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

City Council

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.



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.



·         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


64598 – 63654





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  @


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.