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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 28, 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).  Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Pust would not be at tonight’s meeting due to illness.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.


2.            Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Categorizing City Fund Balances.”


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


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; 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. 

a.         Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue

Mr. Bahnemann expressed his ongoing frustration with the prairie grass on the City Hall campus, and as a resident directly across Lexington Avenue from the campus, the impacts on hay fever symptoms for both he and his wife.  Mr. Bahnemann opined that there was ragweed in the mixture, and this was causing the problem.  Mr. Bahnemann stated that he was giving the City fifteen (15) days from tonight to do something or he would do something himself, whether legally or not.  Mr. Bahnemann further opined that the prairie grass looked terrible and he was forced to wake every morning to the field of brown weeds.


Mr. Bahnemann also expressed his frustration with the lights on at the City Hall campus 24/7, and stated that he was also going to engage in a campaign about the impact of that lighting on his home; stating that he seemed to be unable to get any satisfaction from City staff about either matter.


5.            Council Communications, Reports and Announcements

Mayor Roe reminded citizens that the annual Budget and Tax Levy Hearing, as well as a proposed increase in utility fees to address capital improvement needs for this infrastructure, was scheduled for Monday, December 5, 2011, at 6:00 pm to receive public comment.


6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


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

Councilmember McGehee questioned the payment through the Police Department for the East Metro SWAT and how and when the City of Roseville was reimbursed; and information on membership in this group.


Police Chief Rick Mathwig advised that the City of Roseville served as the fiscal agent for this group, by virtue of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Board consisting of other area communities, including Saint Anthony, New Brighton, No. St. Paul, along with the University of MN with the City periodically billing those individual entities in accordance with the governance of the JPA. Councilmember [McGehee] asked when and how were these funds, nearly $7,000.00 in this months’ bills repaid. Chief Mathwig reported that the other communities were billed a percentage based on the number of officers participating. McGehee asked and Chief Mathwig responded that Roseville provides nearly 50% of the team.  He stated that the funds are generally funneled through the forfeiture program in the department and eventually repaid to the operating fund.


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

ACH Payments


63655 – 64723





Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


b.            Approve Business Licenses

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



         Type of License

Lightning Disposal; 1725 Meadow View Road

Eagan, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Inc.

1214 Hall Avenue; West St. Paul, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

GMan Enterprises, LLC

7473 Meadowwood Court; Brooklyn Park, MN

Solid Waste Hauler


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


c.            Authorize Participation in the 2012 State Fuel Contract

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the City of Roseville’s participation in joint purchase of fleet fuel for 2012 as part of the State of Minnesota contract.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


d.            Adopt Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for the SCORE Funding Grant

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10949 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Requesting 2012 SCORE Funding Grant for Use in Roseville’s Residential Recycling Program;” authorizing the City Manager to submit the grant application to Ramsey County for grant funds in the amount of $69,728.00.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


e.            Accept Target Corporation Donation for Shop with a Cop

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,, approval of a donation from the Target Corporation in the amount of $2,750 to the Roseville Police Department’s/Tubman Alliance 2011 Shop With A Cop Program scheduled for December 7, 2011.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


  1. Consider Items Removed from Consent


f.             Adopt a Resolution Categorizing City Fund Balances

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 28, 2011.


Councilmember McGehee questioned why, in line 169 of the Policy (Exhibit A), it was necessary to wait three (3) years to bring the fund balance back into compliance.


Finance Director Chris Miller responded that was staff’s suggestion based on past experience and what they deemed to be a reasonable timeframe under any circumstance that the City Council would choose to draw down funds.  Mr. Miller used, as an example, an unforeseen circumstance such as a natural disaster where the City may have to spend excess dollars, that this would provide a procedure to replace those funds.  Given the nature of such a circumstance, Mr. Miller noted that it may be difficult for the City to replace the funds within a single year, thus staff’s suggestion for three (3) years; however, he noted that this was not a mandate, but simply a guideline for replacing the funds.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, while concurring with Mr. Miller’s example of a natural disaster scenario and additional time that could be necessary to replenish the funds, if the funds were shifted around based on mismanagement or misappropriate of the City’s own established policies, she didn’t think that there should be a lapse of three (3) years before he funds were replaced.


Mayor Roe questioned Mr. Miller if this policy would be applicable to interfund loans.


Mr. Miller noted that depending on the particular circumstance, the City may take longer to pay back interfund loans and that this was intended for those situations when the City Council specifically chose to fall out of compliance with its own internal policies.  Mr. Miller advised that the purpose of this policy was to allow credit lending agencies to observe that the City had a policy in place.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council could make the policy two (2) or three (3) years at their discretion, but that staff recommended three (3) years to allow sufficient flexibility.


Councilmember McGehee further questioned line 171 of the policy related to how money will be expended first from restricted fund balances and second from committee fund balances; and the procedure currently followed by staff and whether that procedure was dictated by formal City Council action or at staff’s discretion.

Mr. Miller advised that staff followed the directives of the City Council on how the funds are expended; and that this policy simply affirmed and memorialized current practice, with no changes proposed in staff’s approach to that procedure.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that this reporting standard by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), as issued in February of 2009 under GASB Statement #54 provided documentation of current procedures being used by staff.


Mayor Roe asked if there were currently any fund balances outside City Council policy, or if by the end of 2011, there would be any.


Mr. Miller advised that only there were two (2) funds that were applicable.  One of those was the , the Community Development Fund, due to 2010 having been a poor year for building permit activity; and advise that he anticipated that 2011 would make significant headway in getting the fund back, but perhaps not fully funded.  Mr. Miller further noted that the Information Technology (IT) Fund continued to be strengthened, and he anticipated that one (1) more year would get it to proscribed levels.


Mayor Roe asked if there was any formal City Council action required to affirm those efforts to get within policy.


Mr. Miller advised that tonight’s meeting minutes and this public discussion should be sufficient for the record to reflect that commitment; and reiterated that staff was confident progress was being made.


Mayor Roe noted comment opportunities through the annual budget process, as well as staff’s quarterly reports on the financial health of the City.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if the JPA’s for the IT fund addressed revenue shortfalls.


Mr. Miller advised that the JPA’s now provided for annual adjustments based on ongoing technology investments; however, he noted that the City of Roseville had funded for some costs upfront to upgrade technology for member JPA municipalities and agencies in order for the City to be able to support their IT efforts; but noted that those upfront costs were within a year of being fully reimbursed to the City.


McGhee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10950 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Adopting Fund Balance Categorizations;” in accordance with GASB Statement #54.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


12.     General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.095 Adopting the 2012 Fee Schedule

Finance Director Miller briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011; and noted distribution of a bench handout, with minor revisions to pages 7, 8 and 9 of the proposed 2012 Fee Schedule, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Overall, in addition to adjustment for existing fees as detailed in the staff report (page 1), Mr. Miller noted two (2) new fees: accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permit fee and a water main tapping fee.  Mr. Miller noted that the ADU permit fee had previously been authorized by the City Council, but not yet included in the Fee Schedule; and that the water main tapping fee was current practice, but also not yet memorialized in the Fee Schedule.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that no additional changes, other than minor corrections to pages 7, 8 and 9, had been made to the 2012 Fee Schedule from this draft to that previously presented to and reviewed by the City Council.


City Manager Malinen noted on page 4 of the proposed 2012 Fee Schedule, footnote “c,” related to park dedication fees for commercial properties based on previous City Council discussions, with staff anticipating a formal resolution coming forward at a future City Council meeting, but referenced in the Fee Schedule to ensure that it was obvious to developers in the future.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that this was based on earlier City Council discussions related to when the market value of a property was established.


Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with the additional fees for a DVD copying charge; and personally opined that the City should make it easier for the public without other available means, to get copies of meetings; further opining that $25 seemed to be a steep fee; and suggested it may be more palatable to structure the fee as a deposit, such as the School District used, with the deposit returned once the DVD was returned.


Mr. Miller clarified that the fee included staff time for searching out the appropriate meeting or information and time to burn the DVD.  Mr. Miller advised that staff was amenable to a deposit at the City Council’s discretion as long as they were cognizant that staff time would not be recouped.


Councilmember Willmus opined that part of staff’s time should be interacting with the public.


Councilmember Johnson questioned the average number of DVD requests fielded by staff on a weekly basis.


Mr. Miller advised that he was unable to respond to that query at this time, since most of the DVD requests were related to the Police Department; and he would need to check with them.


Councilmember Johnson suggested burning five (5) DVD’s of each City Council meeting and have them available for the public.


Mayor Roe reiterated Mr. Miller’s comments that the DVD requests may not be exclusive to City Council meetings.

Mr. Miller concurred, noting that requests ranged from City Council meetings; Commission meetings; and again noted that this additional fee request originated from Chief Mathwig related to regulatory issues and reflected the true cost of the staff time involved in providing DVD’s.  However, Mr. Miller advised that staff would proceed at the direction of the City Council.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she was in favor of leaving the DVD charge as is for the next meeting until the Police Department could provide their rationale for the proposed fee; and suggested that in the future a database could be set up to allow the public to burn their own DVD’s.


Mayor Roe,  suggested that one course of action the Council could take would be to leave the current fee as is, not to increase it to $25; noting that the Fee Schedule could be amended in the future after staff provided additional information.

Regarding the proposed leaf pick up fee at $50, Councilmember Johnson questioned if this was 100% user-sponsored, and no longer subsidized by the City.


Mr. Miller responded affirmatively.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that there were roughly 9,000 residential properties in Roseville, with approximately  1100 participating in the leaf pickup program this last year; and that the fee was structured to make the program payable through that user fee and included staff time.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the City could be making better use of staff time rather than performing leaf pickup.


Mr. Schwartz noted that, given other storm water management mandates for the City, as well as ongoing staffing challenges within the department, this program did not rank high in its overall mission; and further noted that there were other opportunities for residents to address their leaves.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if part of the rationale for the leaf pickup program was based on the need to clean storm gutters.


Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively; however, he noted that this year, for the first time, the City had diligently tracked staff time for each portion of storm water management, including cleaning gutters and catch basins and other related activities.  Mr. Schwartz noted that, in the past in conjunction with the leaf pickup program, each crew would take a specific area to address all activities at the same; time, while this year the functions had been separated, and results found that more efficiencies were found with a separate crew working continuously on cleaning gutters and basins; as well as operating with the City’s new vacuum sweeper.


Councilmember McGehee noted that she continued to hear many comments from seniors who use the leaf pickup program, since they are able to get their leaves to the street, but not able to bag them; and also had difficulty in finding a service to take care of their leaves unless they employed a lawn service contractor throughout the entire season.  Councilmember McGehee stated that the comments she was fielding expressed desire that the leaf pickup program not be ended.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1421 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule – Adopting the 2012 Fee Schedule;” as amended through revisions on bench handout to pages 7, 8 and 9; and retain $5.00 per DVD copying charge for now.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if the question could be separated to address the leave pickup program from the remainder of the proposed ordinance; and so moved.


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


Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff was confident that the proposed fees were consistent with other communities in the metropolitan area; with Mr. Miller expressing confidence that they were comparable.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


b.            Consider an Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 302 Pertaining to Non-Renewal of Liquor License

City Manager Malinen provided a brief summary of the proposed City Code Chapter 302 revisions as detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011 (Attachment A).


Mayor Roe questioned language in line 27 of the proposed ordinance,  and whether it should be …”suspension, revocation or ‘renewal’ or if it should read ‘NON-renewal.’”


City Attorney Mark Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe, that the language should be ‘NON-renewal.’


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1422 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title Three, Section 302.15B(3) (Minimum Penalty) and Section 302.15C (Hearing and Notice) of the Roseville City Code;” as amended with language changed in line 27 to [non-renewal.]


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


13.     Presentations


a.    Ramsey County Presentation of Rice Street Project, Phase II

City Engineer Debra Bloom introduced Ramsey County Project Manager Mr. Jerry Auge for Phase II of the Rice Street Project from County Road B-2 to County Road C-2.


Mr. Auge provided a history of the Rice Street project to-date; initial participation by the municipal jurisdictions of Roseville, Little Canada, Vadnais Heights and Shoreview involved in the initial Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during 2006 – 2008; including respective City Councils, business owners, residents, and respective City staff; with the municipalities of Roseville and Little Canada involved in Phase II portion of the project.


Mr. Auge reviewed 2009 traffic volumes; the existing roadway; proposed improvements; impacts to businesses along the Rice Street corridor; existing County Road C intersection site distance problems on the west side of County Road C and proposed reconstruction to make the site distance system better by raising the roadway on the Roseville side, thereby eliminating the need for a split phase for the signal light allowing more green light time for traffic along the Rice Street corridor.  Mr. Auge also reviewed proposed designated bicycle lanes and striping to accommodate non-vehicular traffic, and improved operations at intersections through median installations.


Mr. Auge further reviewed the Little Canada Road intersection; cost participation for the project, absent federal funding; and city cost-share with city responsibility to pay for rights-of-way; new sidewalks; any colored portions of concrete boulevards; burying of private utilities; street lighting; and Ramsey County responsible for intersection lighting.


Mr. Auge addressed other design considerations, meeting local watershed requirements; private utility relocation; street lighting; any public infrastructure projects the respective cities may want to do as part of this project; and receipt of comments from respective cities and the general public on the proposed improvement.


Mr. Auge provided the projected project schedule: Final Plan Design through 2012; Rights-of-Way Plan completed in January of 2012; rights-of-way acquisition completed by February of 2013; private utility relocation in July/August 2012; and road construction in 2013.  Mr. Auge noted that this schedule was based on cooperative agreements being completed related to cost participation and maintenance for the roadway project, and private utility relocation


Mr. Auge noted that future public meeting(s) were anticipated with private property owners on the Roseville side; however, he advised that an Open House was scheduled for December 6, 2011 at 4:00 – 6:00 pm in the Little Canada City Hall; with a brief presentation at 4:00 pm, and layouts and public/private utility information available at that meeting.


City Engineer Debra Bloom advised Councilmembers and the public that this was intended as a quick update, recognizing that this was the first glance at the Phase II project and intended as a general presentation.  Ms. Bloom noted that there would follow discussion at the City Council/Roseville staff level on the City’s cost participation and how it would be funded, proposed through the City’s Utility Funds for water main work, as well as assessments as applicable long the Rice Street corridor.  Ms. Bloom noted that the first step in the process would be for staff to return at the December 12, 2011 City Council meeting requesting action by the Council in ordering preparation of a Feasibility Report outlining those costs, assessable units, and cost per foot assessment proposed to help finance the project; followed by a Public Hearing scheduled in early 2012; with rights-of-way needs and cost participation requiring municipal consent by both Roseville and the City of Little Canada.


Discussion among Councilmembers, Mr. Auge and Ms. Bloom included anticipated striping for bicycle refuges on Rice Street, but not on County Road C due to the available tight corridor with 11’ minimum lanes and no additional space available; proposed elevation drop of the intersection at County Road C and Rice Street projected at approximately three feet (3’) and then tapering into the existing street; utility locations; proposed sidewalk installations; and cost-sharing and ownership of private utilities and responsibilities for their maintenance and/or relocation.


Ms. Bloom advised that this next phase of the project would include further discussions by the City Council on undergrounding utility lines, with those discussions including the City of Little Canada and Xcel Energy.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom advised that there was no proposal at this time for fiber optics in the corridor.


City Manager Malinen noted that, whenever possible, the City took advantage of opportunities to install conduit for future technology uses.


Mayor Roe noted the previous City Council charge to the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission for recommendations on a policy related to undergrounding of utilities; and questioned whether it would be coming forward to the City Council early next year; with Mr. Schwartz responding affirmatively.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if this Rice Street project would eventually be phased up to I-694.


Mr. Auge responded that, over the last 3-4 years, Ramsey Council had overlaid bituminous on the north section of Rice Street from County Road C-2, and was hoping to achieve a minimum of 5-7 years of life from that overlay.  While anticipating some future project on Rice Street north, Mr. Auge advised that the City of Little Canada was not amenable to such a project at this time; and Ramsey County would consider future reconstruction of that portion not in the near future, but after completion of the I-694/Rice Street intersection.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if the old highway was removed or if it was left in place when the first phase of the project was done between Highway 36 and County Road B-2; and the County’s intent for  the second phase.


Mr. Auge advised that the existing 24’ wide old concrete roadway was removed as part of the Phase I portion of the project; and that was the intent for this phase as well, with the contractor typically recycling materials into new uses.


b.    Ramsey County Presentation of County Road B-2 Project

City Engineer Debra Bloom introduced Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Ms. Erin Laberee – B-2 improvements from Fairview to Snelling Avenues as detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011.


Ms. Laberee provided a project overview; funding, and design/construction schedule; with the project providing widening of County Road B-2 at Fairview and Snelling Avenue to add turn lanes; bituminous replacement with concrete from the Wells Fargo intersection to American Street.  Mr. Laberee noted that the intersection of Fairview Avenue and County Road B-2 on the northwest side (BP Amoco Station) required significant easement takings to accomplish widening that intersection and to extend medians in some areas.  Mr. Laberee advised hat, based on current costs for concrete versus bituminous, in addition to increased longevity for concrete, this provided the rationale for pursuing concrete construction.  Ms. Laberee reviewed areas proposed for signal light replacement; replacement or installation of sidewalks; curb ramps for ADA requirements; and audio pedestrian signals (APS) at intersections.  Specific areas reviewed by Ms. Laberee included the west entrance into Rosedale; entrance into Rosedale Commons; and intersections at Snelling Avenue and American Street. 


Ms. Laberee reviewed several proposed drainage improvements to address existing areas of concern, and to meet requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), including the Oakcrest Pond and Ultimate Electronic/Bremer Bank site, with those improvements currently in their design phase. 


Ms. Laberee advised that the total project cost was projected at $9.5 million; with the City of Roseville’s share estimated at $730,000 for signals and water main improvements.  Ms. Laberee noted that federal funding was available for the project; with Ramsey County purchasing rights-of-way and easement areas.  Ms. Laberee advised that the project was currently in final design stages; with a preliminary projected schedule for Final Plan approval in March of 2012; easements secured in May of 2012; contract award and construction beginning in July of 2012; and anticipated project completion by October of 2013.  Ms. Laberee noted that an initial public meeting was held approximately one (1) year ago for area businesses; with another proposed yet this winter.


Councilmember Johnson noted proposed impacts to the BP Amoco station at Fairview Avenue and County Road B-2 for widening the easement; with Ms. Laberee noting that this was the most significantly impacted area, with changes to their access points proposed for safety considerations; and pending negotiations for the easements, with the County not proposing a total take of the property at this time, only easement accommodations; and current analysis of impacts to the business in the future.  Ms. Laberee noted that the northeast portion of the intersection adjacent to Wells Fargo had less of an impact on their business as the easements were in existing green space and had no impact on their parking lot of building; as well as the Chili’s site on the southwest corner of the intersection, with only retaining walls and grade accommodations required for the sidewalk; as well as minimal impacts to the Rosedale Mall on the southeast portion of the intersection.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the County was going to a lot of effort to install ADA and ADP compliant sidewalks at these intersections, but that there was no way for pedestrians to get out of the Rosedale parking lot safely to access Rosedale Commons.  While recognizing that this involved private property, Councilmember McGehee expressed her anticipation that as those property owners sought to redevelop or improve their parking lots, they would be required to install sidewalks and/or refuge areas for easier pedestrian access and flow.


City Engineer Bloom advised that current City Code addressed those issues when redevelopment occurred; with staff working with them to meet those code requirements to ensure pedestrian connectivity within City Code parameters.


In response to Councilmember Willmus regarding pedestrian flow at County Road B-2 and Snelling Avenue entrance ramps, Ms. Bloom advised that striping in the crosswalk into the Rosedale Mall’s Lifestyle Center had included requirements as part of their development to include pedestrian connectivity.

Councilmember Willmus noted that, from his personal experience in accessing the mall, pedestrians using the crosswalk would find little protection from vehicular traffic.


Discussion among Councilmembers, Ms. Laberee and Ms. Bloom included average daily traffic volumes at 15,000 along this strip, with the project anticipated to improve traffic flow during peak volume, but not specifically addressing or designed to facilitate peak holiday traffic.



Mayor Roe suggested that, while the project sought to meet RCWD requirements to not increase runoff; staff work with Ramsey County as part of this overall project for other areas to  reduce runoff in other areas as well.


Ms. Laberee recognized that this area was a “sea of pavement;” and advised that Ramsey County was amenable to working with City staff to address other potential areas to alleviate runoff; noting the financial constraints in the County’s committed financial resources for additional easement purchases, leaving little if none available for additional purchases to address storm water runoff.


Mayor Roe noted, while recognizing certain cost prohibitions, there could be underground storm water control options that may be found as part of this projects; expressing the City’s interest in and appreciation for any considerations from Ramsey County in pursuing areas where improvements in drainage could be found.


MS. Laberee suggested City cost-share if such options were found.


14.         Public Hearings


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider a Resolution Certifying Delinquent and Other Charges to the County

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this quarterly request as detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011, noting approximately $30,000 currently outstanding for these delinquencies.  Mr. Miller advised that this quarterly opportunity provided property owners with an opportunity to come forward to address the City Council to dispute any of those delinquent charges prior to their certification to Ramsey County.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that each case was considered individually prior to certification.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that current interest rates on the delinquent charges was approximately 6%.


There were no members of public appearing to speak at this time.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10951 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2012 or Beyond.”


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.   


b.            Consider Approving Legislative Agenda

City Manager Bill Malinen summarized the requested action detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011.


Discussion included the current process and proposed League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) initiative for local option sales tax by municipalities; referendums for such a local option sales tax proposed during municipal general elections and state statute requirements; and access from previous Council meeting packet information specific to the local option sales tax


Councilmember McGehee requested that either staff or the City’s legislative delegation provide additional clarification on taxable items and how much of a local tax percentage was customary or allowable, and any specific use restrictions.


Councilmember Johnson questioned the percentage of sales taxes from residents versus non-residents and asked that staff provide any research material on that ratio, and potential positive impacts that residents may realize; and if those funds could be used for future CIP infrastructure needs of the City that could reduce impacts to Roseville taxpayers.  Councilmember Johnson also questioned if those funds could be used to pay down bonds or their interest.


City Manager Malinen noted that the City of Roseville was blessed with a robust retail economy; and advised that staff would pursue additional research through the Department of Revenue on non-resident versus resident sales tax impacts to the City’s local tax base.


Councilmember McGehee requested additional research of any potential negative impacts to the City’s retail economy through implementing a local sales tax option; or potential relocation of that strong retail base beyond Roseville due to competition from other communities without a local sales tax option.


Councilmembers noted their consensus to address transit issues with the legislative delegation during discussions; and discussion of the other points detailed in the RCA by City Manager Malinen; as well as determining the receptivity of the legislative delegation to a potential local sales tax option for Roseville.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Revised Joint Powers Agreement Regarding Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) and Funding Request

Mayor Roe recognized attendance by GLWMO staff representative Tom Petersen and GLWMO Chair Karen Eckman in audience.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized this item as detailed in the RCA dated November 28, 2011.  Mr. Schwartz’ comments included staff concerns with the proposed revised Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and Implementation and Budget portions of the Third Generation Water Management Plan that impacted the control of the member cities of Roseville and Shoreview on that budget.  Mr. Schwartz noted that, from a staff perspective, the most significant issues were related to financing (line 266 in the JPA) (Attachment C); and various time frames; as well as Subd. 3.b with the cash flow advance not defined to a level cities would be required to fund the GLWMO; and Subd. 4 (line 306) related to CIP projects and timeframe for cities to comment on proposed CIP projects. 


Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed WMO versus WSD activities, funding and partnerships, and management practices; current direct input of member cities under the current JPA; process utilized by Capitol Region WSD and Rice Creek WSD with their budgets not subject to City approval, but funded through taxpayers within their district. 


Mayor Roe noted that currently all taxpayers paying storm water fees in the City of Roseville were paying for operations of the GLWMO; with those in the geographical area of the GLWMO not currently paying any additional fee on their tax bills to cover water management costs specific to the GLWMO.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this was an unequal burden if the City continued to fund the GLWMO in this manner, with Roseville taxpayers subsidizing residents living in the GLWMO, and indicating a need to change that funding structure.


Mayor Roe noted that revising that funding structure was part of the proposal currently before the City Councils of Roseville and Shoreview through a revised JPA.


City Manager Malinen noted that the GLWMO proposal was to fund the GLWMO residents through the City’s utility billing structure; while other WSD’s were funded through storm utility fees, not part of City fees.  Mr. Malinen noted that special state legislation had allowed the Vadnais Lakes Area WMO (VLAWMO) to establish their own fee on property taxes; while the Rice Creek WSD (RCWD) was listed as a separate ad valorem tax on property taxes for those in that watershed district.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Schwartz advised that the GLWMO’s presentation and discussion with the Shoreview City Council had been deferred to a meeting in early December due to the lateness of their presentation at the Roseville City Council meeting last week.  From staff’s perspectives, Mr. Schwartz advised that Shoreview staff held similar viewpoints as those of Roseville staff, and as addressed by Roseville’s City Attorney.


Related to the GLWMO’s proposed budget of $300,000 over the next three (3) years of implementation of the Third Generation Plan, Mr. Schwartz noted that member cities were being requested to provide $150,000 each; however, that budget did not include the proposed two (2) FTE staff positions, as well as implementing other significant portions of the Plan.  Mr. Schwartz advised that staff of both member cities were of the opinion that there were remaining issues needing to be further analyzed since it required more of a partnership, in some areas up to 50%, from cities that were not currently included in the current budget request.


Mr. Schwartz noted that the DRAFT Water Management Plan also provided areas of concern for member cities staff, based on their experience with other storm water projects, suggesting that implementation projections were significantly understated and serving to drive up costs even further at a future date. 


Mr. Schwartz opined that the City Council may want to consider, at a future date, the equity issue of an annual storm water utility fee and how to fund that comparable to funding of the RCWD and Capitol Region WSD within the confines of Roseville.  If the City approved continuing with the GLWMO as currently structured, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would recommend resolving the equity issue by creating a surcharge on storm water utility fees for GLWMO properties, which would be approximately $25-$30 per residential partial for 2012 to meet the $150,000 budget request.  Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was seeking more City Council direction on the future of the GLWMO.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that staff’s analysis was that, in the long-term, the cost for an Improved GLWMO would be similar to the cost of merging with another WSD and their per parcel annual taxing authority.  Mr. Schwartz opined that other WSD’s had staffing in place with significant professional areas of expertise; and at this point, he further opined that staff did not feel prudent in recommending creation of another organization similar to other WSD’s when the GLWMO area is geographically small.


Mayor Roe noted the need for this item to return to the City Council for future action; and asked that staff provide a clear recommendation, as well as feedback from the City of Shoreview, prior to or as part of the staff report for making that decision.  Mayor Roe noted that indications from the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) were that they would not allow the existing JPA to continue with current budgeting requests; and that they were prompting the proposed revised JPA.  Mayor Roe noted that the proposed JPA did not provide the City much input over rates for GLWMO site area parcels, constraining the City’s range of action; while noting that the City did not have much say in the rates for other WSD’s other than through direct citizen connection and comment to them.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz estimated approximately 3,500 parcels in Roseville included in the GLWMO, with a similar number of parcels in the City of Shoreview.


 Duane Schwartz stated that Rice Creek Watershed District is significantly larger.


No one from the public appeared to speak on this issue.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz addressed the timeframe for City Council action related to storm water utility fees, noting that those fees could be implemented when directed by the City Council; however the Third Generation Plan would not be approved at the state level until an amended JPA was approved by member cities.


Mayor Roe asked that staff provide specific information on how long the Plan could remain unapproved at the state level before they took action; and how and if a utility fee for GLWMO could be worked into quarterly utility billings in conjunction with state constraints and compliance requirements.


Mr. Schwartz advised that he would continue to consult with the GLWMO Board and provide results of any Shoreview City Council actions.


17.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

          City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


          Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Noting her previous concerns expressed related to fire station design and planning, Councilmember McGehee sought how best to proceed in expressing her concerns.


Mayor Roe asked that Councilmember McGehee work with City Manager Malinen and Fire Chief O’Neill on those issues and provide her feedback and input to them; and reminded staff of previous City Council discussions and requests for information on uses for the space and sharing of exercise facilities.


18.         Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:18 pm.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:18 pm.