City
Council Meeting Minutes
December 5, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council in open session at approximately 5:05 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for December: Johnson; Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe). Councilmember Pust arrived at 5:20 pm. City Attorney Mark
Gaughan was also present.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, going into closed executive session in accordance
with MN Statutes section 13.d.05 for the purpose of discussing the City Manager's
performance evaluation.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe convened the City Council in closed executive session at approx 5: 08
pm.
Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 5:20 pm, during the closed
executive session.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, continuing the City Manager evaluation discussion
to the December 12, 2011, meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus;
McGehee; Pust and Roe.
Nays: None.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to reconvene in open session.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus;
McGehee; Pust and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe adjourned the closed executive session at approximately 5:53 pm.
Recess
2012 Budget and Utility Rates Hearing
Mayor Roe reconvened the City Council in open session at approximately 6:03 pm.
Mayor Roe noted that the Closed
Executive Session portion of tonight’s meeting had been recessed, and due to a
lack of time to complete discussions, the Closed Executive Session continued to
December 12, 2011 to conclude that discussion.
Staff Presentation
Mayor Roe introduced Finance
Director Chris Miller for an overview of the 2012 Budget and 2012 Utility Rate Reviews.
Finance Director Miller noted that
this year’s presentation would encompass a considerable amount of information;
and the unusual aspects of the upcoming 2012 budget year. Mr. Miller noted his
review topics would include a budget chronology; budget impact items; budget
summary; property tax levy impact; local tax rate comparisons; and utility rate
impact.
Councilmember McGehee directed
Roseville residents to the City of Shoreview’s website to find a useful chart
among their budget materials on the topic of the Market Value Homestead Credit
(MVHC).
At the conclusion of Finance
Director Miller’s presentation, Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Miller for providing a
background on the budget and utility rate process; and noted that later in
tonight’s agenda, as well as at the December 12, 2011 meeting if necessary, and
following additional City Council discussions, formal budget and utility rate
actions would be taken.
2012 Budget and Utility Rates
Hearing
Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing
at approximately 7:05 pm for the purpose of hearing public comment on the
proposed 2012 Budget and Utility Rates; and briefly reviewed public hearing
procedures and protocol for the City Council to receive public testimony.
Mayor Roe noted that all testimony would be heard prior to responses from staff
or Councilmembers, and if necessary those responses may be delayed to a future
meeting to allow further research as indicated.
Public Comment
Dan Cartier, 2917 Hillsview
Avenue E
Related to the shortfall in the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Mr. Cartier questioned how the
projected annual need over the next twenty (20) years had been determined,
whether internally or through the use of an outside engineering study. Mr. Cartier
expressed concern that the projected needs in dollar amount suddenly appeared
and it seemed the logical solution was to address that shortage through the
pocketbooks of residents; and questioned the validity of the projected
financial need.
Jessica Anderson 555 Shryer
Avenue W
Ms. Anderson noted that, as someone
carefully planning for their own household budgets, it was hard for her to
understand how such a significant shortfall could have occurred, when residents
trusted their elected officials to manage the City’s business. Ms. Anderson expressed
her disappointment in this shortfall not having been addressed in previous
budgets.
Regarding the proposed utility rate
base fee, Ms. Anderson opined that this would have the most impact on those of
a lower socio-economic status and those on fixed incomes; and questioned if the
City Council investigate all other sources of alternative income to offset the
utility rate base fee prior to its implementation; further opining that it
seemed to represent a disproportionate increase for some in the community.
Tom Stratton, 3000 Sandy Hook
Drive
Opining that the City of Roseville
had a great water system, Mr. Stratton encouraged the City Council to consider,
as part of the long-range CIP system, plans for a gray water system included
with other upgrades to the City’s water system over the next 40-50 years.
Karen Schaffer, 2100 Fairview
Avenue
Ms. Schaffer referenced a recent
article in the New York Times and a study done by a University of MN
professor addressing “The New Face of Poverty,” providing an analysis of data
from the Department of Agriculture on the trends in students qualifying and
receiving free or reduced cost lunches as schools across the United States.
Ms. Schaffer cited statistics from that data of fourth graders and the
significant increase in students qualifying up to 52%. Ms. Schaffer noted that
the City of Roseville, MN was included in the statistics, indicating an increase
in qualifying school children from 29% in 2006/2007 to a current 42%.
In the context of the City’s annual
budget, and proposed increases to property taxes of 4%, increases in utility
charges and other impacts to households, Ms. Schaffer noted that the parents of
these hungry children as taxpayers were also being asked to pay for park
amenities and carrying charges to borrow funds for those amenities. While
noting that it had been demonstrated that it was cheaper to borrow sooner than
later, Ms. Schaffer opined that it had not been demonstrated that it was not
preferable for the City of Roseville to pay-as-you-go for the proposed bonding
for improvements. Ms. Schaffer further opined that the City’s approach for
multiple increases in light of “The New Face of Poverty,” was discordant and
flat-out wrong from both a moral and ethical sense. While perhaps not
reasonable or possible to reduce the City’s tax burden, Ms. Schaffer opined
that it was possible to avoid saddling property owners with any additional
major debt service.
Joe Wozniak, 718 Sextant Avenue
Mr. Wozniak encouraged the City
Council, in their upgrading of the City’s water and sewer systems, consider
implementing grey water systems, and encouraged a stronger look at water
conservation measures to reduce future costs for future uses.
On a personal note, Mr. Wozniak, as
a homeowner required to run a siphon to avoid pipes from freezing in his home
in the winter months, asked that as part of future upgrades, that the City
consider some way to address these incorrect installations. While recognizing
that his utility billing was adjusted to address the additional cost for siphoning
water during the winter months, Mr. Wozniak asked if future maintenance of the
City’s water system would include repair of those situations for him and other
similar households in the community.
Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue
Mr. Houck complimented the City
Council on the job they did, expressing understanding on it difficult and
complex nature and time-consuming efforts. Mr. Houck opined that, for the most
part, the City Council did a good job; however, in the instance of the proposed
budget, they had exceeded the bounds of good government.
Mr. Houck expressed his frustration
in similarly addressing Ramsey County Commissioners on their proposed budget,
opining that it was an exercise in futility. If given the opportunity to
adjust the budget, Mr. Houck stated that he would review the budget line by
line to make cuts to ensure a “0%” or decreased levy amount for this year’s budget.
Mr. Houck opined that nothing said tonight by the public would change what the
City Council chose to do, further opining that it was “cut and dried;” further
opining that the City Council didn’t really care about Roseville residents, evidenced
by their recent passing of the $27 million bond issue without a voter referendum.
Mr. Houck noted that this was done despite a City Council policy that any expenditure
over $3 million would go to a voter referendum. Mr. Houck opined it didn’t
ring true that the City Council cared about Roseville residents when they were
now proposing to take even more money from residents when residents didn’t have
more money to pay. Mr. Houck opined that this was an indication of a broader
problem, with government being too big, spending too much, and costing too
much; and further opined that the Roseville City Council had become a part of
that broader problem. Mr. Houck noted that every business owner was aware that
they needed to pick those items they could or could not afford, and recognized
that often those cuts were hard to make. Rather than government running to the
well for more water, since employees were the largest expense for any business,
Mr. Houck stated that this was where the City Council needed to look first to
make reductions; and if not done there, it couldn’t be made elsewhere. Mr. Houck
noted that it was tough in the business world at this time, as well as for the
City; however, he stated that it was the City Council’s responsibility to make
the decisions and they had not done so.
Mr. Houck noted one of the
individual Councilmembers in the past had stated that they were elected to make
decisions; however, Mr. Houck opined that this was not to make decisions that
hurt Roseville residents, and this proposal was doing that. Mr. Houck opined
that, apparently since it seemed like the City Council was not going to listen
to the public, the only recourse open to residents was at the ballot box; and
expressed his hope that Roseville residents had a good memory.
Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road
Ms. Alexander used an example of a
homeowner’s leaky roof being left to continue deteriorating while using money
for items that were not necessities. Ms. Alexander opined that passing a bond
issue for parks was similar to those items not of necessity, or “wants” versus
“needs.” Ms. Alexander stated that the City had needs to be addressed before
those wants; and expressed her disappointment in the amount of money spent on
studies that are ignored (e.g. County Road C-2 closure) and a community survey
that simply provided obvious results (e.g. high priority of the community for
good service). Regarding the recent Parks Survey, Ms. Alexander admitted that
it was a good survey; however, she questioned whether the outcome of the survey
supported a bond issue, since most of the items were beyond needs. While Roseville
is noted regionally for its park system, Ms. Alexander opined that it was a
want, while water/sewer systems were a need; and further opined that to make
citizens responsible for such huge outlays for wants was irresponsible of the
Roseville City Council.
John Koziol, 930 Brenner Avenue
Mr. Koziol referenced a recent article
in the Roseville Review regarding funding for a new fire station and
park improvements and their costs. Mr. Koziol opined that while a new fire
station and/or park improvements may be needed, it seemed that the park improvements
involved a variety of bits and pieces instead of a major item, and seemed to
represent discretionary spending based on today’s economy. If a bond issue did
not pass, Mr. Koziol opined that the park system would not collapse; and if a
fire station bond was not issued, it would simply mean that firefighters would
need to continue working under adverse conditions. However, Mr. Koziol
questioned how and when costs of the bonding would impact him personally. Mr.
Koziol noted that his property tax statement for 2012 indicated a 10/7%
increase; and given the financial stresses for individuals and property owners
at this time, opined that some of the City’s discretionary spending could be deferred.
Mr. Koziol asked that for those proponents or supporters of the park system,
they consider impacts to property taxes as they evaluated park system
amenities; and expressed his hope that the bond issue was turned down.
Roni Jana, 1778 Ryan Avenue W
As a Roseville resident for over
eighty (80) years, and whose home was listed on the Heritage Foundation, Ms. Jana
stated that she had recently requested removal from that list, as she no longer
thought much of the City of Roseville. Ms. Jana noted the need for a good fire
department, and spoke in support of the department based on her personal experience
with a house fire in 2006; however, Ms. Jana expressed sorrow in the way the
City of Roseville was going. Ms. Jana expressed her previous interest in
living in Roseville until she died; however, with her property values continuing
to go down and increased costs to live in Roseville, Ms. Jana didn’t know how
she could continue to do so on a fixed income.
Kelly Lynch, 446 West County
Road B
As a first-time participant or observer
of a City Council meeting, Ms. Lynch noted that she was just now catching up on
city events and was therefore using her voice to ask that the City Council vote
down bonding issued. Ms. Lynch expressed her frustration and echoed the comments
of previous speakers that it was not fair to ask people of Roseville to pay for
wants when individual homeowners could not do so with their own budgets.
Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks
Lane
Mr. Grefenberg asked for
clarification on the staff’s memorandum (lines 47-50) dated December 5, 2011,
and the actual effective year for servicing the 2011 bond issue of $10 million,
and whether it would be included in 2012 tax impacts.
Mayor Roe clarified that the debt
service would begin in 2013, with the last bond issue repayment beginning in
2014; and clarified that the 2012 budget did not include financing the $10
million bond sale already approved by the City Council, with repayments for the
bonds structured to begin in 2013.
Mr. Grefenberg expressed his
concern that there was too much reliance in the City budget on property taxes;
and applauded recent discussions on a proposed local option sales tax to share
the costs for the City’s park system and infrastructure with those using them beyond
Roseville residents. Mr. Grefenberg encouraged the City Council to put more
attention on alternative revenue sources; and opined staff’s slide presentation
was only part of the story. Mr. Grefenberg displayed his own interpretation of
net tax levy comparisons he had personally researched with the Ramsey County
Department of Property Records and Revenue for other communities, stating that
the City of Roseville was only bested by that of the City of St. Paul. Mr.
Grefenberg ranked those communities in order by proposed 2012 tax levy increased
compared to their actual 2007 tax levy.
Mr. Grefenberg addressed the City’s
reserve funds, which he called “surplus” funds; and based on his understanding
from staff comments in the past, estimated that approximately $15 - $17 million
could be made available through City Council discretion for use. Mr.
Grefenberg opined that part of this surplus was due to water/sewer fees being increased
over the last five (5) years for residents, and that the surplus was from
unexpended funds that residents had been overcharged for those services; and
that those funds could be used to soften the impact of the proposed 60% increase
in utility fees. Mr. Grefenberg further opined that some of those surplus
funds could be used for needed repairs in the City’s park system, rather than
relying on the most regressive type of tax, property taxes that were not based
on income, when 25% of the Roseville population was aged 65 years or older and
should not be relied upon to pay for park improvements. Without saying “no” to
the future, Mr. Grefenberg opined that some of those reserve funds could be
used to at least cover critical water sewer needs, while living without a few
more ball fields or irrigating them.
Over the next year, Mr.
Grefenberg asked that the City Council aggressively pursue a local sales tax
option.
Jim DeBenedet, 808 Millwood
Avenue (Chair of PWET Commission)
With respect to one line item as a potential
keep in the General Fund budget, Mr. DeBenedet spoke in support of the $30,000
General Fund share for an Asset Management Program. Based on the scope of the
City’s responsibility in managing its significant assets and infrastructure
system, Mr. DeBenedet opined that such a program was absolutely necessity going
forward to make the right decisions and ensure sufficient, cost-effective, and
timely infrastructure maintenance; and encouraged the City Council to keep that
item in its proposed General Fund budget.
Regarding water and sewer rates,
Mr. DeBenedet noted his recent Master’s Degree thesis that studied the City of
Roseville’s water and sewer system and what needed to be done to ensure for
users of the system that it continued to function well and the lowest long-term
and ongoing cost. Mr. DeBenedet opined that the proposed CIP recommendations
for utility rate increases would keep the system well-maintained and
functioning well over the next 10-30 years. Mr. DeBenedet noted that approximately
75% of the current infrastructure system was built in the late 1950’s and early
1960’s and had exceeded its useful life, with many of the materials no longer even
used since the mid-1970’s due to problems encountered or new technologies. Mr.
DeBenedet further opined that this proposal for replacement and reconstruction was
realistic and prudent, and that it was the right thing to do. Mr. DeBenedet
noted the cost efficiencies in replacing infrastructure systems in conjunction
with street maintenance projects going forward; and asked that the City Council
continue that program. While recognizing the significance of the rate increases,
Mr. DeBenedet noted that they were similar to those infrastructure needs being
experienced across the country to maintain that critical system.
Joycelyn Campbell, 365 W County
Road B-2
Ms. Campbell expressed her concern
with the multiple increases proposed on the upcoming year’s property taxes. As
an individual living on a fixed income and struggling with the cost of living
and medical expenses, Ms. Campbell expressed her concern in being able to cope
with additional and high increases compiled on other expenses. Ms. Campbell
opined that it would be hard for senior citizens to cope with all of the
expenses at the same time; and asked that the City Council take that into
consideration and whether something could be done to decrease them. While recognizing
the need for good water and sewer services, and the services of the City’s Fire
and Police Departments, Ms. Campbell noted that most were no increases in
income, while attempting to meet expenses, and asked that the City Council take
all those things into consideration.
John Simpson, 3083 Mount Ridge
Road
Mr. Simpson referenced recent news
stories regarding the bond issue and questioned why the City of Roseville chose
not to enforce its own rules regarding any expenditures of over $3 million
needing voter approval; and why this rule was bypassed. Mr. Simpson opined
that it appeared that the City Council was trying to get away with something;
and questioned why they were fearful of a public referendum. If the public
chose not to spend that much, Mr. Simpson questioned what alternate options the
City Council had. Mr. Simpson noted the significant amount of discretionary
spending being proposed; and questioned how much actually needed to be done at
this time; and reiterated his question on why the $3 million rule had been bypassed
in the process.
With no one else coming forward to
speak at this time, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:45 pm;
and proceeded with the assistance of staff and other Councilmembers to respond
to those questioned raised during public testimony.
How the proposed amount of CIP
spending was identified
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Finance Director Miller advised that there had no outside consultant tapped for
a city-wide picture of CIP needs, but that staff had been tasked by department
to look at their capital and infrastructure needs, and based on its useful
life, industry experience and replacement schedule, a comprehensive CIP list
had been developed and later prioritized by a CIP Task Force made up of several
City Councilmembers and senior several staff members. On a parallel course,
Mr. Miller noted that outside consultants had been hired as part of the
proposed bond issue for the City’s aging fire stations, and advised that this information
from those multiple studies over the years had been factored into the CIP Task
Force investigations as available.
City Manager Malinen also noted
that, as part of the public vetting or review process, the City’s Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission had reviewed the proposed utility
rates coming out of the CIP Task Force process and recommended those rate
levels as well.
Mayor Roe noted that he and
Councilmember Johnson had participated in the CIP Task Force review. Mayor Roe
noted that before he came on the City Council, the City had instituted a five
(5) year CIP, and in the mid-2000’s that had been extended to a ten (10) year
period to provide a better long-term view. As part of the Task Force’s recommendations
received earlier in 2011, Mayor Roe noted that this projection had been
expanded to twenty (20) years, even though his preference had been to go even
longer to address the cyclic nature of CIP needs; however, he noted that the
twenty (20) year timeframe had served to open the City Council’s eyes to the
magnitude of the problems faced by the City and how this shortfall had
developed over the years with past City Council’s only looking at needs from a
five (5) year perspective and not providing a sufficiently clear long-term picture.
Alternative sources of revenue
for utilities and the base fee side of utility rates
Mayor Roe clarified the function of
the City’s utility structure that base rates were used for fixed costs and
infrastructure, and use fees addressed costs for water purchases from the St.
Paul Regional Water Authority and sewer treatment costs of the Metropolitan
Council.
Finance Director Miller advised
that the most viable alternative resource other than increasing base rates
would be increasing usage rates; however, he opined that this would make the
City more reliant on using water to fund its infrastructure. If the City wants
to encourage water conservation, Mr. Miller advised that the situation would develop
that those very conservation efforts would continually reduce the revenue
source to keep the system upgraded and not providing a stable revenue source,
thus shifting the burden and incenting people to use more water, specifically
contrary to a conservation-based structure and the philosophy of water
conservation.
Looking at the siphon issues of
residents even with some credit for usage cost; and does the CIP look at
repairs/replacements to address those
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Finance Director Miller responded that future CIP projects would address those
installation issues; however, he noted that those corrections may also require
residents to replace their individual lateral service lines that would add to
their homeowner costs.
Mayor Roe noted that another
resource for funding sewer and water infrastructure was the property tax levy.
Finance Director Miller concurred.
Mayor Roe noted that some of those
costs would be programmed into the next twenty (20) years’ CIP to address
siphon issues for the City’s portion of those lines.
When will cost show up to
taxpayers for bonding
Mayor Roe noted that there was a
bond issue proposed in 2013 and another in 2014; and current estimates were $3
per month for the fire station and $7 per month for the park and recreation
portion for an average single-family homeowner
Why not use reserves and why was
the City using the most regressive form of taxation
Mayor Roe noted that the
legislature dictated or mandated how a City could fund its operations; and
further noted that the City would need legislative approval to impose a local
option sales tax. Mayor Roe also noted that state law prohibited cities from
levying a local income tax, which some consider a more progressive form of
taxation than property or sales taxes.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Finance Director Miller briefly reviewed the purpose of reserves; one of which
was in the frequent review by bond rating agencies of the City’s credit rating
status. Mr. Miller noted that the City of Roseville currently ranked among the
top 5% nation-wide for its financial strength; and by keeping itself in that
position, it commanded lower interest rates when issuing bonds, based in large
part on the strength of its reserves. If the City was to draw down reserves
for operating costs, Mr. Miller advised that it would put itself in jeopardy;
as the reserves did double duty in the City’s day-to-day operations reliance on
using interest earnings from those investments to provide for current
operations in the General Fund. If the funds were spent, Mr. Miller noted that
there would be nothing left from which to earn any interest.
Mayor Roe further noted that there
were some funds (e.g. Water Fund) that had insufficient reserve levels to spend
on any CIP projects; and even if the Pavement Management Program (PMP) Fund was
spent down, projections were that it could be spent down within five (5) years
with money no longer in reserve for street projects, requiring a tax increase
simply deferred until that time.
$3 million expenditure policy and
voter referendum on higher expenditures
Mayor Roe advised that the City
Council had made the decision to proceed with the bond issue based on timing;
and noted that while the City Council did have a policy in place, it was not
strictly bound by legal requirements, but allowed the City Council some discretion
in certain cases, such as this. Mayor Roe noted that Roseville voters, in
turn, had the right to decide if the City Council made the correct decisions.
Mayor Roe noted that strict legal obligations of the City Council were legislated
through its ordinances, not policies; and as an example in its financial
policies, those policies suggested that the City maintain 50% of its annual
tax-supported budget amount in reserve, and for a number of years, those
reserves were well below that, and some only now at 35%. Mayor Roe noted that
this continually presented issues for the City Council on how to address annual
expenses.
Councilmember Johnson strongly
concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe.
As to the decision by the City
Council to consider a biennial budget approach for 2013/2014, Mayor Roe advised
that, other than 2013 bonding impacts, the City Manager-recommended budget
indicated a projected 2% increase in the budget and levy only to account for
inflationary type inputs; and further advised that changes in this year’s tax
levy to support capital funding needs would carry forward to future years, and
not include an additional annual amount in the future. Likewise, Mayor Roe
noted that the intent in raising utility fees was to provide an annual funding
amount and level to sustain the City’s CIP needs into the future.
Mayor Roe, for staff’s information,
suggested that the proposed resolution include language for preliminary
approval of the 2013 budget and associated levy.
Mayor Roe thanked residents in the
audience for their attendance and comment; and encouraged them to follow-up
with any additional input or questions to staff or the City Council.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
staff on the number of homes experiencing siphon problems as well as the grey
water issue; with Mayor Roe suggesting that item be followed-up outside the
meeting.
2.
Approve Agenda
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:02 pm and
reconvened at approximately 8:10 pm; with Mayor Roe noting that Councilmember
Johnson had excused himself from the meeting due to illness.
Mayor Roe noted that the City’s
legislative delegation would be rescheduled to a later date, therefore removing
Agenda Item 10.a entitled, “Legislative Upate.”
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak
at this time.
5.
Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced upcoming
holiday donations by December 13, 2011 being accepted at City Hall during
normal business hours by Roseville Fire Angels for school youth needs in the
community.
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 21, 2011 Meeting
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the minutes of the November 21, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Mayor Roe noted one
additional typographical error on page 29, line 16.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Minutes of November 28, 2011 Meeting
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the minutes of the November 28, 2011 meeting as submitted.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; 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
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$182,536.37
|
|
64724-64775
|
48,155.49
|
|
Total
|
$230,691.86
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those
applicants as follows:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of License
|
|
Ray Anderson & Sons Co., Inc.
930 Duluth Street; St. Paul, MN
|
Solid Waste Hauler
|
|
Pawn America Minnesota, LLC,
d/b/a Pawn America; 1715 Rice Street
|
Precious Metal Dealer
|
|
Victoria Moritko at Massage Envy of Roseville
Rosedale Commons, Suite #140
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Extend the Conditional Use for a T-Mobile Cell Tower on
Industrially Zoned Land at 2975 Long Lake Road
Councilmember Pust questioned
current policy regarding placement of these towers on private versus public
land and whether that should be taken into consideration with this requested
time extension.
Councilmember Willmus reviewed the
existing of a number of these towers on sites throughout the community.
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon advised that the property was private and zoned industrial.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of an extension of the validation timeline for the CONDITIONAL USE approval at
2985 Long Lake Road until 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2012; for installation of a
telecommunication monopole facility at the request of George C. Brandt, Inc.
and T-Mobile (PF10-0210: based on the comments and analysis presented in the
staff report dated December 5, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Confirm the Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment
Schedule
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, confirmation
of the Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Schedule as
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 5, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
12. General
Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
a. Legislative
Update
Deferred to future meeting.
b. Fire
Station Exterior Conceptual Drawing Review
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill noted that
this is a preliminary presentation and reintroduced Mr. Hutson.
Architect of
Record: Principal Architect Quinn Hutson, AIA, LLED AP
Mr. Hutson briefly presented the
exterior image concept perspectives.
Discussion included choices
proposed for exterior materials; screening of the tower portion of the building
from public view; and vertical elements suggested to break up the building’s geometry
and separation of functions.
Councilmember McGehee wanted the
City Council to understand her earlier comments on sustainability, and the
other options she suggested. While not directly a part of this presentation,
Councilmember McGehee reiterated her interest in a higher level of
sustainability; and asked that the City Council keep in mind what that
ultimately meant. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a very attractive
building that would tie in nicely with other buildings on the City Hall
campus. However, regarding the training portion of the building, Councilmember
McGehee opined that the building itself was bigger than needed; and made comparisons
to the City of St. Louis Park’s fire station, number of fire staff, and their
space consolidated to 35,000 square feet.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
this proposed 35,000 square feet included additional space to house East Metro
SWAT and other things that could fit into the City’s existing Police Department
facility and therefore reduce the building’s size by at least one bay area at
considerable savings to Roseville citizens. While the Council majority voted
for an $8 million bond expenditure, Councilmember McGehee questioned if that
full amount was needed, and while supportive of future growth projections, in
hearing public comment during the budget and levy hearing, she wanted to be
aware of the impacts to residents.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had once again reviewed the 2008 fire facility study that stated that the
City could operate with recommended apparatus and no additional apparatus was
needed at this time, and questioned if it would be needed in the future.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she supported a third party assessment to ensure that the proposed one-station
concept adequately covered residents city-wide once the 1720 standards were put
in place after 2008; opining that this could be done with much sophistication
and better than the City’s local GIS, but a company that has access to that
system, at an estimated cost of $3,000. Councilmember McGehee opined that the
City Council owed it to residents to make sure one station could cover the
entire city.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief
O’Neill advised of upcoming action items for the City Council at the December
12, 2011 meeting to keep the time schedule on track and within optimal timing
to avoid additional cost increases.
Mayor Roe clarified that those
items proposed for action were for the concept plan approval and for approval
of the Phase II architectural and construction management portions of the contract,
but not for issuing bids for the construction project itself
Chief O’Neill responded
affirmatively; noting that approval was to authorize moving into the design
document stage and prepare bid packages.
Mayor Roe noted that next week’s
meeting would allow time for additional City Council discussion.
Councilmember Pust asked that
those questions raised to-date by the public and/or individual Councilmembers
be addressed at that point as well, in addition to those questions raised by
Councilmember McGehee on square footage needs when compared with the fire
station in St. Louis Park; and the flexibility of the space design in using the
building for other uses as well as addressing the security of the fire
apparatus and equipment.
Mayor Roe noted that a number of
questions had been raised between public meetings as well, and asked that the
design team reiterate those questions in the public realm and provide responses.
In a preliminary way, Chief
O’Neill addressed the comparison of St. Louis Park in their operation as a
multiple-station department, and clarified the difference in full- and
part-time administrative and firefighter staffing.
Councilmember McGehee disputed the
comments of Chief O’Neill; and suggested additional clarification could be
found on their website; and questioned why the City Council seemed remiss to
spend an additional $3,000 to adequately ensure residents were sufficiently
covered with one station.
Mayor Roe advised that he was
basing his considerations on the expertise of the City’s firefighters and their
response times; and therefore following their recommendations on addressing the
safety of Roseville residents city-wide.
14.
Public Hearings
a.
Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Liquor License Renewals
Finance Director Chris Miller
summarized the recommendation by staff for renewal of eighty-one (81) of the
City’s various liquor licenses; noting that staff as making no recommendation
on the renewal of the license of Smashburger and Courtyard of Marriott, based
on previous City Council discussions to consider those establishments separately
based on compliance issues. Mr. Miller advised that Police Chief Mathwig and
Lt. Rosand were also present for this item.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that staff was not making a recommendation either
way on the license of Smashburger and Courtyard of Marriott, and remained
neutral and open to the City Council’s direction.
Mayor Roe opened the Public
Hearing at 8:39 p.m. for the purpose of considering renewal of annual liquor
licenses; and closed the Public Hearing at the same time, with no one appearing
for or against.
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider 2012 Liquor License Renewals
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of annual liquor license renewals for calendar year 2012, as listed and
detailed in the RCA dated December 5, 2011; with the exception of Smashburger
and Courtyard by Marriott and their applicable license renewal applications.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Pust advised that
she didn’t have the previously-submitted background information and questioned
if the item should be deferred until she had an opportunity to review that
information again, or if she could get a copy from Lt. Rosand tonight.
Mayor Roe clarified that the issue
was whether those two (2) establishments met training requirements as required
by the City for their managers and servers.
Lt. Rosand concurred with Mayor
Roe’s summary.
Councilmember Pust advised that
she needed to know the history of violations at each establishment and review a
copy of the City’s liquor ordinance and penalty tiers.
Mayor Roe advised that action had
been taken at a previous meeting regarding the mandatory penalty as recommended
by City ordinance; and that tonight’s decision was whether or not to renew
these licenses based on their failure to meet training
Councilmember Pust opined that
non-renewal still fit into the City Council’s statutory scheme unlike the
lifetime State of Minnesota ban.
City Manager Malinen reviewed
provisions of City ordinance versus State statute; and the City Council’s
intent when it reviewed this ordinance to find a solution between those
provisions.
Discussion ensued regarding the
level of suspension and length of time for such a suspension; timing for
reapplication in the future by the applicant(s); and guidance for them and
staff.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan noted
the state of City Code as it currently stands; with the City Council having the
option of not renewing, but silent on those results and the next step; and
suggested that the City could choose not to renew at this time and set a date
to reconsider renewal. City Attorney Gaughan noted the City Council’s recent
amendment to City Code to include renewal as part of the Hearing process and if
a licensee is suspended, they are put on notice of potential City Council
action and ten (10) days for their request for an independent hearing officer
to hear their case. Mr. Gaughan noted that renewal was one of those triggering
events.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
ordinance needed further amendment to address re-application; otherwise the
City didn’t have any recourse in an applicant reapplying or in a continuous
cycle of reapplication.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
the process to assess fines and fees was laid out, however, the state of the
ordinance provided that an applicant either be told to come back at a certain
date, or that consideration be given by the City Council in each individual
case based their subsequent correction of the problem. Councilmember McGehee
noted the specifics in each case, that of Smashburger and Marriott, and
suggested options in addressing each establishment.
Mayor Roe advised that the City’s
ordinance required training documentation be current and up-to-date at the time
an application was being considered; and questioned if those two (2) establishments
were within compliance at this time.
Lt. Rosand responded that in the
Smashburger situation, that one employee on the night of the compliance check
had not received adequate training; with information received from management
at a later date. By ordinance requirement, Lt. Rosand noted that each
establishment was required to keep its own records and upon request by the
City, make it available. Lt. Rosand advised that the Police Department had
asked for specific information on the one server, while Councilmember Johnson
had requested all training records, which had been provided to the City Council
via City Manager Malinen several days after that request.
Lt. Rosand advised that it
appeared that Smashburger training records were now current; and that Marriott
server training records were also now current.
Further discussion ensued
regarding training record documentation and how/when the Police Department
verified training (at the time of violation by the establishment) and verification
of training by the Department upon failure.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
TABLING this item until the December 12, 2011 meeting in order to receive
additional information from staff as indicated.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; and
Roe.
Nays: Pust.
Motion carried.
Councilmember Pust asked that the
City Attorney also provide at that meeting any recommendations for ordinance
amendment related to re-application of non-renewal periods of time.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
provisions were already included in code if the City Council chose not to renew
or denial and an applicable process based on the applicant’s background.
Councilmember Pust questioned the
fairness of the current process for those denied renewal.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust on the status of training documentation by license holders, Chief Mathwig advised
that, with eighty-three (83) licenses, the Department didn’t have sufficient
staff to investigate each establishment; but upon compliance failure, the
department could then demand those training records.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
process couldn’t be deemed arbitrary or capricious and needed consideration
across the board.
Mayor Roe suggested the need to
consider options of the up-to 60-day suspension and additional fine provisions
in the ordinance during those discussions.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
previous action taken by the City Council on the four (4) establishments
failing the most recent compliance check was related to sale of alcohol to a minor;
with this action currently under consideration a separate issue based on the
failure of two (2) of those establishments in not having evidence of adequate
training at the time of that original violation.
b.
Consider a Resolution Adopting the 2012 Budget and Tax Levy
Mayor Roe sought any discussion
points of individual Councilmembers prior to the December 12, 2011 meeting;
that would require additional investigation prior to that date, and at which
Councilmember Johnson could also be available to provide his input.
Councilmember Willmus sought
clarification from Finance Director Miller on 2012 funding allocations for the
Reception Desk Personnel Service at $13,000.
Finance Director Miller advised
that this was a result of a refined time spent profile and adjusting hours
allocated from finance tasks to receptionist responsibilities, with no
additional funding or hours.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
in the future all documents include page numbers.
Mayor Roe noted that going
forward, if time spent didn’t change again, it should be easier for tracking
those personnel items more closely.
Finance Director Miller concurred,
provided tasks and functions remained static.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she concurred with most of the residents speaking tonight; and suggested that,
while she understands revenue fluctuations, a better tiered system for the
water utility could be done. Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was any
interest in pursuing a different balance in residential and commercial rates;
noting that Finance Director Miller projects a 35% increase in single-family
residential rates; a 39% increase for seniors and disabled residents; and only
a 21% increase on commercial properties.
Mayor Roe suggested that this
discussion wait for the applicable agenda item.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he would have comments on utility rates as well at that time.
City Manager Malinen directed
Council discussion to those points still up for discussion as detailed on page
1, lines 27 – 34 of the staff report dated December 5, 2011; as the City
Council considered whether to include additional items in budget priorities, or
use those funds to further reduce the levy.
Councilmember Willmus advised, as
he’d previously noted, his support for the General Fund’s portion of the Asset
Management Software ($30,000) and allocation for higher fuel costs ($15,000).
Regarding additional items, Councilmember Willmus asked that City Manager
Malinen provide more background information on reallocation of staff resources
for web-based or internet services.
City Manager Malinen advised that
those resources were intended for reallocation from Elections, now contracted
out to Ramsey County; and would increase access for the public to City documents.
Discussion ensued on staffing
comparisons for Budgeted FTE provided as a bench handout, attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Mayor Roe asked that City Manager
Malinen respond to Councilmember Willmus request for FTE staffing in the
Communications Division back at 2010 levels.
Mayor Roe reiterated his previous
support for use of reserves for the one-time General Fund share of the Asset
Management Software at $30,000; and also the $30,000 for the employee
compensation and comparison study as a one-time expense from reserves rather
than increasing the base levy going forward. Regarding re-establishment of the
Park Improvement Program (PIP) at $145,000 to fund to current levels, Mayor Roe
advised that he was not necessarily supportive of that. Mayor Roe advised that
he had some interest in having a discussion in Cost of Living Adjustments
(COLA) for all employees at $220,000, he had not made a firm decision at this
time.
City Manager Malinen clarified
with Public Works Director Duane Schwartz that the updated cost of the General
Fund’s portion of the Asset Management Software had been reduced from $30,000
to $15,000.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
by not funding the list of potential items it didn’t represent “found” money, “
but could be used to keep taxes lower and not raising the tax levy.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he was amenable to Mayor Roe’s suggestion to use reserve funds for those two
identified one-time expenditures.
Councilmember McGehee reviewed the
numerous impacts to taxpayers in 2012, and the suggestions from public
testimony for alternative revenue options, and reiterated her past comments on
the need for shared-service bids for public safety that could create additional
revenue for other projects. Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration that
the City Council was not looking at other alternatives, but only discussion
staff; and opined that the City Council needed to think about how they treated
staff.
Mayor Roe concurred that, indeed,
the City Council should consider how it treated staff.
If Councilmember McGehee was
interested in pursuing public safety bids, Mayor Roe suggested that she present
motion to move forward accordingly.
Councilmember Willmus sought
clarification from Mayor Roe on potential savings on personnel related to health
insurance ($100,000) and the wellness program savings of ($18,000).
Mayor Roe responded that, the City
Manager-recommended budget set preliminarily not-to-exceed 4%, could be further
reduced to 1.8% with that $118,000 reduction; and with further reductions as
previously discussed could be further reduced to less than 1%.
Mayor Roe responded that, the City
Manager-recommended budget produced a levy increase of 1.8%. With that
$118,000 health care budget cost reduction, and adding none of the proposed
increases in spending on page 1 of the RCA, the levy increase could be further
reduced to less than 1%.
Mayor Roe respectfully disagreed
with Councilmember McGehee’s perspective, opining that the City Council’s
proposal included putting aside funding at $800,000 effective in 2012 as part
of the CIP to refund and refurbish the CIP, including ongoing capital maintenance
costs. With that schedule intact, Mayor Roe advised that at the end of that
twenty (20) year projection, the City should be in a position to adequately
fund those needs on an ongoing basis.
Councilmember McGehee noted the
point of the parks bond issue and elimination of the PIP was for a proposal to
build six (6) new buildings, that would need staff, heating or user, and that
those costs did not include maintenance in their operating budget.
Mayor Roe opined that it was fair
to say that it was not terribly likely that those buildings would be completed
before the 2013 budget; and that would be an appropriate time to take those
things into account. Mayor Roe noted that the CIP was intended to address
those additional facilities; with the philosophy that an amount be set aside
for those functions in the near future and handled in the park fund bonding
program.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the City Council majority passed the bonds and propped building new facilities;
and questioned why they couldn’t see the whole picture now rather than after
the money was spent and the building was up creating additional costs.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City Council’s future philosophy
should address ongoing maintenance costs for any new buildings.
Mayor Roe suggested that a fair request to City staff, as it related to the
2013 budget, was to make any adjustments to specifically maintain items coming
on line and going forward.
c.
Consider a Resolution Adopting the 2012 HRA Levy
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10952 (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution
Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), in and for the City
of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County
Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2012;” in the amount of $353,500, at a levy rate
of 0% from 2010 and 2011.
Councilmember McGehee noted $239,000
on hand and $145,000 in reserves in the HRA; and recognized that while they
were requesting a 0% levy increase, it was still an additional $353,500 that
citizens had to spend in a year when they’re already struggling and opined that
it could be put somewhere else while the HRA could continue to do its programs.
Councilmember McGehee advised that the HRA had accumulated significant funds
from loans in the community, which had not been ranked high in the citizen
survey. Councilmember McGehee noted that the abatement program was popular,
but opined funds other than those restricted could be used for other programs
as well.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
assets held by the HRA from loans that their resulting from CBDG and Ramsey
County grant funds, not from taxes collected; and their purpose to allow
financial assistance to get people into first homes or refurbish their homes to
remain in Roseville. Councilmember Pust noted that those funds were revolving;
and had been run by the City until the inception of the HRA in the past.
Councilmember Pust noted that the HRA continued to diligently work on
supporting the community’s housing stock and affordable housing in the
community; in addition to enhancing former nuisance properties in cooperation
with the City Police Department; as well as other cooperative ventures on
multi-family properties to ensure safe and quality housing in Roseville.
Councilmember Pust opined that the HRA should be commended for keeping their
tax levy request at 0% for several years running, while still maintaining
program levels.
Mayor Roe noted that the HRA
budget funds originally allocated in 2011 for multi-family housing initiatives
had not been expended and carried forward in the 2012 budget as intended.
Councilmember Pust concurred;
noting that ongoing HRA discussions and consideration for recommendation to the
City Council included rental licensures and inspections; updating the five (5)
year strategic plan; and more focus on multi-family housing as the HRA
determines its priorities.
Councilmember McGehee clarified
that she was not saying that the HRA was not doing good work, but simply
stating that they could get by for a year. Councilmember McGehee expressed her
support for the Green Book on line and the Living Smarter campaign; however,
she expressed her disappointment that the City Council didn’t support moving
forward with a green program for the fire station.
Mayor Roe clarified that the City
Council did not say they were not supporting a green program for the fire
station; simply stating that they were not seeking LEED certification at the
additional costs associated.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Consider a Resolution Establishing the 2012 Utility Rates
Councilmember Pust opined that
this should be tabled for Councilmember Johnson to be available for
participation.
Mayor Roe concurred, and asked if
individual Councilmembers had any additional questions of staff in preparation
for that meeting. Mayor Roe suggested that the information include review of a
typical rate payer if the program was implemented over a two (2) year program
versus a one (1) year implementation: both from a tax and utility perspective,
using the same information already available.
Finance Director Miller noted that
the impact on base rates would simply be cut in half.
Mayor Roe asked that the tax and
utility side be based on preliminary 2012 and 2013 budget years and that the
bond issue impact also be factored in.
Councilmember McGehee moved that
staff provide information on shared services for public safety services.
Mayor Roe declared the motion
failed due to lack of a second.
Councilmember McGehee moved
converting the $3 million expenditure policy to an ordinance; and converting
the policy for reserve funds at a 35-45% level to ordinance rather than policy.
Mayor Roe declared the motion
failed due to lack of a second.
16.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
17.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City
Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
Discussion
included current City vacancies, not new positions, and Information Technology
(IT) staffing costs adjusted among Joint Powers Agreements (JPA’s) for those
entities involved; timing for next week’s meeting start to facilitate the
continued Closed Executive Session; January 9, 2012 organizational meeting and
potential rescheduling of the legislative delegation originally scheduled to
appear tonight; and early 2012 timing of the City Council’s work plan to
facilitate sufficient time to work on those priorities, beyond the 2013 budget.
18.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember McGehee had
previously requested a future discussion on converting the City Council’s
financial policies into ordinances.
19.
Adjourn
Pust moved, Willmus
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:35 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.