy use for the building; and differences in the two (2) certification
programs and why one is so much more well-known than the other.
Mr. Hilbert noted that both the
Green Globes and LEED certification programs originated in the United Kingdom,
with both systems using different weighting aspects; accuracy of third party
verification; cost for Green Globe certification estimated at $50,000 and LEED
certification estimated at $100,000 and the various levels pursued from silver,
gold and platinum for the LEED certification and how that impacted costs for
the certification programs and ultimately impacted design costs; and those
silver range items that are already proposed to be built into the design.
Discussion ensued regarding energy
modeling and commissioning; different strategies to achieve various levels for
certification goals and related costs; function versus form for a fire station;
and time to set benchmarks or standards later in the design process, depending
on the direction of the City Council.
Mr. Hilbert opined that, based on
the building’s current design and construction costs, silver certification was
achievable with little additional effort; with higher certification levels
potentially having additional or higher costs. Mr. Hilbert advised that few
fire stations had achieved LEED certification to-date; and that there was no
stigma between certification of either LEED or Green Globes systems.
In response to the requested City
Council directive being sought, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was
supportive of design sustainability; and that certification was important to
him at the silver level given a limited number of additional dollars required;
however, he opined that without knowing the actual additional costs to go
further, certification was not that important to him.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
interest in knowing more about the curve on the displayed graph and
construction costs for LEED certification and differences between the silver
and gold columns and whether there was a large difference in the two
categories. Based on the previous HRA presentation on the Green Remodeling
Book and the HRA’s Living Smarter Campaign, Councilmember McGehee stated that
sustainable building was important to her, as well as having that third party
verification; with the ultimate goal for residents to have a quality building.
Mr. Hilbert advised that, at this
point in the design process, he was not prepared with that kind of detail;
advising that the design team was recommending that goals be sought, but noted
that third party verification was still required to certify the systems.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the construction should be able to reach certification at the silver level with
little additional effort; however, he noted that either one would need to have
the additional price tag associated with that certification; and before adding
to construction costs, the proposed fire station would be the first recognized
in the State of MN in reaching that mark of sustainability that was verifiable
through the certification process. Mr. Malinen noted that that recognition
alone should provide proof to citizens and others that the design and use of
the building would be sustainable and save money and reduce the City’s carbon
footprint.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
absolute support of sustainable building; and if silver certification was
already built into the proposed design and construction, it caused him pause to
ask whether a plaque certifying that fact was necessary. If the design team
assured him that sustainability was built into the facility, Councilmember
Johnson stated that he could take pride in that knowledge without having a
third party tell him so. Councilmember Johnson advised that, for him, this
created a dissent on the question as to which third party verification was preferred:
LEED or Green Globes.
While recognizing cost concerns
and desiring additional information on how much it would cost for minimum gold
certification with a cost cap, Councilmember Pust asked the design team to
return with that information. Councilmember Pust opined that the reason for
certification wasn’t just to verify that the work was sustainable construction;
but it allowed the City Council to have a different conversation with the
public. With LEED certification, Councilmember Pust opined that this provided
an entirely different context in which to hear about HRA discussions, Living
Smarter campaigns, and how to incent all residents to do better; and this LEED
certification provided the City Council’s leadership and engaged them in those
discussions. How much that discussion was worth, and how much could be done
for cost and still be certification was the question being considered by
Councilmember Pust in the value of achieving silver certification and the actual
cost in that or seeking a higher level.
Further discussion included
certification permits required in the application process, and varying on the
size of a building, as well as commissioning and energy modeling as part of
that fee, determining the cost of LEED certification; and ranges for
commissioning based on all aspects and categories for different costs,
including energy modeling and commissioning, ranging in the estimated range of
$18,000 - $24,000.
Councilmember Pust noted that,
even at a top estimated cost for LEED certification at $100,000, this was
equivalent to a Change Order cost and should be considered part of the cost of
doing business and part of the overall $8 million project cost.
City Manager Malinen referenced
the previous Skating Center geothermal project and the system installed versus
the standard that could have been installed; as a ratio similar to that noted
by Councilmember Pust.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
geothermal project set the City on the path to leadership and doing the right
thing.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of
pursuing sustainability; however, he admitted that he was on the fence
regarding any great additional cost for LEED certification; and suggested a
vote by the City Council to determine if there was a consensus.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, to
preliminarily direct the fire station design team to pursue LEED certification
at the silver level at a minimum; and to potentially seek gold standard if it could
be done cost-effectively; with final approval subject to City Council approval.
Councilmember McGehee reiterated
that the overall project was $8 million; and that there was a projected fifty
(50) year life on the building; and that it was not right by the public to not
seek certification. Councilmember McGehee suggested that cost savings may be
found in other areas to compensate for the $80,000 to $100,000 additional
expense.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust and McGehee.
Nays: Willmus; Johnson and
Roe.
Motion failed.
Preliminary Floor Plan Review
Mr. Hutson reviewed Preliminary
Floor Plans for the first floor, second story and lower level.
Discussion included public
entrances and access points to the building, as well as security in and for
the building, staff and public; frequency of use of training and conference
rooms and potential public use of those spaces; and limited parking
availability.
Chief O’Neill, in responding to
Councilmember McGehee on potential use of areas of the building by other
parties, advised that this would depend on how the Fire Department used the
space, with 89% of training done on shift, with four (4) shifts, and based on
the frequency and type of calls during those shifts and when training
opportunities could be found. Chief O’Neill advised that the training was
based on the needs of the community and firefighter/first responder responses;
in addition to meetings with other departments and agencies during the month,
or joint meetings of multiple companies depending on the training opportunity
being offered. Chief O’Neill briefly reviewed just some of the massive
firefighter training requirements, including medical, weapons of mass
destruction, emergency management, vehicle safety, and other monthly
requirements mandated to retain licensure.
Mr. Hutson further reviewed
apparatus bays; support mezzanine between bays; dorm and dayrooms; locker
areas; research/study areas for firefighter testing and training;
shower/bathroom units proposed as individual rooms that were gender neutral
allowing for a more flexible layout and addressing future mixes of firefighter
genders.
Discussion included the number of
firefighters sleeping at the fire station nightly, with a typical shift of five
(5) and if new people, increasing to six (6); and rationale for including
twelve (12) dorm rooms to address potential future operations for staffing,
merging with other districts; and how those plans would be impacted by the
budget.
Councilmember Pust and Mayor Roe
spoke in support of not carving up space to allow sufficient flexibility in the
future, especially if the future model involved joint fire operations that
could entail different staffing levels.
Chief O’Neill noted that the
proposed dorm staffing also took into consideration staffing up to 9-12 firefighters
if a big storm was moving in that would provide a minimum of two (2) medics,
one engine and one ladder staffing available on the street during those most dangerous
times.
Councilmember Johnson noted, from
his time serving on the fire station task force, that there was also the
potential of larger scale disasters and trying to accommodate more than just
the initial staff; but the potential for housing additional regional disaster
teams.
Chief O’Neill concurred with
Councilmember Johnson’s recollection.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
while the station may be built for flexibility, another case may be that it was
being overbuilt for the future while asking Roseville residents to support a
larger space than actually needed; especially in consideration of ongoing
discussions for sharing resources, and the potential need for less equipment
given the location of Roseville in the middle of other fire districts.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
the type of construction method for the two (2) floors; whether it would be
concrete planks; or as typical with interior construction, metal studs could be
moved with little cost or effort.
Mr. Hutson advised that the
interior construction was proposed almost exclusively with metal studs in the
upper level.
Mr. Hutson introduced Mr. Acomb,
the fire safety designer on the team, to specifically talk about design and
training aspects and those features of the station itself.
David Acomb, The Stony Brooke
Design Studio
Mr. Acomb briefly reviewed his
work in “training by design” over the last twelve (12) years working with fire
station design and construction.
Mr. Acomb provided visual examples
of possible training opportunities proposed to be built into the building,
making it convenient and efficient for volunteers and helping to maintain a
volunteer base and keep recruitment efforts high; while keeping training
centralized and not outside Roseville, keeping the community’s risk reduced and
giving Roseville better-prepared firefighters. Mr. Acomb noted that training
also reduced a City’s potential for line-of-duty tragedies; and saved money by
not having to pay for outside training.
Noting that firefighter
recertification training requirements included twelve (12) areas, Mr. Acomb
advised that proposed design options could be designed in the new fire station
with no extra cost, creating additional efficiencies in the building design.
Mr. Acomb reviewed some of those
unique and multiple-use areas included in the mezzanine area used for storage
and operations; stair towers built to code with an addition of design for
ground ladder training and balcony rescue for apartment/hotel rescues through
use of different props built into the design. Residential window props; rope
ladder training; interior stairwell and stair tower training for rope rescues;
hose dragging whether charged or not through different stories of the building;
rapid intervention; lockers on rollers; confined space rescues; storage spaces
uses for training walls; and areas for situational rescues through using smoke
machines; setting up of mazes; and other methods to ensure safety of firefighters
and residents.
Mr. Acomb opined that this could
also set up a unique opportunity for Roseville’s fire station to rent the space
for universities and other cities to take advantage of the various props built
into the design; and rather than using a model such as the recent construction
of a fire station in Eagan, MN, fire staff could build some of their own props
and maze walls.
Councilmember McGehee asked Mr.
Acomb if he was a speaker at the F.I.E.R.O. meetings and he answered in the
affirmative. Ms. McGehee praised the training features and design presented
saying she was very impressed. She then asked Chief O’Neill what his plans
were to provide this space and unique training facility to the firefighters at
a charge. Chief O’Neill responded that he hadn’t even begun to think about
that aspect of the project.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
this was an element in the fire station design that would provide value to the
community; and while practical for training, would also be of great public
interest.
Additional discussion included the
installation of an additional floor in the stairwell for additional training;
and opportunities for potential hosting by Roseville of Ramsey County Chiefs 1
and 2 training and hosting classes at a new station.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief
O’Neill reviewed the next steps, with the Design Team attending the December 5
meeting with the whole conceptual building plan and exterior images; followed
by conceptual and Phase II approval by the City Council considered at their
December 12, 2011 meeting; anticipating going out for design documents in
January or February of 2012.
Mayor Roe suggested that
individual Councilmember feedback, suggestions or comments be forwarded to the
Design Team prior to that next meeting to allow them to refine the concepts as
applicable.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Chief O’Neill advised that to-date, all hazardous materials had been
removed from the current Fire Station #1, the final stages for asbestos
abatement should be completed by early next week; at which time the County
would perform their final inspection and the building targeted for demolition
by December 5, 2011.
14.
Public Hearings
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Continue Discussion of the 2012-2013 Tax Levy and Budget
Finance Director Chris Miller
noted that staff had originally scheduled this part of the agenda to provide a
historical perspective for the City Council going into the December 5, 2011
public hearing on the 2012 levy; and to review steps taken since January of
2011. Mr. Miller noted that a lot of the information included in the staff
report was repetitive from previous presentations; and detailed in the RCA
dated November 21, 2011 and its attachments.
Mr. Miller advised that the key
decision needed by staff from the City Council was other needs that needed to
be addressed between now and year-end to allocate any additional property tax
levy put in place in September and additional monies to provide additional
property tax relieve; or those items not yet budgeted, as listed on page 1 of
the staff report.
From a context point of view,
Mayor Roe noted that the City Manager-recommended budget reviewed in advance of
September provided for a 1.8% levy increase, including the additional funding
requirements for the capital improvement program (CIP), specifically vehicles,
equipment and facilities; but that it included many cuts envisioned in the
original City Manager-recommended budget. With the change to market value
homestead credit (MVHC) and half applied to those cuts and half applied to
reducing the levy to the 1.8% since then, in addition to City Council action to
approve health insurance coverage as recommended, and to not apply the $18,000
savings to the Employee Wellness Program, Mayor Roe noted that this further
reduced the proposed levy increase from 1.8% to less than 1% (approximately0.95%).
For context, City Manager Malinen
noted that there was still a budget reduction of $475,000 programmed into the
numbers referenced by Mayor Roe and before the MVHC adjustment.
Related to the unfunded items
listed on page 1 of the staff report, Councilmember Willmus questioned if staff
had looked at the fairly detailed list of cost savings suggested by
Councilmember Pust to pay for park improvements outlined in August of 2011 and
whether those remained unfunded.
City Manager Malinen concurred
with Councilmember Willmus’ statement, noting that the amount shown includes
those items if reduces; noting that Councilmembers had raised the question
previously on funding levels for the Park Improvement Program (PIP); and how
much historically was included for maintenance versus improvements or capital;
and which of those things were proposed for funding through implementation of
the Parks Master Plan.
Councilmember Willmus noted
previous suggestions of Councilmember Pust of approximately $125,000 in savings
through various actions for obvious reductions, such as turning the heat down
in City facilities.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
the amount was $124,980.
City Manager Malinen responded
that Councilmember Pust’s figures incorporated contingency amounts that had
already been used.
Mayor Roe stated that, from his
perspective, he wasn’t sure if he could talk about re-instituting the PIP until
he better understood how it related to implementation of the Master Plan,
recognizing that the Master Plan implementation took on a lot of what the PIP
used to encompass.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
it was a good idea to carry over the CIP Task Force into next year to address
the parks and fire station decisions since it was not done previously due to
their pending situations. Councilmember Johnson suggested that future CIP needs
include both of those departments if it was the City Council’s intent to carry
through with the CIP rather than doing so in a piecemeal fashion and not have
those two areas be separated. Councilmember Johnson recommended that they be
covered under the overall CIP, necessitating a much broader discussion beyond
available time tonight or yet this year.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Miller referred her to Attachment B of the staff report to the
Budget Fact Sheet, showing monthly rates when bonds come due in 2014.
In her personal review of the
budget package as presented, Councilmember McGehee noted the CIP improvements
for the parks and fire station and associated bond costs; in addition to the
other infrastructure improvements proposed through additional utility fees for
the water, sewer and storm sewer systems. Councilmember McGehee provided her
calculations and estimated impacts on average households; in addition to
impacts of loss of homestead credits for homeowners. Councilmember McGehee
opined that the cumulative impact could be a 55% tax increase for Roseville
citizens; and cautioned the City Council to pay close attention when discussing
whether or not to spend additional monies when considering the overall
potential impact. Councilmember McGehee questioned, related to utility rate
increases, why single family homes would typically pay 32% more, with seniors
paying almost 40% more, while commercial properties only pad an additional 21%.
Regarding the listed items on page
1 of the staff memorandum, Mayor Roe stated that he was not willing to go
further than considering a look at COLA and the other smaller amounts, but not
the PIP.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the calculations presented by Councilmember McGehee were based on an assumed
4% levy increase, with Councilmember McGehee responding affirmatively, at
$25.00 annually.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
public gets confused every year with the percentages tossed about; and
suggested that the public would be well-advised to read Attachment B to the
staff report (page 2 of 3), showing that if everything was voted on and
approved, including the proposed utility rate increase, the City Council would
have cumulatively adopted a 25% increase for average homeowners over that paid
in 2011. Councilmember Pust suggested that this was an important number for
taxpayers to keep in mind; and while there were savings available at this time
to look at spending on other things, those would be in addition to the 25%
increase.
Mayor Roe disagreed, stating that
the 25% would add up to the 4% levy increase without the budget spending
associated to it in September.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
preliminary levy increase, without an established budget, had been set at 4%;
and that it sounded to her that the City Council could therefore spend up to
that 4%.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff was prepared to address each individual item listed on page 1 of the
staff report.
Discussion ensued related to COLA
proposed at 2% for all employees based on market place comparisons with peer
cities and the labor relations aspect of running the business, whether through
negotiation or arbitration of union contracts or other settlements in those
peer communities; calculations of Mayor Roe at 0.95% budget not including the
items listed on page 1 of the staff report; responsible of pathway maintenance
in the winter shared by the Public Works and Parks Departments and ongoing
complaints about that lack of maintenance.
McGehee moved that pathway maintenance
be added back in, with sufficient supplies to maintain the city’s streets,
sidewalks and public pathways.
Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed
for lack of a second.
Re-establish Funding for PIP at
current levels ($145,000)
City Manager Malinen noted that
this was previously addressed.
Provide COLA for all employees
($220,000)
City Manager Malinen noted that
this was previously addressed.
Conduct Employee Compensation
and Comparison Study ($30,000)
City Manager Malinen advised that
the previous classification compensation comparison to other cities had been
done quite some time ago; and opined that the external study was warranted to
review positions for consistency in terms of tasks and marketplace comparisons.
General Fund portion for Asset
Management Software ($30,000)
City Manager Malinen noted that
this was addressed in the CIP for ¾ of the cost, with most paid with utility
fees, and this portion intended to provide the Parks portion of the system.
Accommodate Higher than
expected Fuel Prices ($15,000)
City Manager Malinen noted this
was self-explanatory.
Membership in Metro Cities
(formerly Association of Metropolitan Municipalities - $9,500)
City Manager Malinen recommended
reinstatement of the City’s membership in this group and their offering of a
discount applicable for 2012. Mr. Malinen noted that the Executive Director was
present in tonight’s audience; and reviewed the group’s involvement in state
and metro-wide policy development in addition to keeping track of the status of
proposed legislation that could affect the City, rather than staff attempting
to do so.
Mayor Roe noted that Metro Cities
also had a significant involvement with the Metropolitan Council, different
than that of the LMC; and were actively engaged with the Met Council on
transportation planning and assignments; and getting people involved in their
task forces.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the dollar amount was for a full year’s membership, and the City’s cost for
2012 would be half that; but for budgeting purpose, he had factored in
potential shortages for future years.
Regarding the listed items in the
staff report; Councilmember Johnson advised that, at this time, he could
support the COLA; General Fund portion for asset management; fuel increases;
and membership in Metro Cities; but noted that he could change his mind
depending on future discussions.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen confirmed that the asset management portion for the General
Fund was a one-time acquisition.
Mayor Roe further clarified that
the employee compensation study was a one-time deal, while fuel prices, COLA
and membership in Metro Cities were ongoing expenses on an annual basis.
In response to the listed items,
Councilmember Willmus advised that he could support the asset management and
increased fuel prices; however, at this point, the remaining items were still
up in the air from his perspective.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she was happy to support them all, with the exception of the $145,000 to
re-establish the PIP. Councilmember McGehee questioned City Attorney Gaughan
on consequences for not maintaining public pathways adequately from a liability
standpoint.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
circumstances would be defined on a case by case basis; and if there was a
known hazard out of the ordinary of maintaining pathways, there could be some
liability; however, Mr. Gaughan opined that immunity would still play a large
role in a court decision.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she could support use of a small portion of the $145,000 to provide that
maintenance.
Mayor Roe advised that, of the
listed items, he was willing to look at the COLA based on bargaining and union
contracts; opined that both the employee compensation and comparison study and
the asset management software sounded like rare expenditures and would be
supported of taking those funds from reserves; and spoke in support of the
additional fuel prices and Metro Cities membership as well.
Discussion ensued regarding where
that put the proposed levy increase, with Mayor Roe estimated that they would
still fall within part of the 25% increase ceiling. Mayor Roe noted that this
information would be part of the December 5, 2011 public hearing and subsequent
discussions.
New Item (as a result of the
Closed Executive Session)
12.
e. Revise the Sale Date for the City’s 2011 Bonds to
Finance the Construction of a new
Fire Station and Park Improvements
A Bench handout was distributed
for action related to discussion during the Closed Executive Session; attached
hereto and made a part hereto.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adopted Resolution No. 10948 entitled, “Resolution Amending Its Resolution
Dated October 24, 2011 Which Provided for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of
$10,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A; adjusting the date
originally set for the sale to be revised by the City Manager and Finance
Director under the recommendation of the City’s Bond Counsel.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
b. Discuss
the 2012 Utility Rate Adjustments
Mr. Miller briefly
reviewed proposed 2012 utility rate adjustments as detailed in the RCA dated
November 21, 2011. Mr. Miller reviewed those items outside control of the
City, such as water purchase from the City of St. Paul and water treatment
costs paid to the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Miller
advised that base rates for sanitary and storm sewer were proposed to increase
by 60% for all property categories across the board, in accordance with the
recommendation of the CIP Task Force to address CIP items; with a 3% usage rate
increase. Mr. Miller advised that the impacts to various properties were detailed
in page 4 of the staff report; including net overall impacts between usage and
base rates for typical homes in Roseville.
Mayor Roe, related to sanitary sewer operations, noted that, in budget information,
non capital totals were at 4.4%, but staff recommended a 7.1% usage rate increase.
Mr. Miller
advised that, in looking at the 2011 rate structure generated, day-to-day
operations and cost increased were projected for 2012; with the rate increase
necessary to offset that cost increase; not category to category, with some
higher and some lower for staff recommendation on rate increases; with CIP
dollars funded through base fees; and some allowing for a cushion or not enough
in various rate structures. Mr. Miller confirmed for Mayor Roe that rates were
based on 2011 experience and projected supplier rates.
Councilmember
Willmus asked if the CIP Task Force had considered phasing CIP funding needs.
Councilmember
Johnson advised that this was his initial proposal; however, he had observed it
already in his discussions with residents not understanding repeated smaller
increases; noting that Mayor Roe had proposed the one-time significant hike to
address those perceptions. Councilmember Johnson noted that this should
address the issue; with the rationale being that it covers all CIP needs for
utility infrastructure, while creating more of a sting upfront, but then
providing for a fixed rate going forward, at least as far as this City Council
could guarantee into the future. Councilmember Johnson noted that this
proposal had received significant public discussion and had been made apparent
to the public for some time now.
From his
perspective, Mayor Roe noted that when a graduated or stepped approach had been
proposed in the past, the first step was taken, but often subsequent steps
became more difficult and often a five year plan became a two year plan and
then City Council’s stepped back and put the community in the same position yet
again. Mayor Roe advised that his rationale, ratified by the rest of the CIP
Task Force, was to take the initial and painful change, but to not continue revisiting
it in future years; and as the CIP was refined through asset management
software, some additional cost savings could possibly be found, allowing for future
reductions or addressing inflationary changes. Mayor Roe stated that this
would not make future City Council’s responsible to finish what this City
Council had initiated.
Councilmember Pust
expressed her appreciation of the amount of discussion held by the CIP Task
Force; and while the rationale made some sense, it could not be considered on
its own without also taking into account the other increases and impacts as she
addressed from a cumulative position. Councilmember Pust questioned whether
the community could sustain the goals of the CIP Task Force and all the other
impacts.
Mayor Roe opined
that the alternative was to do nothing.
Councilmember
Pust responded that everything was not black and white; and while she
understood the rationale in not phasing it in, she spoke in support of phasing
the cumulative package.
Mayor Roe noted
that this was one perspective; and opined that the public would provide their
input as well; and this was the rationale in the CIP Task Force providing the
information to the public early on in the process, in June of 2011.
Along those same
lines as addressed by Councilmember Pust, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her
previous calculations on impacts of loss of homestead credit; increased utility
fees; and her preference to have seen different versions for consideration.
Councilmember McGehee noted past discussion on conservation tiered systems for
water rates; noting that the City’s rates currently reflected the highest base
rates in the metropolitan area; and expressed her shock at the proposed rate
increases. When considering the utility rate increases proposed to address
infrastructure CIP needs, the bond interest for the fire station and parks improvements,
reductions in homestead credit, and other factors, Councilmember McGehee opined
that this represented almost a 70% increase in people’s taxes in 2014; and she
wondered what the Council majority was thinking.
Councilmember
McGehee asked Mr. Miller to evaluate a tiered water system, based on
conservation use; and to explain why seniors were proposed for a 40% increase
and commercial properties only a 21% increase.
Mayor Roe noted
that, as an example, seniors would get a 40% increase on a total rate of
$66.00; and commercial properties had significantly higher base rates than
residential users. Mayor Roe noted the need to look at dollar impacts, not
just percentages.
Mayor Roe advised
that conservation water rates would be taken up at later time, as it had been
included in previous discussion for the City Council’s 2012 work plan.
Councilmember
Willmus, for his own understanding and not necessarily from a certain point of
view, noted Councilmember Pust’s comments on 2012 property tax statements for
2011 payable taxes; and provided his personal impact with a 1.4% overall
increase. Councilmember Willmus noted the variables among properties.
Councilmember
Pust reiterated the need to look at the cumulative impacts; with Mayor Roe
concurring with her statement.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City Council would consider the utility rate approval at the same time
as the budget and levy.
c.
Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at
1890 Huron
Mr. Munson advised that code
enforcement items were actually now down to just this one on Huron; as observed
through the NEP process.
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations at this single-family detached home, located at 1890 Huron,
currently owned by Linda Bangert. Mr. Munson provided an update, including
pictures, of violations, consisting of a garage door in disrepair (violation of
City Code, Section 407.02.J & K); with abatement costs estimated to total $400.00.
Mr. Munson noted multiple notices
to the property owner, as well as phone calls – without response.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance
violation at 1890 Huron, by hiring a general contractor to adjust the garage
door so it will close properly, at an estimated cost of $400.00; with actual
abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not
paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
16. Business Items –
Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss 2012 Fee Schedule
Due to time constraints, Mayor Roe
noted that this item would have to be deferred to a future meeting.
City Manager Malinen requested
that individual Councilmembers contact him or Mr. Miller with their questions
prior to that discussion to expedite the discussion.
Staff was directed to several
typographical errors on Page 8 of the Schedule related to grading plan review
fees.
17. City Manager Future Agenda
Review
City
Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
18. Councilmember-Initiated
Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the Neighborhood Engagement Task Force continued to work; and suggested that at
a future meeting they may wish to provide an update to the City Council and
community.
City Manager Malinen advised that
the group was meeting tomorrow; and he would follow-up with their Chairperson
on scheduling an update.
19. Adjourn
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:03 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Pust;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.