City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

December 12, 2011

 

1.         Roll Call                                                                  

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for December: Johnson; Willmus; McGehee; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.

 

2.            Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe advised that, prior to going into Closed Executive Session, tonight’s agenda  needed to be amended to include an additional item to discuss pending litigation related to the issuance of $10,000,000 in General Obligations Bonds by the City.

 

Mayor Roe requested removal of Consent Item 7.l entitled, “Adopt Resolution Establishing a Procedure for Determining Fair Market Value of Property for Cash Payment in Lieu of Park Dedication.”

 

Mayor Roe further advised that an action item will occur regarding the City Manager evaluation at the open City Council meeting on January 9, 2012; and therefore would be removed from tonight’s agenda.

 

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

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Closed Executive Session (continued from December 5, 2011)

 

City Manager Evaluation

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council is permitted by State Statutes Section 13d.05 Subd. 3a to hold a closed session for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the City Manager, which had been begun at the December 5, 2011, meeting, and continued until tonight’s meeting.  Mayor Roe further noted that the session must be open if requested by the City Manager, and that the City Manager had not requested the session to be open.  City Manager Malinen concurred.

 

Willmus moved, Johnson Seconded, to close the meeting for the purpose of continuing the evaluation of the performance of the City Manager, as permitted by State Statute.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Recess

 

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting to Closed Executive Session at approximately 5:10 pm.  Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon and City Manager Malinen participated with the City Council in the Closed Executive Session.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, to adjourn the Closed Executive Session and reconvene in open session.

 

 Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe reconvened the City Council at approximately 6:05 pm in regular session.

 

 

Discuss Litigation Related to 2011 Bond Sale

 

Mayor Roe recognized Finance Director Chris Miller to address today’s $10,000,000 General Obligation Bond Sale, Series 2011A; and reiterated that following the presentation, the City Council would return to Closed Executive Session to discuss litigation strategies related to this item, if later action under Agenda Item 12.a is successful.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller noted that by previous City Council action, staff and the City’s bond counsel had been authorized to issue $10,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds for the purpose of financing construction of a new fire station, and as a portion of Phase I of park and recreation improvements.  Mr. Miller noted the attendance of Ms. Terri Eaton of Springsted, the City’s Financial Consultant to review the results of the sale; as well as Ms. Mary Ippel, the City’s Bond Counsel to review legal portions of the sale and implications for the City Council to consider moving forward.

 

Mr. Miller noted distribution of two (2) bench handouts: one consisting of the actual tabulation of bid results from today’s bond sale; and the other a revised resolution outlining the award of sale; with one (1) additional paragraph added at the bottom of page 6 of the resolution (second paragraph, Section B); both attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Ms. Eaton advised that the Bond Issue had received thirty (30) bidders, based in part on the City’s very favorable AAA Bond Rating by Moody’s, and due to the size of the issue and qualification of the bonds being very appealing to the market, as well as the reputation of the City of Roseville’s financial management.  Ms. Eaton advised that the low bidder was FTN Financial Capital Markets at a rate of 2.1588%, well below the estimated 2.88% rating estimated several months ago by bond agencies based on the market.  Ms. Eaton advised that this reduced interest rate would result in a savings of approximately $710,000 less in interest costs that those estimated one month ago.

 

Ms. Eaton noted that, as the bonds were being opened earlier today, a citizen group had appealed previous court action; and advised that when an underwriter (e.g. FTN) purchased the bonds, they in turn wanted to resell them immediately, and such a situation provided them the right to withdraw their bid.  In the interest of locking in the 2.15888% interest rate and the timing for bank qualified bonds based on thirty (30) basis points and at such low rates, Ms. Eaton advised that throughout the day, City of Roseville and Springsted staff had reached consensus that there was a strong incentive to see what could be done to salvage the Bond Sale, recognizing the provision that would allow the bonds to be callable, which is typically not preferred, but has been known to occur but at a higher interest rate.  Ms. Eaton noted that shorter terms would in turn cost more basis points, and depending on the significance of this cloud on the Bond Sale, and with ongoing negotiations with FTN throughout the day, negotiations had resulted in FTN agreeing to an increase of 28 basis points, raising the interest rate from 2.1588% to 2.43%.  In exchange for that additional interest cost estimated at $263,000 in additional costs between the two (2) interest rates, Ms. Eaton advised that this rate remained well below original estimates.  Ms. Eaton advised that the revised resolution provided as a bench handout as referenced earlier by Mr. Miller included that additional information for a signed agreement with the underwriter to lock in that rate.

 

Mayor Roe advised that the next discussion was the question of the litigation, and the next City Council action would be to move to Closed Executive Session to discuss strategy.

 

Mr. Miller advised that City Attorney Gaughan would provide a summary of the Closed Session after the City Council returned to open session.

 

Mayor Roe noted that Bond Counsel and Springsted representatives may also need to reiterate their presentation as Agenda Item. 12.a was considered for City Council action.

 

As outlined by City Attorney Gaughan, Pust moved, Johnson seconded, moving to Closed Executive Session at 6:24 p.m. to discuss matters of client/attorney privilege as provided for under Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 13.D.05 to discuss strategy related to litigation issues.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

Adjourn

Mayor Roe adjourned to Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:24 pm.  City Bond Counsel Mary Ippel, City Attorney Gaughan, Finance Director Miller, and City Manager Malinen participated with the City Council in the Closed Executive Session.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to adjourn the Closed Executive Session and reconvene in open session.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe recessed Closed Session at 7:00 pm; and reconvened in open session at approximately 7:03 pm.

 

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe recognized Troop Leaders and Scouts in tonight’s audience from Roseville Lutheran Church, Troop No. 297, who are in the process of earning their citizenship and community merit badges.

 

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

 

6.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications

Mayor Roe noted his attendance earlier today at the Regional Council of Mayors and their extensive discussion as to how those regional mayors could enhance regional redevelopment opportunities for jobs and economic development for the region as a whole.  Mayor Roe noted that several items discussed included regional sales tax pools and recalculation efforts for fiscal disparities.  Mayor Roe noted that this Council is sponsored by the Urban Land Institute, who had recently provided a seminar on the new normal in land  use issues, and advised that he had complimented them at the Regional Council of Mayors on the quality and benefits of that seminar.

           

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 December 5, 2011  Meeting         

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the December 5, 2011 meeting as submitted.

 

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	$628,610.32
64776-64807	299,490.04
Total	$928,100.36

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; 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
Highland Sanitation 1811 Century Avenue; Newport, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Highland Sanitation & Recycling, Inc. 1811 Century Avenue; Newport, MN	Recycling Hauler
Wade Rio Wutschke at Massage Envy Roseville 2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120	Massage Therapist
Jacqueline Slack at Massage Envy Roseville 2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120	Massage Therapist
Rebecca Hill at Massage Envy Roseville 2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120	Massage Therapist

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

                                                                                                           

c.            Approve the 2012 Renewal of Electrical Inspection Service Agreement with Tokle Inspections

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2012 Service Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Tokle Inspections, Inc.; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement, after review by the City Attorney.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

d.            Designate 2012 Assistant Weed Inspector

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of the City of Roseville Community Development Department Codes Coordinator as the duly authorized and designated Assistant Weed Inspector for Calendar Year 2012, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 18.80.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

e.            Award Contract for Engineering Services for Replacement of Josephine Lift Station

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, award of engineering services to Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC for engineering services for reconstruction of the Josephine Sanitary Sewer Lift Station, in an amount not to exceed $22,160.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

f.             Adopt Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for Rice Street Reconstruction Project

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10953 entitled, “Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for Rice Street Reconstruction Project.”

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

g.            Adopt Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for County Road B-2 Reconstruction Project

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10954 entitled, “Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for County Road B-2 Reconstruction Project.”

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

h.            Approve a New Position with the Information Technology Division

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the creation of a new Desktop Support Specialist Position with the Information Technology Division.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

i.             Approve Release of Property from Applewood Pointe Planned Unit Development

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a release, releasing Outlot A for Planned Unit Development #1375, Applewood Pointe.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

j.             Receive Third Quarter Financial Report

A revised copy of the 2011 Third Quarter Financial Report was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, receipt of the Third Quarter Financial Report from staff as revised.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

k.            Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment of $57,906.38, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the Watermain Replacement Project – Churchill Street and Oxford Street

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10955 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Contract Acceptance Watermain Replacement Project – Churchill Street and Oxford Street;” accepting work completed, starting the one-year warranty, and authorizing final payment of $57,906.38.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

l.             Adopt Resolution Establishing a Procedure for Determining Fair Market Value of Property for Cash Payment in Lieu of Park Dedication

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 12, 2011.

Mayor Roe questioned if this item should be memorialized as an ordinance versus a resolution; based on the rationale that it would be one less place for people to research.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that tonight’s requested action would remain appropriate; and if at a later date it was determined to be more effective as an ordinance, staff could return to the City Council for formal action to revise it at that time.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if the Parks and Recreation Commission had weighed in on this issue yet.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that this process had been past practice, and that staff was simply seeking to formalize memorialize that process through this action.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was any interest in revising the current percentage.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that this was not his intent, nor did he have any interest in doing so, and if that were to be a consideration it should first be vetted through the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted that staff had referenced this item as a footnote for park dedication fees in the annual fee schedule; and further noted that the resolution (line 40) referenced it in City Code, Chapter 314.051.  Mayor Roe, with City Manager Malinen’s concurrence, suggested that Attachment D in the packet also reference City Code, Chapter 314.051.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10956 (Attachment B) entitled, “A Resolution Establishing a Procedure for Determining Fair Market Value of Property for Cash Payment in Lieu of Park Dedication;”

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

12.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

13.         Presentations

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

a.            Consider a Resolution Awarding the Sale of the City’s 2011 Bonds

Finance Director Chris Miller noted distribution of two (2) bench handouts: one consisting of the actual tabulation of bid results from today’s bond sale; and the other a revised resolution outlining the award of sale; with one (1) additional paragraph added at the bottom of page 6 of the resolution (second paragraph, Section B); both attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller noted that by previous City Council action, staff and the City’s bond counsel had been authorized to issue $10,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds for the purpose of financing construction of a new fire station, and as a portion of Phase I of park and recreation improvements. 

 

Ms. Terri Eaton of Springsted, the City’s Financial Consultant reviewed the results of the sale; and Ms. Mary Ippel, the City’s Bond Counsel, was present in the audience to address any questions of the City Council related to legal portions of the sale and implications for the City Council to consider moving forward. 

 

Ms. Eaton advised that the Bond Issue had received thirty (30) bidders, based in part on the City’s very favorable AAA Bond Rating by Moody’s, and due to the size of the issue and qualification of the bonds being very appealing to the market, as well as the reputation of the City of Roseville’s financial management.  Ms. Eaton advised that the low bidder was FTN Financial Capital Markets at a rate of 2.1588%, well below the estimated 2.88% rating estimated several months ago by bond agencies based on the market.  Ms. Eaton advised that this reduced interest rate would result in a savings of approximately $710,000 less in interest costs that those estimated one month ago.

 

Ms. Eaton noted that, as the bonds were being opened earlier today, a citizen group had appealed previous court action related to the Bond Issue.  Ms. Eaton advised that when an underwriter (e.g. FTN) purchased the bonds, they in turn wanted to resell them immediately, and such a situation provided them the right to withdraw their bid.  In the interest of locking in the 2.15888% interest rate and the timing for bank qualified bonds based on thirty (30) basis points and at such low rates, Ms. Eaton advised that throughout the day, City of Roseville and Springsted staff had reached consensus that there was a strong incentive to see what could be done to salvage the Bond Sale, recognizing the provision that would allow the bonds to be callable, which is typically not preferred, but has been known to occur but at a higher interest rate.  Ms. Eaton noted that shorter terms would in turn cost more basis points, and depending on the significance of this cloud on the Bond Sale, and with ongoing negotiations with FTN throughout the day, negotiations had resulted in FTN agreeing to an increase of 28 basis points, raising the interest rate from 2.1588% to 2.43%.  In exchange for that additional interest cost estimated at $263,000 in additional costs between the two (2) interest rates, Ms. Eaton advised that this rate still remained well below original estimates. 

 

Ms. Eaton advised that the revised resolution provided as a bench handout as referenced earlier by Mr. Miller included that additional information for a signed agreement with the underwriter to lock in that rate.  Recommendations of Ms. Eaton and the City’s Bond Counsel were for two (2) separate actions tonight: 1) A Motion to reject all bids offered competitively; and 2) Approval of the revised resolution awarding FTN Financial Capital Markets the bid at the negotiated interest rate.

 

Ms. Eaton commended the City Council and their staff on maintaining the City’s favorable debt profile, a credit to them all.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Eaton responded to how the bond issue was structured and interest rates locked in and structured for early maturity, with interest rates at their lowest at the initial issue, and moving higher as it reaches maturity, defined as “couponing” in the financial market, and providing a blended, true interest rate, in this case 2.43%.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Eaton further reviewed call dates specific to each bond issue, based on their marketing in this case with an extraordinary call date in 2022 without penalty due to the pending litigation issue, but the bonds not actually maturing until 2028.  However, Ms. Eaton noted that the City retained the right to refinance the bonds at any time, and due to the extraordinary call provision of this issue, they would initially be called at the one year mark.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, rejection of all competitive bids received.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10957 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $10,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof;” as amended and as negotiated 2.43% - added interest costs – 12% interest cost increase (28 basis points); to award the negotiated bid.

 

Councilmember Pust stated that she was in complete support of this action taken by the City Council to address this problem with the bond issue created by a group of Roseville citizens at an additional cost to Roseville taxpayers in an amount in excess of $263,000, and at a 12% increase in the initial interest rate.  Councilmember Pust assured residents that the City Council would pursue legal action to make the City whole; and commended legal counsel in bringing this option to the City Council to reduce the risk and harm to the City.  However, Councilmember Pust reiterated her opposition to the issuance of bonds, as she has repeatedly stated throughout this process, and would vote against their issue, while reiterating that she was sully supportive of the work done by the City’s staff and consultants related to this bond issue.

 

Councilmember McGehee seconded those comments of Councilmember Pust; and advised that she would also be voting against issuance of the bonds; and was fully supportive of those residents wishing to have a voter referendum.  While this is an excellent interest rate, Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment that the “City Council didn’t trust residents enough to have a referendum in November to avoid this without a call.”

 

Mayor Roe expressed his disappointment that all residents of Roseville didn’t trust the City Council to make good decisions on the bond sale, to their advantage and benefit, without creating additional interest and legal costs, depending on whether or not their appeal is successful.  Mayor Roe stated that the City Council was elected to take action, and the majority decision to move forward without a voter referendum was not based on any lack of trust in residents; but simply based on the benefit available to the community, and an effort to save everyone money.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred 100% with those comments of Mayor Roe.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that it was not about trusting members of the City Council; and for those Boy Scouts in the audience, opined that it was about trusting democracy.  While there are five people on the City Council, Councilmember Pust noted that a majority of three passed the motion to issue the bonds; and noted that this was how democracy worked with majority rule.  However, Councilmember Pust noted that a small group of citizens in Roseville decided to throw a wrench into the system and not trust that democracy, in addition to costing residents an additional $300,000 in additional taxes.  Councilmember Pust opined that the issue was simply whether or not people believed in the foundations of democracy on which the City of Roseville was based.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded a motion to call the question.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

Roll Call

(Original Motion by Johnson)

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.      

 

b.            Consider a Resolution for the Final Tax Levy Budget, Debt Levy

Finance Director Miller was available for consultation during these final deliberations of the City Council on the 2012 Budget and Levy.

 

Mayor Roe confirmed with Mr. Miller that the draft resolutions included in tonight’s agenda packet were based on the preliminary levy set in September, at a 4% not-to-exceed levy.  Mr. Miller further confirmed, with one exception, that the budget amounts were based on those preliminary numbers as well, other than for the 2013 budget amended to account for additional costs related to some of the park improvements scheduled to come on line in 2012 (e.g. shelters with  the parks programming in Phase I of the Master Plan Implementation), at approximately $30,000 in additional spending.

 

Mayor Roe noted that Attachment I in the packet provided additional detail on those costs coming on line.  Mayor Roe further noted that the preliminary levy and budget at 4% did not include the $118,000 in additional savings from potential employee health care costs initially included in the City Manager-recommended budget; and asked Mr. Miller what a proposed levy increase would be with that further reduction, and prior to any additional deliberations tonight.

 

Mr. Miller advised that this would represent an approximate $1% levy increase, reduced from the 1.8% levy amount proposed in the budget at $14,847,544.

 

Mayor Roe confirmed with Mr. Miller that this reduction in the 2012 levy would be consistent on the 2012 budget; and with the $118,000 in additional reductions, the budget became $41,295,004; with the tax-supported portion dropping by $118,000 as well, to become $19,287,810.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that the 2013 budget would also be reduced accordingly.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that, without any further City Council action, the proposed tax levy detailed in Attachment A of the agenda packet would provide for a tax levy of $14,847,544, with the debt service would remain the same.  In Resolution C, Mayor Roe noted that the entire City budget proposed for 2012 – both tax and fee supported – would be reduced from $41,413,004 to $41,295,004.  However, Mayor Roe noted the need for Council consideration of those items detailed on pages 1 and 2 of the RCA dated December 12, 2011 (lines 27 – 39); and suggested that each item be considered under individual motions.

 

In general, Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the Park Improvement Program (PIP) being incorporated into the CIP as an initial discussion point, but not totally supportive at this time; expressed her uncertainty for COLA;  didn’t see the value in $30,000 to conduct an employee compensation and comparison study; and needed additional information regarding the Asset Management Software from the marketplace.  Councilmember Pust opined that money could be found in existing funds for the software costs.  Councilmember Pust noted, from previous discussions and original lists of potential budget cuts, the possibility that anticipated additional fuel costs could be lower and opined that they could be addressed by lowering the proposed contingency fund to avoid additional levy increases. 

 

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the $9,500 membership to Metro Cities as a benefit to the City since they were the City’s only ears/eyes to the Metropolitan Council, on which the City currently didn’t have good representation other than through other government entities.  While a lot of groups represented city interests at the state capitol, some redundantly, Councilmember Pust noted that legislators needed to do a better job of representing issues of cities, such as water purification, public transportation and environmental quality controls – all of which this group did.

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, $9,500 additional to budget and levy for membership in Metro Cities.

 

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of membership, but not from tax dollars.

 

Willmus offered a friendly amendment to not increase the tax levy with this additional expense, but only to increase the budget by that amount; with the makers of the motion in concurrence.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he was supportive of the original motion, but would not support it as amended.  Mayor Roe noted his support of ongoing expenses as part of the levy, but not using reserves for those ongoing expenses.

 

City Manager Malinen clarified that $9,500 is the annual membership fee; however, the group has offered to discount that membership by half for the first year; while staff included the full amount for those years going forward as an ongoing expense if supported by the City Council.

 

Willmus – supportive of membership; not using tax dollars

 

Councilmember Pust suggested doing half this year and half next year.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the expense going forward as long as it was part of the levy, but not if only budgeted this year from reserves.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in wholehearted support of membership and it coming out of tax dollars. 

 

In general, Councilmember Johnson supported the purchase of asset management software as a crucial tool to support the City’s CIP efforts going forward; and since it was a one-time purchase it should come from the General Fund in support of the CIP.  Councilmember Johnson advised that the software could be addressed in 2012, and didn’t need to be acted upon tonight.  Since this was a one-time purchase and not repetitive, Councilmember Johnson opined that it didn’t need to be included in the proposed tax levy.

 

$9,500 for a membership in Metro Cities

The motion was amended by its makers as follows:

 

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, to authorize an increase to the 2012 budget by $4,750, thereby increasing the levy and budget accordingly; and authorizing an increase to the 2013 budget  and levy by $9,500, to facilitate membership fees in Metro Cities (formerly the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities).

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

$30,000 for General Fund’s portion for Asset Management Software

City Manager Malinen clarified with Public Works Director Dwayne Schwartz that the actual cost for the General Fund’s portion would be approximately $15,000.

 

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of asset management software in the amount of $15,000 be added to the 2012 budget, but not the 2012 levy, as a one-time General Fund expenditure.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee expressed her willingness to discuss the source of funds, whether from the tax levy or reserves.

 

Mayor Roe noted that funding was available in the proposed CIP program for CIP purposes, including the asset management software tool.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

$220,000 to provide for cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) for all employees

McGehee moved, Roe seconded, approval of increasing the 2012 budget to provide COLA for City employees in the amount of $220,000.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that non-represented employees received 0% COLA in 2010, and 1% in 2011; with those having union contracts receiving different amounts.

 

As discussion ensued regarding the impacts to the proposed levy increase, Councilmember Johnson expressed his strong concern that, in lieu of upcoming discussions related to other increases proposed for 2012, this portion of additional costs remain around 1%.  Therefore, Councilmember Johnson stated that he was not going to support COLA or any further increase in the proposed 2012 levy that would further increase the levy amount.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that his target was also to not exceed a 1% levy increase; and further stated that he was not supportive of increased through addition of COLA or the PIP.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that he still wanted to further discuss the PIP.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that, of the things this City Council has chosen to burden its citizens with at this time, the levy was the least of their worries, given the significant increase proposed in utility rates.  Councilmember McGehee proceeded to breakdown those proposed costs as stated at previous meetings; and reiterated her disappointment in not going to the public with these increases other than with the public hearing held at the December 5, 2011 meeting. Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t feel bad about giving staff a 2% COLA this year, opining that they hadn’t been very well treated since their health care achievements and additional contributions to the City’s wellness program had been taken away.

 

Councilmember Johnson clarified that the parks and fire station bond issue was not taking anything out of taxpayer pockets in 2012; and asked that individual Councilmembers avoid such misrepresentations to the public.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of COLA; however, not necessarily at 2%; however, he recognized that he may be in a Council minority with that support.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee and Roe.

Nays: Johnson and Willmus.

Abstentions: Pust.

Motion failed.

 

$145,000 to re-establish funding for the Park Improvement Program (PIP) to current levels

Councilmember Johnson noted that, while this was on this year’s priority list, due to the fire station and parks improvement plan, there was no way to achieve a tangible look at the financial components as part of the CIP recommended by the CIP Task Force.  Councilmember Johnson advised that it was his priority in 2012 to address that portion of the CIP recommendations.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he would look to the Parks and Recreation staff and Commission to revisit the PIP Program and provide the City Council with the original intent of the program, whether for maintenance of CIP needs; and echoed Councilmember Johnson’s comments.

 

Mayor Roe, as a City Councilmember on the CIP Task Force, opined that the park project list  should be built into the CIP for part of their consideration going forward.

 

COLA

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, an increase in COLA for employees at 1% ($110,000) on the tax supported side.

 

Councilmember Pust stated that if the overall levy was kept at a 2% increase, this was a justifiable increase and consistent with past levy increases, and recognized the additional health care and fuel costs the City incurred.  Councilmember Pust noted that the City’s employees are the reason the City continued to thrive, and further opined that they were worth this proposed increase.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of that level of COLA increase.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred, opining that it was important to show the employees some level of additional appreciation.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.   

Abstentions: Willmus

Motion carried.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that, on the non-tax-supported side, this action would create an additional $25,000.

 

Mayor Roe noted, on the last page of Attachment E (page 37 of the packet), the $88,201 set aside for contingency; and  during his tenure, there had not previously been an amount included for contingency, and asked staff’s rationale for including it this year.

 

Councilmember Pust noted another chart distributed in the past by City Manager Malinen showing a contingency amount of only $50,000; and questioned which was accurate.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that the difference was before and after the market value homestead credit (MVHC) split between the CIP and tax levy.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, when the City Council took action to reset the levy to 1%, they essentially wiped out any contingency.

 

$15,000 to accommodate higher than expected fuel prices

No action.

 

$30,000 to conduct an employee compensation and comparison study

No action.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:17 p.m.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller was prepared to provide revised numbers.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned proposed 2013 budget numbers, with Mr. Miller advising that they represented inflationary and other assumptions currently available for those projections; and confirmed that those numbers would be revisited before 2013.

 

Councilmember Johnson stated that, while the currently proposed 2013 budget indicated a 2% increase in the draft resolution, he was certainly not accepting that this was an accurate representation at this time, but noted that it was the point of a biennial budget to more accurately forecast future expenditures and revenue.

 

Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s comments; opining that it was simply a tentative plan for planning purposes; and that staff would return to the City Council in mid-2012 for a course correction, clarifying that the City Council still needed to adopt a 2013 levy and budget in 2012.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it would take into account additional unknowns not currently on the radar.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen advised that the intent of the 2013 projections is for the City Council and staff to refine the 2013 budget in July or August of 2012 based on the current economy and cost projections.  However, Mr. Malinen noted the significant amount of time saved for staff in adopting a biennial budget versus an annual budget.

 

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the not-to-exceed amount for 2013 based on those assumptions.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that he was not ready to give that discretion at this time.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council could pass a resolution in 2011 to set a not-to-exceed budget for 2013; and noted that until the resolution was actually recorded with the Ramsey County Auditor, the City Council was open to take any action between now and then that it felt prudent.

 

Finance Director Miller reiterated that the City Council would still be compelled to adopt a not-to-exceed levy and budget in September of 2012 for the 2013 year.

 

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10958 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2012,” amended to reduce the programs and services portion to $13,472,294.00, with debt service remaining at $1,490,000, and a total levy amount for 2012 at $14,962,294 for a levy increase at 1.8%.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.      

Motion carried.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10959 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2012 Bonded Debt.” in the amount of $289,187.20.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10960 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution Adopting the Final 2012 and 2013 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;” amended to increase the final 2012 and 2013 annual budget to address those additional actions taken tonight for a total increase in the amount of $41,449,754 for 2012 of which $19,417,560 is designated for the property tax-supported programs; and in the amount of  $43,353,999 for 2013 of which $19,829,431 is designated for the property tax-supported programs.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

                    

c.            Consider a Resolution Adopting the 2012 Utility Rate Adjustments

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller summarized the recommendations for 2012 Utility Rate Adjustments as detailed in RCA dated December 12, 2011; and based on CIP Task Force recommendations for a 60% base rate increase to facilitate previously-deferred and anticipated CIP needs over the next twenty (20) years.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller reviewed calculations on depreciation of the City’s assets based on their initial cost and life expectancy; and clarified that the CIP Plan addresses immediate needs, those long-deferred, as well as those projected over the next twenty (20) years, with adjustments made accordingly over that time period.  Mr. Miller noted that a number of the City’s assets had been deferred for at least a decade; and advised that extending the life and depreciation was considered on a case by case basis.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller further reviewed the proposed increase to utility base rates to fund those CIP needs, and the current CIP funds at $1.1 million and proposed increase by $2.2 million annually to fully bridge the current funding gap.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that some of the infrastructure and other CIP items were handled by staff, while others, depending on the required expertise, were contracted out. 

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller reviewed the rationale in the base rate for residential versus commercial entities with higher water consumptions, with those commercial entities also using more water proportionately than an average single-family home, with residential users having a tiered system for consumption, but not applicable or a commercial entity due to varying uses and activities specific to a business but addressed in usage rates rather than base rates.

 

As a member of the CIP Task Force, Mayor Roe advised that he had prepared a DRAFT resolution for City Council consideration; attached hereto and made a part hereto, that provided for a two (2) year versus a one (1) year implementation period.  Mayor Roe clarified that this resolution was not intended to address any 2013 usage rates.

 

Mayor Roe advised that his intent was that 2013 base rates, not usage rates, be considered; and that the original intent of the CIP Task Force was to implement rate adjustments under the management of one sitting City Council, rather than depending on a future City Council to address the long-deferred CIP needs of the City and get them back to a sustainable status.  However, if the base rates were implemented in two (2) phases, Mayor Roe noted that the 2012 proposed rate would then only be delayed one (1) additional year and fully achieved in 2013.  Mayor Roe suggested that this would serve to even out the impact to the taxpayer, since when the CIP Task Force originally made their recommendation to the full body, the impacts of the MVHC was an unknown and represented a significant impact to homeowners in 2012.  Mayor Roe clarified that this MVHC situation was a change to the state’s tax system and not due to any action of the City Council; however, he was making this recommendation for a phased approach out to respect to the taxpayers and the other impacts they faced in 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a nice idea, however, she didn’t see the point, when taxpayers would still have the MVHC issue and upcoming bonds in 2013; and further opined that no matter how it was done, taxpayers were having a lot dumped on them.  Based on her personal review of citizen surveys, Councilmember McGehee opined that taxpayers would prefer to pay for the CIP needs rather than park needs.

 

Councilmember Willmus personally questioned the accuracy of Councilmember McGehee’s comments; however, opined that the City Council could not predict legislative actions in 2013; and reiterated that 2013 numbers were at this point simply a guide that would require more formal action in 2012 for 2013.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that his proposed resolution would establish base rates for 2013.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that, generally, she would agree that no one could predict the legislative actions in the future; however, she did predict that they had no intention of giving back the property tax credits.  While expressing her appreciation to Mayor Roe in his responsible attempt to spread the impact out, Councilmember Pust noted that she would have preferred that it be done over more than a two-year basis; expressing interest in a four-year spread, with three years as a compromise.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that his proposed resolution excluded 2013 usage rates.

 

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of a resolution entitled, “Resolution Establishing the 2012 Utility Rates;” as detailed in the RCA dated December 12, 2011; and as amended by Mayor Roe’s resolution for a two (2) year spread; and excluding 2013 usage rates.

 

Councilmember McGehee offered a friendly amendment to the rate structure for 2013 usage rates; and also amend it to a four (4) year spread.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that, as the maker of the motion, he was not supportive of the second portion of the friendly amendment.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated that the motion had been amended to exclude 2013 usage rates.

 

Finance Director Miller noted that any increase in fees was related to the fee structure, as addressed in the footnote to the fee schedule, and more accurately reflected current costs for meter deposits and radio reading heads, or actually meter costs for each home.  At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that this was a one-time cost or deposit for homeowners, with homeowners not paying for meter replacements, and receiving their meter deposits, plus interest, upon moving out.

 

The motion was restated by Mayor Roe for clarification as follows:

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10961 entitled, “Resolution Establishing the 2012 Utility Rates;” as detailed in the RCA dated December 12, 2011; as amended by the resolution distributed by Mayor Roe for a two (2) year spread; excluding 2013 water usage rates, sanitary sewer usage rates, and recycling rates.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays:  McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.      

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Malinen advised that proposed adjustments to DVD costs were pending with the Police Department, and would be brought forward at a later date in 2012.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed current surcharge program rates and future rates and penalties the City experienced from the Metropolitan Council when maximum flows were exceeded during major rain events.

 

d.            Consider 2012 Liquor License Renewal for Courtyard by Marriott and Smash Burger Restaurant

Police Chief Rick Mathwig and Lt. Lorne Rosand were present to address concerns or questions of the City Council during this discussion.

 

Mayor Roe noted receipt of, and inclusion in the agenda packet (Attachment A) for this item, consisting of the legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding a request by Councilmember Pust at a previous meeting related to a review of Minnesota Statute and City Code regarding the effect of a liquor license non-renewal on the former licensee’s ability to apply for a new liquor license.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Mark Gaughan summarized the legal option by advising that the City Council could enact a waiting period between non-renewal and re-application.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Lt. Rosand reviewed the specifics of the violations of both the Smash Burger Restaurant and that of the Courtyard by Marriott; and addressed both those materials included in previous agenda packets as background, as well as training documentation records and additional training provided by each respective licensee to-date.

 

Based on this discussion, Mayor Roe noted that the action before the City Council tonight was specific to the training violation of City Code; and reviewed the options before the City Council: 1) to take no action; 2) to not renew the license; or 3) to impose a penalty of up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 fine.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief Mathwig confirmed that both parties had complied with statute pertaining to the last violation’s fines and penalties; and training records had been corrected.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief  Mathwig reviewed the individual and specific fines and suspensions for each licensee.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, a representative of Smash Burger in the audience, advised that they had been open in Roseville for 2.5 years; and a representative of the Courtyard by Marriott in the audience advised that they had been open in Roseville for 10 years.

 

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of some action other than non-renewal.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted differentials in the previous and current City ordinances and the need to address what was essentially a third violation.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified the intent of the current City ordinance to incent training and availability of documentation of that training upon request for all servers and managers serving alcohol for the purpose of avoiding this type of situation.  Councilmember Pust opined that it should not just be in place to penalize firms when they failed or as a pass for those lucky enough not to fail compliance check; but specifically to get them into compliance with their training.  Councilmember Pust reiterated the need for training in compliance with City Code or experiencing a substantive violation if those selling alcohol were not sufficiently trained.  Councilmember Pust clarified that this didn’t mean that the City Council didn’t want them in Roseville, but that there would be consequences if alcohol sales in Roseville were not in compliance with City Code.

 

Councilmember Johnson reiterated his preference to separate the two licensees, opining that they both were at different levels of infractions.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Pust noted the lowest monetary fine in City Code for  any type of violation was $1,000; and she opined that any fine should be no less than that, given the seriousness of the infraction.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed caution that tonight’s action would set a precedent and while discretionary on the part of the City Council should be based on sound reasoning for future and similar situations that may occur.  Based on that rationale, Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Pust on the $1,000 presumptive penalty.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification once again from Lt. Rosand on Smash Burger employee training documentation versus them not up to City Code standards when initially presented.  Regarding the Courtyard by Marriott situation, Councilmember McGehee noted that the training records were just out-of-date and the sale had taken place by a long-standing employee whose training was out-of-date with City Code.

 

Councilmember Johnson clarified training status of the Smash Burger manager off microphone in the audience; and at the request of Councilmember Pust, provided his personal distinction between them and the Marriott based on management and training miscommunication.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of renewal of the Smash Burger liquor license, on the condition that they pay  a fine of $1,000 for failure to comply with City training requirement standards.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.   

Abstentions: McGehee

Motion carried.

 

Marriott

Councilmember Johnson noted that the Smash Burger violation was a first time offense and that the monetary penalty decided on by council for non-compliant training was 1,000.00. In light of this, and taking into consideration that the Marriot violation was the 2nd non-compliant training violation in less than two years, council member Johnson recommended a higher monetary penalty of $2,000.00.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of renewal and Courtyard by Marriott liquor license, on the condition that they pay a $2,000 fine for failure to comply with City training requirement standards.

 

Off microphone from the audience, the Marriott representative spoke to their past practice and corrective actions in addressing this failure.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.   

Abstentions: McGehee

Motion carried.

 

e.            Authorize Fire Station Conceptual Design Plans as Presented

Fire Chief Tim O’Neill and the Fire Station Design Team was in attendance; with

Mr. Quinn Hutson making the presentation that included the preliminary site plan; floor plans; training by design features; preliminary exterior image; and a sustainability update.  Mr. Hutson briefly reviewed those minor improvements made since the last presentation and in response to comments received to-date.  Those minor revisions included site access, with the parking lots of City Hall and the Fire Station now connected to address public access with addition of a speed bump and appropriate signage; revisions to address concerns about the width of the apparatus bay on Lexington Avenue and a divider at the front tower to reduce the length of the open curb cut; and pending designs for potential on-site storm water retention above ground for more cost efficiencies.  Mr. Hutson further noted improvements to the front tower on the southeast perspective with a higher level of exterior materials, and changes to the cell tower fencing on the northwest perspective, as well as increased windows in the conference room area and presentation wall.  Mr. Hutson opined that these minor changes would still allow the project to remain within the preliminary budget target.

 

Mayor Roe asked for a response to several other questions brought forward over the last few meetings, including:

1)    Whether Fire Department meeting space was available for use by other public groups if a space shortage existed at City Hall; and

2)    Access issues and/or duplication of Police Department exercise facilities.

 

While open to making the project work for the best interest of the City of Roseville, Fire Chief O’Neill advised that the primary goal was to provide sufficient training space available for Fire Department staff and firefighters to be able to access training and fitness space to meet their schedule and shift requirements while ensuring the security of the building.  For the training room as proposed, Chief O’Neill advised that this would require two (2) opportunities daily for firefighters based on their shifts, and would depend on call volumes and other activities during those particular shifts, in addition to logistical issues along the way.  Chief O’Neill reiterated his concern that the first and foremost goal was to reserve space for firefighter training only or as a first priority.  Related to the fitness area, Chief O’Neill advised that the space had been scaled for 2-3 users in that room at any given time, while again ensuring the security of the building.  Chief O’Neill noted that this was intended to provide a job benefit for firefighters both on and off duty at their discretion; and further noted the need to keep firefighters fit as well as to use this space as a recruitment incentive to maintain sufficient staffing for a community-based fire department.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that meeting space at City Hall and its other facilities was dependent on needs at any given time.  Mr. Malinen advised that staff was currently reviewing parking availability and needs, another consideration for meeting room use and availability and based on past uses.  Mr. Malinen noted that parking limitations may create limitations on how much meeting space could be available at any given time, in addition to the space needed for employees and customers at City Hall.

 

Councilmember Willmus also noted that, at this time, forty-two (42) stalls had been dedicated at the Ice Arena for Park and Ride commuter use; and questioned the status of that contract and whether that may become available for City Hall patrons in the near future; and how that may change meeting space availability.  Councilmember Willmus also questioned if this would still make access between the fire station and City Hall a necessary connection.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that the design team would continue to review parking as the project moved forward with construction; and advised that the connection between City Hall and the fire station was added at the recommendation of the City’s Planner based on ADA requirements, and would need to be retained.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference for a barrier parking designation similar to that of the Police Department or something more formal than just signage.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that this option would be considered by the design team.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned how this building would fit with others on the City campus; and whether they would all end up with some cohesive exterior relationship rather than just mishmash; and also how and where limestone applications would be placed.

 

Mr. Hutson advised that it was one of the intents of the design team to provide elements that would provide that visual connection to buildings, and showed several areas for limestone material application. Mr. Hutson advised that as the design process evolved, 3-d displays would make the comprehensive look of the campus more obvious.

 

Mayor Roe noted the current variations in exteriors for the Oval and the Public Works building as well as City Hall.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Hutson reviewed the front vestibule area of the fire station.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this public area needed to be more welcoming to the public, while recognizing the need for security of the building; but not at the same level currently experienced with the Police Department space.

 

Chief O’Neill reviewed access during normal business hours when receptionist staff was available; as well as access when staff was not available or on-duty staff was on call.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the project was still at a concept stage, and interior aspects would continue to evolve during the process.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern in the Council majority’s decision to not pursue LEED certification; and questioned if the sustainable aspects of the building would be lost in the process without having that checklist at the forefront.

 

Mr. Hutson assured Councilmember McGehee that this was definitely not intended; and that it was the intent of the design team that the sustainability checklist be followed whether the building was certified or not.  However, Mr. Hutson noted the need to consider the balance as well in determining the benefit or trade-off of energy efficiency with aesthetics (e.g. windows for- daylighting versus lower insulation values and reduced energy efficiency).  Mr. Hutson assured Councilmembers and the public that the LEED checklist referenced in the design packet would be followed.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to move forward into the schematic and construction document design phase utilizing the conceptual plans as presented and detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 12, 2011.

 

Councilmember Pust noted, related to the LEED discussion, that she would be seeking as the project moved forward that she would be able to ask specifics on the sustainability checklist of those items done or not done and the rationale for each decision.  Councilmember Pust advised that she wanted this information readily available as she continued to sell the building to the public as a sustainable project; to justify how and why those choices were made.

 

Mr. Hutson offered his willingness for the design team to comply with that request; and reiterated his assurances that just because the building was not LEED certified, none of those sustainable amenities had been taken out of the building.  As the design and construction process moved forward, Mr. Hutson advised that this information, as well as other informational, educational and marketing materials would be available for the public.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

f.             Consider Awarding the Contract for Construction Management Services for Phase II of the New Fire Station Project to Bossardt Corporation

Fire Chief O’Neill reviewed the initial rationale for the two (2) phases of the project, based on unknown funding sources at that time and prior to the bond issue moving forward.  With the project now moving from Phase I to Phase II, Chief O’Neill reviewed the anticipated process for design documents to be completed by mid-March for City Council review and approval and a refined budget update, allowing for optimal bid time in early to mid spring in an effort to save between 3-5%.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to award the contract for Construction Management Services for Phase Ii of the new Fire Station Project to Bossardt Corporation in an amount not to exceed $435,300.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that, through past City Council majority action, the highest bidder had been selected for design and construction services, and further noted previous assurances that by signing on to Phase I, it didn’t automatically ensure that Phase II would be awarded to those same firms.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that she would prefer to have the services rebid or to return to the original bid list and seek potential savings by going with the low bidders at a significant savings.  While expressing her support of the building plan, Councilmember McGehee requested consideration of such action to seek further savings.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if the contracts would come back before the City Council for their review; with Chief O’Neill advising that based on timing concerns, that was not intended; but that they would be working directly with the City Attorney with a standard service contract.

 

Councilmember Pust sought assurance that, if there was any future parting of the ways, the contract provided for conflict resolution, as well as provisions related to earlier bond issue actions. Councilmember Pust further questioned how cost overruns and/or change orders would be addressed or whether they would have a maximum cap on them.   To that extent, Councilmember Pust questioned the level of detail negotiated into a standard construction contract.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that, for Phase II, the contract had yet to be drafted and the City Attorney would be consulted to address those specific questions brought forward by Councilmember Pust, as well as any other considerations.  Chief O’Neill advised that current cost projections don’t anticipate any change orders, however, those contingencies were built into the budget; and advised that the purpose of having a professional Construction Manager on the team was to ensure the project remained at or under budget.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned the rationale in not providing the City Council a look at the contracts prior to them being signed; noting that the City’s legal position had gotten more complicated with the recent bond issue and related litigation.

 

Chief O’Neill advised that the concern was in the scheduling for the next City Council meeting in early 2012, while attempting to meet design phase and future bidding timelines.

 

City Manager Malinen noted that addendums would be added to the standard contract to address those areas brought forward by Councilmember Pust, in addition to the liability insurance variable; and would be include in the Scope of Services as an addendum to standard contract language.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that she would be more comfortable with a motion authorizing negotiations, with final contract review and approval by the City Council.

 

City Attorney Gaughan suggested the motion do that, authorizing staff to negotiate the contract and include formal City Council approval on the January 9, 2012 Consent Agenda.

 

Chief O’Neill, after consultation with the design team on the bidding schedule, advised that without approval to proceed as recommended in the RCA tonight, the project process would lose four (4) weeks.

 

Recognizing that Councilmember Pust was an attorney and would prefer reviewing the contract, Councilmember Johnson expressed his confidence in the expertise of the City’s legal counsel in negotiating the contract language in the best interest of the City.

 

Mayor Roe noted that most action of this nature included authorizing staff to negotiate the contract, and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document upon recommendation of the City Council; and questioned if that was not indicated in this case as well.

 

The makers of the motion amended their original motion accordingly and as follows:

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to award the contract for Construction Management Services for Phase II of the new Fire Station Project to Bossardt Corporation in an amount not to exceed $435,300; amended to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents, pending approval of the City Attorney.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that her concerns were based on policy reasons under her purview as a Councilmember, not as an attorney.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.      

 

g.            Consider Awarding the Contract for Architectural Services for Phase II of the New Fire Station Project to CNH Architects

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to award the contract for Architectural Services for Phase II of the new Fire Station Project to CNH Architects in an amount not to exceed $506,250; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents, pending approval of the City Attorney.

 

In noting the disparity between this firm and other original bidders; Councilmember McGehee suggested that CNH reconsider their original bid and seek to bring it into line with those other bidders.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.      

 

h.            Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1065 Ryan Avenue

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this vacant and in foreclosure single-family detached home, located at 1065 Ryan Avenue, and currently owned by JP Morgan Chase Bank.  Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of violations, consisting of erosion control (violation of City Code, Sections 803.03 & 804.04); danger to children (violation of City Code, Section 407.03.H), junk and debris (violation of City Code, Sections 407.02.D and 407.03.H), weeds over 8 inches (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.C), maintenance to fences (violation of City Code, Sections 407.02.J & K), and maintenance to structures (violation of City Code, Section 906.05.C); with abatement costs estimated to total $7,000.00.

 

Mr. Munson advised that bank currently had pending Purchase Agreement on this property; and anticipated sale within two (2) weeks.  However, Mr. Munson noted that there were no assurances that the sale would go through, or that the violations would subsequently be addressed, and asked that the City Council take action to provide incentive to the bank and/or new owners to bring the property into compliance.  Mr. Munson noted that, given the onset of winter, staff would allow sufficient time for the bank and/or new owner to accomplish the work in the spring.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Munson confirmed that the bank had previously secured the perimeter of the property from access for safety considerations for children due to water on the property.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson assured that the home was habitable and structurally sound and worth saving.  At her request, Mr. Munson also noted that the bank intended to demolish the separate accessory structure (shed) in the near future.

 

Willmus moved,  Pust seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 1065 Ryan Avenue by hiring general contractors to establish erosion control and vegetation, repair fallen fence sections, remove junk and debris, cut weeds over 8”, make repairs to deck, gazebo, and detached accessory building, and drain ponds; estimated at a total abatement cost of $7,000.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.   

 

i.             Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2740 Churchill

Mayor Roe advised that he had been alerted by staff earlier in the meeting that this item had been resolved and therefore removed from tonight’s agenda.

 

15.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

a.    City Manager Evaluation Report

 

16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

          City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

 

          At the request of Councilmember Pust, City Manager Malinen confirmed that the proposed January 23, 2012 action related to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) request by Roseville Properties was related to a Preliminary Plat and Vacation Easement for a corner property as a potential Walmart development.

 

          At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen noted the need to incorporate additional items in the City Council’s work plan discussion in February or early March, and on January 23, 2012, address those and outstanding City Manager goals.

 

          At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Malinen advised that confirmation of a presentation from the Chair of the  Civic Engagement Task Force was still pending; and suggested that staff was recommending that their report be vetted through the appropriate advisory commission (Human Rights Commission) prior to presentation to the City Council.

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

         

18.         Adjourn

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:55 p.m.

 

  Roll Call

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

Nays: None.