City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

September 24, 2012

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order: Johnson; Willmus; McGehee; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. 

           

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe noted that staff removed Item 12.f entitled, “Community Development Department Request to Perform Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1991 Eldridge Avenue; as the issue had been successfully resolved.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that staff requested deferral of Item 7.e entitled “Award Contract for Engineering Services for the Construction of Twin lakes Second Addition Public Improvements”

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.d entitled, “Approve Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. for a Preliminary Plat of the Land currently addressed as 2280 Walnut Street;” for discussion purposes.

 

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

 

                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; 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.

 

4.            Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Mayor Roe announced several upcoming free educational forums on the constitutional amendments proposed in MN on the November ballot.  The first forum was scheduled at the Maplewood City Hall on October 9, 2012, on the voter identification question; and the second scheduled for October 23, 2012 at the Maplewood Community Center on the proposed marriage amendment.  Mayor Roe advised that additional information on the forums was available by contacting the Maplewood Human Rights Commission at 651/429-2000.

City Manager Malinen noted that the Roseville and Maplewood Human Rights Commissions were co-sponsoring these educational forums.

Mayor Roe advised that he had been privileged to speak at a kick-off event in support of Active Aging Week, sponsored by AEGIS Therapy, parent company of the Golden Living Lakeridge facility earlier today.

         

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

           

a.            Recognize Thelma McKenzie for Service on the Human Rights Commission

Mayor Roe publically recognized and presented a Certificate of Appreciation to retiring Human Rights Commissioner Thelma McKenzie for her service to the Roseville Human Rights Commission on and off over the years since 1981; reluctantly accepting her resignation due to her move outside of the City of Roseville.

 

Ms. McKenzie formally thanked the City of Roseville for the wonderful learning opportunity provided to her through this Commission.  Ms. McKenzie reviewed some of the history of development of the annual student Essay Contest, educational forums, and mediation services; and the current neighborhood diversity efforts of the current Human Rights Commission.

 

Mayor Roe noted that he had also had the opportunity to serve with Ms. McKenzie in 2003 on the Twin lakes Stakeholder Panel; and had appreciated her service to the City in that capacity as well.

 

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 September 17, 2012 Meeting

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the September 17, 2012 meeting as amended.

 

Additional Corrections:

·         Page 1, line 44 (Roe)

Delete “voting on minutes when not attending in person.” And end sentence after “…affirmative.”

·         Page 11, line 18 (McGehee)

Correct “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS) to read “Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)”

·         Page 13, line 15 (McGehee)

After comma, change “were” to “as”

·         Page 15, line 39 (McGehee)

Change “other parties” to “third parties”

·         Page 16, line 8 (McGehee)

Councilmember McGehee’s reference to the newspaper article should be corrected to be about firemen, not police officers, therefore correct line 9 to read “… of and needing to be educated about some safety and appliance issues.”

·         Page 16, line 16 (McGehee)

Remove semi-colon before “while,” and place a period after “community.”  Then start a new sentence to read: “Everyone makes mistakes in their lives and this should not deny them housing.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; 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 Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$145,886.00
67587-67670	796,010.41
Total	$941,896.41

 

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000.

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following purchases and/or contracts for service:

 

Department	Vendor	Description	Amount
Parks Maintenance	Upper Cut Tree Services	Diseased and hazardous tree removal	$15,000.00

           

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

c.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vacation of all Roadway Interests in the Areas Comprising Part of the Former Mount Ridge Road as well as any Roadway Interest in a 4,643-suare foot area of land within the Twin Lakes Second Addition Plat

Mayor Roe noted that, under cover of a September 24, 2012 memorandum from City Attorney Charles Bartholdi to staff, a revised resolution and reference maps was provided as a bench handout, clarifying the location of the proposed roadway and highway easement to be vacated.

 

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11011(Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of Roadway and Highway Easements (PF12-007);” as amended and a DRAFT provided as a bench handout,

 

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

8. Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

d.            Approve Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. for a Preliminary Plat of the Land Currently addressed as 2280 Walnut Street

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated September 24, 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification that a small portion not included in this proposed action was indeed not included as part of the parcel, which was confirmed by City Manager Malinen.

 

McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT of Outlot A of the Highcrest Park Second Addition Plat, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendations of Section 7 of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated September 24, 2012.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

e.            Award Contract for Engineering Services for the Construction of Twin Lakes Second Addition Public Improvements

As previously noted, this item was removed by staff from tonight’s agenda.

 

12. General Ordinances for Adoption

 

13. Presentations

 

a.    Receive Update from Ramsey County Sheriff

Mayor Roe welcomed Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom.

 

Sheriff Bostrom provided an annual update of the Sheriff’s Department and reviewed its five (5) core service areas: detention services (e.g. arrests and pre-sentence housing); management of courts (e.g. security for criminal court and delivery of civil process documents); patrol services for seven (7) communities of approximately sixty (60) miles; lakes, trails and waterway management, a mandated function of the human safety side of waterway management for eighty-two (82) lakes and eighteen (18) miles of the Mississippi River; and administrative functions (e.g. criminal history and warrants) and investigations working with local metropolitan communities within the county and interagency cooperation.

 

Sheriff Bostrom reviewed some of the “behind the scenes” operations of the department, including positive reinforcement of area youth to “catch kids doing things right, and educating them on that good behavior.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that the department was seeking a renewed focus of its mission, with each division having its own mission statement directly related to the County’s mission statement, but specific to their areas, and as they achieve that mission, to move their unit, the division and department forward for the betterment of all.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that the purpose was to make sure they were focused properly on doing their job well.

 

Sheriff Bostrom referenced the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council,” representing an agreement between all department heads associated with criminal justice in Ramsey County from judges, city attorneys, chiefs of police for the City of St. Paul and suburbs, prosecutors and public defenders.  Sheriff Bostrom advised that all parties had agreed to a monthly, ninety (90) minute overview of all related data.

 

Sheriff Bostrom noted that ways the department was using to better communicate, with a community concerns form available for citizens to share their observations – either anonymously or by name – to allow better access by the community to the Sheriff’s Department, allowing for improved service.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that quite often the form is used to compliment deputies for a job well done.

 

Sheriff Bostrom attributed suburban police chiefs with an idea for better service provide that provided cooperative sharing of a crime investigation skills model, with an extra person added to the County crime lab in an outfitted vehicle, with area police chiefs sending additional officers to participate in that training.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that the Roseville Police Department was involved, and would attend the same crime scene education opportunities, and work scenes alongside each other to support cross-jurisdictional assistance.  Sheriff Bostrom advised that this new initiative was just being implemented, and training would occur soon.

 

In conclusion, Sheriff Bostrom noted the reformation of the former Ramsey Sheriff’s Canine Foundation, renamed to eliminate the word “canine” and as a 501-3.c corporation could accept donations of funds for specific purpose to improve policing throughout the county.  With the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Foundation serving as an umbrella organization allowing for various funding mechanisms, Sheriff Bostrom noted that this would replace the other previously unstructured and multiplicity-hindered funding beyond the General Fund.  As an example, Sheriff Bostrom noted the upcoming “Fright Farm” located at Frost and White Bear Avenues in Maplewood being held every weekend during October, with funds from that event to support literacy programs throughout Ramsey County as well as other volunteer efforts.

 

Sheriff Bostrom stated that he had underestimated how great this job would be, and attributed it to the great personnel and great government within Ramsey County.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Sheriff Bostrom for his comments.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred, and sought additional information on the Sheriff’s Department participation in park patrol for Ramsey County Parks.

Sheriff Bostrom responded that the department worked closely with the County Park staff; and for its contract cities the Sheriff’s Department provided more direct patrol services.  On a larger scale, Sheriff Bostrom noted that Community Service Officers (CSO’s) and volunteers logging time served the overall Ramsey County Park system as a supplement to the Sheriff’s Department, working jointly and strategically, depending specific problem areas.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought additional information on youth initiatives of the Department.

 

Sheriff Bostrom advised that the department provided D.A.R.E. for White Bear Township, all school safety patrols other than the St. Paul District, and was involved in literacy initiatives, particularly on the east side.  Sheriff Bostrom advised that it was the larger vision of the department to be involved in youth activities beyond athletics, including exposing youth to visual arts and music.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal appreciation with the initiatives taken on to-date.

 

Councilmember Willmus sought additional information on the department’s involvement with non-English speaking groups in the county.

Sheriff Bostrom advised that his department held quarterly meetings with members of the Mexican Consulate on issues of education, business and crime issues affecting that community, with the group serving as a problem-solving and advocacy group.  Sheriff Bostrom further advised that the department met regularly with Council 18 of eighteen (18) families associated with Southeastern Asian populations.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that the Karen families haven’t contacted his department as much as they were working with the St. Paul Police Department; however, he noted that his department was reaching out to the Somali community.  As an example, Sheriff Bostrom noted the involvement and outreach of former St. Paul Assistant Chief Dennis Jensen, who had been a key leader in resolving the “traveler cases” for the Somali group, whose efforts were recognized by the Department of Justice.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that the department was also involved with the tattoo removal program in St. Paul to assist young people wishing to get out of gangs, and included teaching them life skills and educational opportunities.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted Chief Mathwig’s involvement in the Karen community through the volleyball programs; and encouraged the Sheriff’s Department to get involved in those efforts.

In response, Sheriff Bostrom recognized Chief Mathwig’s success to-date in Roseville, and not wishing to interfere with that success, advised that his department was available to support his efforts in whatever ways Chief Mathwig requested that involvement.

 

City Manager Malinen thanked Sheriff Bostrom for his willingness to work with suburban police departments, particularly on the investigative units.  City Manager Malinen also recognized the Sheriff’s efforts and support in putting together the Fallen Officer’s Memorial in Maplewood, with the ceremony scheduled to be held in Roseville in 2013.

 

Sheriff Bostrom noted that often families of fallen officers felt forgotten, and it was his intent that they be aware that their loved one’s legacy would continue and to emphasize the difference those officers had made in their communities.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that law enforcement had suffered many losses, including Roseville, and that the efforts to honor those heroes had support throughout the law enforcement community.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that it was the intent that the memorial recognition move from community to community as well as his agency; and expressed his appreciation for Roseville’s participation for this annual recognition on May 15 during Law Enforcement Week.  Sheriff Bostrom noted that attendance at the event proved to be a rewarding experience for the family members and all attending.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Sheriff Bostrom again for his presentation and attendance.

 

14. Public Hearings

 

a.    Public Hearing to Confirm Assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-11-02: Dale Street Reconstruction between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard

Mayor Roe recognized City Engineer Debra Bloom who provided a description of the project, project financing and a discussion of typical assessments for benefiting properties, as detailed in the RCA dated September 24, 2012.

 

Ms. Bloom reviewed the special assessment rates based on actual project costs at 25% of street reconstruction costs, excluding sidewalks, storm sewers, water mains and sanitary sewers, and based on assessable frontage as approved in the feasibility report.  Ms. Bloom reviewed various lot size and configuration calculations for those assessments, noting calculations for several townhome and condominium developments located in the project area.  Ms. Bloom noted that the reconstruction project provided an opportunity for property owners to have their sewer and/or water services at 100% cost to property owners, with many doing so with this project.  Ms. Bloom noted the opportunity for assessment deferral for homesteaded property for owners aged 65 or older or retired by virtue of a disability and proof of hardship, with additional information available at City Hall.

 

Specific to this project, Ms. Bloom advised that the assessments were over a fifteen (15) year term at 5.5% annual interest, collectable by Ramsey County on tax statements.  Ms. Bloom reviewed the schedule for the assessment process, including tonight’s public hearing, prepayment of assessments by October 26, 2012; and subsequent certification to Ramsey County by November 1, 2012, of any unpaid assessments.

 

As noted in the staff report, Ms. Bloom noted that the total project cost has been $1,070,844.34; with the total assessable cost at $594,070.65, with assessable footage averaging $3,882.73, or a $38.25/foot assessment rate at the 25% policy.  Ms. Bloom noted that the engineer’s estimate provided in the Feasibility Report had been $48.66, with the actual rate coming in at $38.25, a difference of <21%> less than projected.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the park frontage was added into the entire project.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom advised that, while property owners typically did sanitary sewer replacement of their private lines during a reconstruction project at a significant cost savings rather than doing so independently, no one had new services installed as part of this project.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom reviewed the payment schedule again; noting that prepayments needed to be completed as specified to avoid additional interest applied for the next year by November 15, 2012, by Ramsey County.

 

With Ms. Bloom concurring, Mayor Roe noted that for City-owned property along a reconstructed street, that property was included in the total assessable frontage by which the cost is divided, therefore reducing the rate.

 

Mayor Roe called to order the Public Hearing at approximately 6:58 p.m. for the purpose of confirming assessments for Dale Street reconstruction between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard (City Project P-ST-SW-11-02) as per Attachment D to the RCA dated September 24, 2012. 

 

City Manager Malinen provided confirmation of applicable published and posted notices of the Public Hearings and dates accomplished for tonight’s hearing.

 

Public Comment

No one appeared to speak for or against.

 

City Manager Malinen and Ms. Bloom both advised that the City Office and/or Engineering Department had not received any appeals or objections to assessments to-date.

 

Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:00 p.m.

 

15. Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.         Adopt a Resolution Confirming Assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-11-02: Dale Street Reconstruction between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard

          Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11012(Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Adopting and Confirming 2012 Assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-11-02: Dale Street Reconstruction between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard.”

 

          Mayor Roe expressed appreciation that the project came in under budget.

 

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

11.      b.         Public Hearing to Consider Authorizing the Sale of $17 Million in Bonds to Finance the Completion of a New Fire Station and Continue Funding for the Park Renewal Program

Mayor Roe recognized Finance Director Chris Miller who summarized the phasing of the bonds as detailed in the RCA dated September 24, 2012.

 

As noted in the report, Mr. Miller advised that the initial phase of the bonding plan was conducted on December 12, 2012, with the sale of $10 million in bonds; with this being the second phase.  Mr. Miller noted that, in October of 2011, the City Council committed that the successive bond issue phases would provide opportunity for public comment, with tonight’s public hearing intended to satisfy that commitment.

 

While the original intent was to split the remaining $17 million into two (2) separate bond issues to minimize issuance costs and underwriter fees on each issue, Mr. Miller advised that due to market changes in the municipal bond market since that time, it now made more sense to proceed with a single $17 million bond issue.

 

Mr. Miller noted that Ms. Terri Eaton of Springsted Incorporated, was present at tonight’s meeting to respond to any questions or comments of the City Council or public.

 

Mayor Roe noted inclusion with the meeting materials, at his request, a DRAFT Parks and Recreation Renewal Program Timeframe (4-year plan) revised as of 08/29/2012 and subject to adjustments based on community input and guidance; as well as the original Proposed PIP Projects listed by park and prepared by Jeff Evenson and dated August 28. 2006.

 

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. and reviewed protocol for public comments.

Public Comment

Greg Ryan, Roseville Owasso Hills Resident (address not given)

Mr. Ryan stated that his property had been overtaxed since living here; and expressed his frustration now with the City Council and Mayor pushing forward this multi-million dollar agenda without it going to a ballot for taxpayers to have the opportunity to shut it down.  Mr. Ryan opined that it was unfair that four City Councilmembers and the Mayor could single-handedly elevate his property taxes at a time when the economy was weighed down, clearly taking oxygen out of the room and moving money people didn’t have.  Mr. Ryan further opined that it should be illegal for them to endorse this effort, when people were on the threshold of losing their homes and foreclosures being at an all-time high.  While the fire station had already been demolished, Mr. Ryan took issue with the City Council coming to citizens for park improvements, opining that it represented gross negligence on their part to impose this on the City’s poor taxpayers.  Mr. Ryan questioned why this hadn’t gone to a referendum for taxpayer vote; noting that two (2) Councilmembers didn’t want to endorse this cost to taxpayers.  Mr. Ryan advised that he had only found out about this in today’s newspaper; and asked Councilmembers supporting this to resign.

 

John Torgerson, 337 South Owasso Blvd. W

While not seeking anyone’s resignation, Mr. Torgerson encouraged Councilmembers to change their vote.  Upon his first awareness of this in today’s newspaper, Mr. Torgerson expressed how irate he was, as well as others in Roseville who had no idea this was being considered and therefore had not been sufficiently informed.  Mr. Torgerson reviewed his perception of potential increases to property taxes from this bond issue as well as City, County and State property tax increases.  Mr. Torgerson advised that he was currently in the process of putting his home up for sale due to ever-increasing property taxes over the last 3-4 years.  Mr. Torgerson referenced the Vadnais Heights Sports Center project bonding and current status of that project; and asked that the City Council consider that in their thought process.  Mr. Torgerson asked that, now that costs are in, the specific allocation for the fire station and parks; with a letter sent to each Roseville resident with those numbers and new taxes created by a bond issue; and seeking their individual responses as to whether they are interested in proceeding or not.  Mr. Torgerson stated that this would allow the entire community, not just a City Council majority, to have a choice in the matter.  Mr. Torgerson opined that another letter should be sent the following year; and suggested that any bond sale be delayed.  While the fire station could have been delayed in the past as well, but was now being pushed through, Mr. Torgerson questioned the need for such an elaborate fire station rather than one that would be sufficient and show the City Council as fiscally responsible.  Mr. Torgerson referenced a current City Councilmember who ran a campaign on fiscal responsibility, opining that this action did not represent that.

 

Robert Delao, 280 Minnesota Avenue

Mr. Delao referenced a letter from the City to residents last year that stated, due to mismanagement of its water system and lack of maintenance, residents would experience a 60% increase in their water bills to correct that.  Mr. Delao noted that, now the City says that due to mismanagement of them, parks are deteriorating due to running out of money.  Mr. Delao questioned where that money had gone; and questioned how the City intended to maintain new facilities and parks when it could not maintain the current ones.  Mr. Delao took issue with the City shoving the “Port Authority” down taxpayers’ throats as an excuse to bypass public input; and took further issue in pushing it ahead even sooner.  Mr. Delao provided his perspective on the impact of increased taxes and water rates, with his property value continuing to drop.  Mr. Delao opined that cities, counties, and states and the entire country were in deep financial trouble, while the City Council continued to spend money like drunken sailors. Mr. Delao suggested that the City dispose of infrastructure if it couldn’t maintain it; and questioned if the intent of the bond sale was for park maintenance or expansion.  Mr. Delao opined that people not responsible for maintenance or for doing their job should resign and those responsible for spending this money needed to be fired.

 

Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan noted that the City used to have three (3) fire stations with a rapid response time for the fire department.  Mr. Callaghan questioned the current response time; and opined that by now having only one (1) luxury fire station, it would reduce response time; and opined that this seemed unreasonable.  Regarding the park system, Mr. Callaghan referenced community surveys and resident support for trails; with the apparent response of the City to rebuild buildings, add new fields and playground equipment, which was not what the community supported.  Mr. Callaghan provided his perception of past discussions by Councilmember Johnson who didn’t want to talk about increased taxes at that time, apparently stating that that was next year.  Subsequently, Mr. Callaghan alleged that residents experienced a 15% increase for each of two (2) years.  Mr. Callaghan questioned what the City Council was doing, opining that it was not doing what it said it was going to do; and rather than paying down Tax Increment Financing (TIF) was now giving it away like candy.  Mr. Callaghan questioned when we were going to get control and ask Roseville residents what they wanted with a view of what it was going to cost.  Mr. Callaghan stated that the City Council had a tendency to tell citizens to go away and not talk, since they had been elected and knew what citizens wanted.  Mr. Callaghan opined that the City Council did not represent Roseville whatsoever; and strongly recommended that this bond sale not proceed, in order to avoid another 15% increase over this year’s 15% increase as indicated in the 2013 Preliminary Budget recently adopted.  Mr. Callaghan questioned why the City Council was spending money on things that Roseville residents said they didn’t’ want.

 

Kathleen Deleo, (no relation to Robert Delao) 1246 W. Highway 36

Ms. Deleo advised that she had been unaware of this increase being pushed through until today.  Ms. Deleo, having worked in both the public and private sectors in her career, opined that the City was not being accountable or responsible in today’s economy.  Ms. Deleo further opined that the City had been disrespectful of its citizens in using the Port Authority when it had no port serving the City.  Ms. Deleo opined that the City Council was not serving the taxpayers, but rather it appeared that the taxpayers were working for the City; and using Port Authority to get through what it wanted.  Ms. Deleo referenced current home and property values, necessitating property sales, while taxes had increased by 20% at the same time her property value had dropped by 50%, with nothing but frustration to show for it.  Ms. Deleo opined that it was time to give the power back to the City; and for those wanting to put this through without respect for putting it to a public vote, they should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed.

 

Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road

Having grown up in New York City, a major Port Authority City, specifically designated for its transportation maintenance and development and other very specific services, Ms. Ramalingam questioned how the City of Roseville could possibly use such a discretionary fund for other than it was intended.  Ms. Ramalingam opined that this was a shame and disgraceful.  As a matter of pure interest related to park development, Ms. Ramalingam asked for information of any Councilmembers directly benefitting from development of those parks.

 

Charlie Sparks, 3040 Little Bay Road

Mr. Sparks expressed his disappointment in what the City intended to do with park monies.  Having moved to Roseville in 2002, and having seen his property taxes rise from $5,600 to $10,000 during that time, Mr. Sparks questioned what he was being asked to support through this action.  While liking parks, Mr. Sparks stated that he was not a big user of them other than walking; however, he questioned the need for $17 million to make them better.  Mr. Sparks expressed his disappointment that the citizens didn’t get to vote in this decision-making for use of its public monies.

 

Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue

Mr. Bahnemann stated that, living across from City Hall, he laughed at how this City was run, whether contracting out grass cutting and lights on continuously all night.  Mr. Bahnemann opined that Councilmember Johnson wanted to spend money like it was coming out of his ears; however, he questioned those on fixed incomes.  While the City Manager received a raise every year, Mr. Bahnemann opined that he would be satisfied with just his perks.  While continually bringing up his issues with the weeds at City Hall directly across the street from him, Mr. Bahnemann advised that it had yet to come to a head.  Mr. Bahnemann opined that the way the City treated its people and neighbors was completely outrageous.  Mr. Bahnemann, as a former fire fighter for over twenty-five (25) years, stated that he had voice his preference in the past for a nice, functional fire station across from his home; however, he was very disappointed in the “Taj Mahal” being built.  Mr. Bahnemann noted his presence at the site today in the picket line for use of non-union workers; and opined that this was a terrible situation when it happened in your own yard; and further opined that it was time for housecleaning at City Hall from the top on down.

 

With no one else appearing to speak for or against, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:31 pm.

 

12. Business Items (Action Items)

 

b.         Authorize the Sale of $17 Million in Bonds to Finance the Completion of a New First Station and Continue Funding the Park Renewal Program

Mayor Roe sought to respond to those questions raised during public comment.

 

Regarding the split in bond funds intended for the fire station and parks, Mr. Miller advised Mayor Roe that there were no reallocations proposed unless staff was so directed by the City Council.

 

In response to park expansion versus park maintenance, Mayor Roe clarified that the vast majority of what was listed represented a backlog in upkeep of park facilities; with replacement of buildings needing replacement, or playground facilities and/or equipment, basically a rehabilitation of facilities.  Mayor Roe noted that, of the several new park properties shown on the list of facilities, those were new fields or facilities, but the vast majority was intended as a rehabilitation of existing facilities.  Mayor Roe clarified that $2 million of the funds allocated for the parks portion of the bond issue had been designated for pathways to improve connections in the community, including the long-needed area along County Road B-2.

 

Regarding difference in response times for one (1) versus three (3) fire stations, Mayor Roe advised that information on those response times had been provided at the beginning of the fire station project through the Facility Study Group.

 

As a member of that Study Group, Councilmember Johnson concurred that the City originally had three (3) fire stations, but that it was during a time when the City was served by a volunteer fire staff; with volunteer time to respond to incidents double the current response time of only one (1) station, which had been successfully proven with operation of Station #3 as the sole station serving the entire community over the last few times and response time cut well in half.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the faster response service was facilitated by on-site shift staffing versus volunteer response time from their individual homes; as well as the Fire Department researching the best routes to incidents throughout the community to avoid congested areas or higher traffic volumes. While no one appeared to be available from the Fire Department tonight, Mayor Roe advised that they could provide information to the public after the meeting.

Recess

 

Mayor Roe resumed responding to those questions brought forward by the public during tonight’s public comment on the bond issue.

 

In response to the perception of an additional 15% increase to taxpayers, Mayor Roe clarified that the City’s 2013 Preliminary Levy adopted earlier this month, provided for a 15.8% levy increase over 2012, with the final round of bond debt service not coming through until 2014; but certainly not representing an additional 15% on top of the previous 15%.

 

Mayor Roe clarified the City’s Port Authority, noting that Roseville did not have a Port Authority, but had been granted the ability to use Port Authority powers, delineated by State Statute, for the specific purpose of redevelopment or economic development and only under those certain established powers adopted in the 1980’s.  Mayor Roe noted that this was significantly different than the Port Authority granted New York City, which was under an entirely different set of rules.

 

Mayor Roe asked individual Councilmembers to respond to allegations that they would be benefiting from any park improvements; and to specify their location to parks in their immediate vicinity.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that he resided approximately ¾ block from Lexington Park.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that Cottontail Park was at the rear of his residence.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he lived approximately 2/10 of a mile from Reservoir Woods Park.

 

Councilmember McGehee, residing in Southwest Roseville, advised that they had no City park, and she was a regular user of the parks in the Cities of Lauderdale and Falcon Heights, near Cleveland and Roselawn.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she resided approximately 2.5 blocks from Villa Park.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought to provide her personal clarification of several public questions.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was her understanding that the proposed increase was actually 15.8% because the preliminary budget passed included an additional $185,000 moving from 4.8% to 15.8%; together with the HRA Levy increase, providing a total levy increase of 17.6%.  Having had discussions with Finance Director Miller, Councilmember McGehee opined that she understood that this would carry forward into 2014 so there would be a piece of this going forward, $1,375,000, carrying forward as part of the $17 million bonding if passed tonight, representing a substantial increase next year.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller responded that the 2012 Levy had included no debt service amounts related to the first phase of the bond issue, nor this subsequent issue yet to be approved. Mr. Miller confirmed that, in 2013 between the two (2) bond issues, approximately $1.6 million in debt service would come onto the books representing approximately 11% of the 2012 levy.  Mr. Miller confirmed that an estimated 2014 final portion of the bonding for $560,000 of debt service going forward represented 3.7% of the 2013 Levy if ultimately approved as indicated for the Preliminary Levy. Mr. Miller confirmed that the total debt service would be $2.2 million per year over the term of fifteen (15) years; and at the end would paid off, if not paid off earlier, and the levy would then be reduced by that amount.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this was based on assumptions available today, and subject to any changes a future City Council may choose to make.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that the $830,000 debt service in 2013 was based on the bonds issued in 2011; and any additional would be the result of action taken tonight.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified that if the $17 million bond issue action did not proceed, the proposed 2013 levy increase would be approximately 5.6% based on current assumptions.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought to clarify that the HRA Levy had to be included in the total, since it affected everyone; and while a total HRA Levy of 2.3% increase exclusive of the water fee increase was not great, it was better than the proposed 17.6% increase with the additional bond sale.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that, in adding the percent increase on the HRA levy to the property tax levy, there were relative dollar impacts to consider.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she was using dollar amounts based on that principle; but was trying to be clear for the listening audience.

 

Mayor Roe apologized to the public for any confusion caused from the many numbers floating around, recognizing that it was hard to keep up with them.

 

On that point, Councilmember Pust admitted she was also unable to follow most of the previous discussion; and recognized this was probably similar to that experienced by the audience and media in the room.  For the record, Councilmember Pust referenced and read for the record, an e-mail provided earlier today from Finance Director Miller to the City Council in response to questions of Councilmember McGehee and breaking down the bond issue variables.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, a copy of this e-mail dated September 24, 2012, was provided to the public.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember Pust.

 

Finance Director Miller recognized that the many different numbers were difficult to follow, and having anticipated that, when the City Council adopted their Preliminary 2013 Budget on September 10, 2012, staff had laid all of those numbers out.  Mr. Miller noted that breakdowns had also been provided as early as October of 2011 for all phases of the bond issue when the City Council had first considered the first phase; along with having been publicized in the local newspaper.  Mr. Miller opined that staff had done their best to get the information to the public; and hoped that this additional e-mail information served as a complimentary piece to keep the City’s budget as public and transparent as possible.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe regarding clarifying General Obligation bonds, Mr. Miller advised that they were not issued under the State capital improvement Statute.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, and recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s previous question regarding General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds, and a potential view that maintenance versus capital improvement was blurred, Ms. Terri Eaton of Springsted provided a response.

 

Ms. Eaton responded that General Obligation bonds were intended for major efforts needed to repair existing assets, with that value added to those assets considered capital. 

 

In response to Mayor Roe, Ms. Eaton responded that parks are considered assets and any major refurbishment to bring them back to their value was considered a capital expense, and not limited to new capital.

 

In response to Councilmember Pust, Ms. Eaton advised that it was critical that the bond funds be used for that purpose versus general operations and maintenance; and further advised that their office and the City’s bond attorneys had reviewed everything included on the list for inclusion and had approved them for this type of bond issue.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Eaton confirmed that this bond issue was required to be used for that purpose (e.g. capital improvements) and that purpose only, and not for general operational maintenance work.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Eaton reiterated that those capital improvements were defined for use on existing assets and was different than general maintenance and operations.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City had a policy that restricted borrowing for general operating and maintenance, with Finance Director Miller responding that he was unaware of any restrictions beyond that policy other than those prescribed by State law.

 

Councilmember Pust referenced meeting packet materials provided and color coded, and thanked staff for including that update.  In the four-year plan provided by staff, Councilmember Pust noted that it had been updated as of 08/29/2012 with a total amount of $4.1 million for year two (2); with $1.6 million of that indicated for acquisition or new purchases at two (2) different designated sites, and representing approximately 40% of that $4.1 million.  Councilmember Pust questioned if that was still part of the plan.

 

Mr. Miller deferred a response to Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, who clarified that the information contained in the meeting materials remained a work in progress, and included moving 2012 projects due to missing the construction season.

 

Regarding the $1.6 million included in the 2012 acquisition proposals highlighted by Councilmember Pust, Mr. Brokke advised that staff was currently in discussion with landowners to determine their interest in negotiating a land sale; but clarified that no offers had been made to-date; and that no appraisals had been solicited until interest of property owners had been determined.  Mr. Brokke specified that the two (2) acquisition sites included the former Mounds View School District site and the Press Gym property adjacent to an existing Roseville Park.  Mr. Brokke advised that, if and when the property owner indicated their interest in proceeding, appraisal would then be ordered.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust as to any intent to close either or both of those sales in 2012, Mr. Brokke advised that staff anticipated being able to do so, but at this time nothing was definite; and confirmed that the 2011 approved bonding had been allocated for those purchases.

 

Mr. Miller advised that it had been staff’s intent to proceed with those discussions earlier, but they had been prevented from doing so over a 7-8 month period or spending of any of those proceeds due to pending litigation, further delaying discussions with land owners.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that she was not implying that staff was not doing anything; but noted that not all of the bond proceeds would be for maintenance, with 40% for land acquisition or new purchases.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that those acquisition funds had been designated in the Phase 1 bond issue.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, while it was part of the dollar figure already approved, it was asked to move up with the rest of the proposed $17 million phase before the City Council tonight.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the original plan was to approve $10 million in May of 2012 and the final $7 million in December of 2012.

 

Councilmember Pust recognized this intent and that the proposal was to now do all approvals at once.

 

In order to get financing secured, provide the fire station with the remainder of funding needed to complete construction, and the Parks Department more confidence to schedule park and pathway improvements, all representing a significant endeavor, Finance Director Miller advised that the proposed action would provide staff confidence to strategize and stage logistics for those various projects.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that it also provided confidence to the City that whatever happens in the November election, the total amount of bonds would already have been issued.

 

Finance Director Miller clarified that staff was bringing this item before the City Council because they had asked staff to do so.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that it looked like the Parks and Recreation Department had spent $100,000 in 2012 for this project (e.g. initial project planning total).

 

Mr. Brokke advised that staff was still on hold, with the only expenditure proposed at this time was for an agreement for best value contracting request for proposals (RFP) with Arizona State for the next contract for the Park Renewal Program, and scheduled to come before the City Council at their October 8, 2012 regular business meeting for consideration.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that the first bond issue of $10 million allocated $8 million for the fire station, leaving $2 million for parks; and if this proposed bond issue did not go forward, it still left $2 million for parks and enough to complete the fire station; with no need to bond for more.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the original $10 million bond issue had been reallocated by the Council majority at $5 million for the fire station and $5 million for parks respectively; and unless the City Council took action to change that, the previous action stood.  Therefore, Mayor Roe advised that the City would need to find an additional $3 million for the fire station if that allocation was not changed.  Mayor Roe further clarified that the proposed land acquisition represented $2.1 million out of a total $19 million; with proposed pathway projects over a four (4) year period allocated $2 million.  Mayor Roe indicated that the remaining $15 million for park projects was proposed for facilities and fields, whether for replacements or upgrades as applicable.

 

To the best of her knowledge, Councilmember McGehee stated that there was no maintenance allotted in 2013 or 2014, or any plans submitted to the City Council to-date for maintenance of existing parks or improvements of those existing parks going forward (e.g. new buildings to be constructed due to failure to maintain current facilities or no plan submitted for staffing or maintenance of those existing structures).

 

Mr. Brokke advised that staff had provided an estimate of what they projected those costs to be for future budgets, but concurred that there were no dollars in the current budget at this point.  Mr. Brokke clarified that the state of disrepair of many of the buildings was not all due to lack of maintenance, but due to the age of the buildings, many built in the 1960’s or 1970’s.

 

In using the age of her personal residence as an example of ongoing maintenance required, Councilmember McGehee indicated that those structures slotted for replacement were not being used for any purpose; and the alternative was available to demolish them and wait to build new buildings in the future, but not all at one time.

 

Mr. Brokke noted that this was the City Council’s choice to make and thereby direct staff accordingly.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe on whether the buildings were being used of not, Mr. Brokke responded that most were warming houses at skating rinks, and some were being taken out of service due to their conditions and safety concerns.  During 2008, 2009 and 2010 as the Park Master Plan was being updated, Mr. Brokke noted that community discussions included varying uses of those facilities in the future, with the intent to set up the park system moving into the next 20-40 years as the community had previously done in the 1960’s for its current park system.

 

Councilmember Pust sought clarification of an earlier statement by Mr. Brokke regarding maintaining the new buildings, recognizing that those built in the 1960’s had served their life expectancy and needed replacement, but that no money had been provided in the current budget for maintenance of buildings.

 

Mr. Brokke advised that the intent was to budget that maintenance as part of the 2014 budget process as any facilities came on line.

 

Councilmember Pust further clarified that staff intended in 2013, to request additional monies starting in 2014 dedicated to Park and Recreation Department maintenance of buildings to be constructed now.

 

Mr. Brokke concurred, with the caveat that construction was begun and completed in 2013.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that this would be a line item in the 2014 budget for maintenance, another ongoing increase in public taxes.

 

With concurrence by Mr. Brokke, Mayor Roe noted that day-to-day maintenance and operations would be minimal in the first few years, with the 20-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) updated every other year and anticipating set-aside beginning in 2014 as a down payment on eventual needs 20-30 years down the road.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned HVAC services in buildings intended for replacement; status of running water or bathroom facilities; and average use of those facilities.

 

Mr. Brokke responded that the buildings were heated, but not cooled; most had bathroom facilities with the exception of two (2); rinks were still flooded annually; and average use varied by season depending on their location, with some housing recreation programs as applicable.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Brokke advised that the current intent was that new buildings would be furnished if intended for use as community gathering places, with their exact design and furnishings yet to be determined as work continued with the community and specific neighborhoods.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that furnishings would create the need for a substantial upgrade for maintenance, as well as needing more staff on site.

 

Mr. Brokke clarified that it was not intended to staff them on a regular basis, unless a recreation program was housed in those facilities, with supervisors then on site.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Brokke clarified that it was not intended that the facilities all remain open and available to the public unless pre-arranged, or requested by the neighborhood for use or for rentals; and would be operated similar to the Nature Center.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the intended replacement and/or repurposing of warming houses was to facilitate their use as more than just a warming house.  Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Brokke for his opinion on what value there would be to the community in drawing others to the parks and these facilities, both to the broader community as well as hubs used by a broader scope of the community.

 

Mr. Brokke, from his perspective, opined that during the Master Plan updating process, it had been the intent to respond to community requests to provide gathering places.  Mr. Brokke noted that those parks where facilities were proposed were already heavily used, and he saw that continuing or being further enhanced as a result of the buildings.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Brokke confirmed that the proposed facilities were thoroughly vetted out by during the Master Planning process by the community and its citizens since 2009 through a variety of communication efforts, as well as the 28-member citizen advisory team guiding the Master Plan update.  During the 1.5 year process begun before Master Plan adoption by the City Council in November of 2010, Mr. Brokke advised that ongoing references had been made to the anticipated future use by the community of those buildings, parks and their respective improvements.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred and opined that as the facilities were improved and their scopes broadened, the intended purpose to expand their uses and opportunities for the community would be achieved.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11013 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $17 Million General Obligation Bonds, Series 2012A;” to finance the completion of a new fire station and continue funding the Park Renewal Program.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that it would be appropriate at this time for any individual Councilmember to offer amendments by motion at their discretion.

 

Position Statements

Councilmember Pust opined that tonight’s discussion had already been made several times.  As a councilmember elected to make decisions for the entire community, including financial decisions in general, Councilmember Pust noted that she was charged with making those ongoing financial decisions of how to use citizen tax dollars and how much to set the levies to ensure core services were accomplished for those citizens.  Councilmember Pust noted that the community trusted those five (5) elected people to tinker with that annually, as part of the day-to-day work of running a budget. 

 

Separate from that, Councilmember Pust indicated there was another category of spending money: the debt service work done, and generally speaking, the City Council went to the voters to seek their opinion for long-term investments, such as over a period of twenty (20) years to seek direction beyond the five (5) elected officials.  Councilmember Pust noted that this was typical for the City as well as the State for major capital expenditures to go to referendum and ask the community their preference on long-term investments.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, in this case, the City chose not to do so; and even though the court stated that that option was fine to do, the questioned remained as to whether it was the right thing to do or not.  Councilmember Pust noted that she had voted against this the first time; and while this was for capital work, not general tinkering, it still represented big dollar amounts and the voters should have been asked.  However, Councilmember Pust noted that she was not among the Council majority on that vote, and had lost that argument.  Now today, Councilmember Pust noted that a lot of things had happened, and the timeframe had been held up, and that the proposed action was not simply to make up that time, but to accelerate the whole thing.  Councilmember Pust opined that for those asking her to support this proposal as it was a capital expense, she noted that that was not what she had heard from bond counsel earlier tonight.

 

Based on Finance Director Miller’s previous discussions with the City Council and staff recommendations to split the bond issue into smaller chunks to ensure that the bonds were bank qualified, Councilmember Pust noted that while it made sense to the City Council majority and was an important issue, Mr. Miller’s e-mail dated today and previously referenced indicated that this hadn’t worked out and was no longer a good deal; and staff now recommended that the remaining bond issue phases be done all at once. 

 

In her review of the information provided, and from her perception, Councilmember Pust opined that the real reason this was being pushed now was due to the upcoming November election, and with two (2) incumbents not running and risking the two (2) new Councilmembers being unknown quantities, they were being asked to make the decision tonight. 

 

While anticipating that the Council majority would proceed with the bond sale, Councilmember Pust stated that she continued to have concerns with the process itself.  Recognizing that the Park Master Plan was a great process allowing for significant public input, Councilmember Pust opined that it still was not a substitute for all citizens exercising their individual votes.  Based on the dollar amounts at stake, 1/3 of Roseville’s population being senior citizens, and the percentage of Roseville families receiving free or reduced lunches in the School system, Councilmember Pust advised that she could not in good conscience support the motion.  In addition, as it related to the question of democracy, Councilmember Pust opined that five (5) elected people should not make the decision for those portions of Roseville’s population previously referenced for a twenty (20) year period.

 

Recognizing that he appeared to be the unpopular individual in the house tonight, Councilmember Johnson stated that was part of serving as an elected official; and expressed his appreciation for those who respectfully provided their testimony to the City Council.  Noting that it was difficult to be in disagreement with some giving public testimony, Councilmember Johnson assured them that they had been heard, and he agreed to respectfully disagree with those speakers. 

 

Councilmember Johnson stated that it was his belief that the bulk of what was now required, the reason the fire stations and parks systems were in such disrepair, and the need to now fully fund capital improvements to correct that infrastructure, was due to the neglect of past City Councils in deferring those expenditures and needed maintenance.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Task Force, upon which both he and Mayor Roe had participated, had identified the need for many dollars to move the City’s CIP program forward and address the $100 million deficit required to simply maintain the City’s infrastructure as “average.”  While these actions will make the City better, Councilmember Johnson reiterated that the current needs were directly related to the flat out neglect in the past.  Councilmember Johnson referenced the abhorrent condition of the existing fire stations, opining that City staff deserved a state-of-the-art fire station; and the Parks and Recreation Department staff and citizens and families of Roseville deserved a comparable park system that parents and their grandparents had grown up with.  While other City Fathers may have chosen not to maintain those facilities, Councilmember Johnson opined that it was his duty to do so, and to ensure that the City’s fire and police departments and the OVAL facility have a roof and maintenance sufficient to maintain existing facilities that the City has taken a stake in. 

 

Councilmember Johnson stated that, if the taxpayers chose to pursue a referendum for a community center that was fine as it represented something new.  However, Councilmember Johnson opined that the City had a stake in everything proposed in this funding, and he believed that his feet were firmly planted in the City and he would vote to support the motion.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that, years ago, as a junior member of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission met jointly with the City Council advising them that they were not adequately funding the City’s existing facilities; and suggested that the City either invest in those assets or liquidate some of them.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the decision had been made by those City Councils not to liquid assets, but to retain them.  When talking about fiscal responsibility, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was not fiscally responsible to let capital assets rot and deteriorate over the years. 

 

While this is a huge chunk of money, Councilmember Willmus opined that this City Council and its taxpayers were faced with the situation due to the deferral of previous City Councils to future budget cycles or deferral of other capital improvements.  Councilmember Willmus stated that it is a fact that the infrastructure and facilities identified are in disrepair, and this City Council, or a majority of them, have stepped up and said they were going to reinvest in the community and bring it back to the position in which it should be.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this brings the community to tonight’s proposed action; and contrary to Councilmember Pust’s opinion that the Parks Master Plan process was not representative of the entire community he believed that it was incredibly inclusive and well-done.  While having been a resident of Roseville his entire life, Councilmember Willmus opined that he had never seen a process to parallel it; and had no reservations about voting in support of the motion.

 

For the record, Councilmember Johnson clarified that Councilmember Pust had abstained from the original bond sale vote,  and had not voted against it

 

Councilmember stated that she seconded everything said by Councilmember Pust.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had originally run for this job believing in civic engagement; and under the belief that the City Council should improve the revenue stream for the community.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her extreme disappointment that, so far during her tenure on the City Council, and from her perspective, the record for civic engagement and lack of additional things done to further revenue on the bottom had further jeopardized future revenue streams. 

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that she had consistently voted against the bond issues; and agreed with comments about the fire station’s amenities beyond a necessary, functional facility, including space to house SWAT equipment.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that SWAT members from the five (5) communities should share in that extra cost rather than asking Roseville residents to carry the full load.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, according to her research with a third party, the department had more equipment than needed, and whether those things were needed during this implementation phase are unknown since the community was not asked.  When taxpayers were seeing consistent pay increases, Councilmember McGehee opined that the community supported a world class park system, even though the community already had the best system in the metropolitan area already.  While not proposing to sell it off, Councilmember McGehee opined that, based on the City’s current population demographics this was not the time to seek additional improvements for existing parks or to acquire additional land. 

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that, based on results of the survey paid for with $21,000 in taxpayer monies and its results, and her travels around the metropolitan area, the Roseville park system was spoken of highly as they currently exist.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that everyone was in the midst of figuring out the new normal; and her discussions with taxpayers included those on fixed incomes, those out of work, and those moving out of their long-term Roseville housing for various economic reasons.  Councilmember McGehee opined that now is not the time for this approach; and without including a conservation component, the City had already started to improve its water infrastructure by increasing the base rate by 63%, as well as improving the enterprise funds for other utilities (e.g. sewer, storm water) and improved that deficit. 

 

Referencing the Cobalt Survey on what Roseville citizens valued, Councilmember McGehee noted that they valued fire and police protection services, and water/sewer services, and they liked the parks in Roseville.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was necessary to have priorities, and that the taxpayers should be allowed – through a referendum – to determine their priorities as a majority.  Councilmember McGehee stated that while she loved the City’s parks, she also loved having water and sewer service better; and this was a reality that Roseville needed to address.  Councilmember McGehee opined that building a community center for everyone to use made more sense than building, maintaining and attempting to staff facilities in pocket neighborhoods; however, she noted that this would have most certainly required a referendum.

 

On the topic of a referendum, Councilmember McGehee noted that she had looked at the original proposal for the Parks Master Plan completed prior to 2010, and it specifically spoke of a referendum, with memoranda from Mr. Brokke outline a schedule and deadlines to get things on the ballot for a referendum.  While educating the public appeared to be the original intent, Councilmember McGehee opined that out of nowhere, the idea to not educate or involve the public appeared and this was rammed down everyone’s throats; and she thought it was wrong.  Over her 1.5 year tenure on the City Council, Councilmember McGehee opined that nothing had been done to increase the revenue stream; and as pointed out by Councilmember Pust with 42-45% of students receiving free or reduced cost lunches, how were those families supposed to support all of the amenities the City Council majority thought were needed or wanted while not increasing that revenue stream.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this didn’t make sense to her; and questioned if the City was really committed to moving forward and maintaining parks in the future the way they should be, by mowing the grass, keeping ball fields maintained, and staying quiet without a major expansion program at this time. 

 

With the upcoming election, and the court not actually hearing any argument to base their opinion on, Councilmember McGehee noted the court’s suggestion to simply throw the bums out, noting that this was the current City Council, which may not be bad advice with new people running for the City Council.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a huge thing, and the options were to authorize a referendum right now or simply wait until a new City Council was elected and have a referendum on this entire idea, rather than saddling a new City Council with that the responsibility for that debt.

 

Mayor Roe stated that, as he originally said last October, generally speaking a referendum made sense when spending significant capital money in the community.

 

However, Mayor Roe clarified that the action that addressed infrastructure funding and increased utility rates was for the purpose of eliminating that problem going forward and not just to reduce the deficit from $66 million to $44 million over a twenty (20)-year period.  Mayor Roe noted that that particular action was voted on without public referendum.  Mayor Roe noted that during that same timeframe, the proposed bond issue would be paid off, actually with a projected term of fifteen (15) years, and that same $40 million annually in future Roseville budgets would be sought from Roseville taxpayers without a referendum, adding up to a total of $600 million.  While having a policy in place to prevent the City Council from spending significant monies without a referendum was a good policy to have, Mayor Roe noted that given the backlog of things not sufficiently maintained, as pointed out in 2006 by staff and representing a $15 million deficit at that time, had remained deferred.  Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council could continue to not get those things done and leave it for the next City Council, as had been done in the past.  While this City Council could make that choice as well, Mayor Roe noted that the majority had chosen not to do so, and while it was painful in the short-term, in the long-term it would leave the City better off in addressing those issues and other replacement needed could be taken care of adequately.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, in order to implement the CIP funding, significant cuts had been made to the operating fund on a day-to-day basis to address that deficit over that twenty (20) year program; and opined that this fell in that same category.  Mayor Roe opined that the City Council had a choice of going projects at a $2 million basis annually, or to do so on a faster track and fund it through bonding at current low interest rates and lower construction costs; to get the projects off the books and moving forward, similar to the process of home owners for home improvements through use of financing over time and accepting a major impact during the initial short time. 

 

Mayor Roe admitted that this was not, nor had it been an easy decision to make, and recognized that the numbers were big; however, ultimately when looking back twenty (20) years from now, he thought they would prove to be the right decision and put the City in a stronger place, without spikes in annual levies.  Mayor Roe advised that this was his rationale to support the motion, as it had been in 2011, and continued to be.

 

In terms of property tax funding and those on fixed incomes, Mayor Roe noted that everyone on the City Council was well aware of that.  Mayor Roe opined that the current system of financing government was a terrible system, but financing government with property taxes was unfortunately the only one available.  Mayor Roe opined that the issue to be addressed was the unfairness of property tax funding, dependent on state legislative action; but reiterated that this was the only funding mechanism available.

 

Mayor Roe advised that, when he ran for election, he had not intended to be a property tax raiser; however, he could not be irresponsible with taxpayer funds, and was charged with leaving the community better off than he found it, as it behooved each Councilmember to do.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe and Finance Director Miller reviewed the CIP to get the unfunded utility balances zeroed out over that twenty (20) year period; and the phase in of those base rates over a two year period, initiated in 2012, and the second phase scheduled for 2013.  Mayor Roe noted that the CIP was to be reviewed annually and funds adjusted as needed.

 

While agreeing to this discussion in principle, Councilmember McGehee advised that there were other ways to phase improvements and not implement them as outlined here; and based on her discussion with the Park consultant, she understood that the proposed implementation plan was not that generally supported by the entire group.

 

Willmus, seconded by Johnson, moved to call the question.

 

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.   

            Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

Roll Call (Original Motion)

            Ayes: Johnson; Willmus and Roe.  

Nays: McGehee and Pust.

Motion carried.

 

c.         Award Contract for Classification and Compensation Study

Mayor Roe recognized Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon who summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated September 24, 2012.

 

Discussion included potential changes in criteria that could affect the proposed cost of the study that was based on a future City Council determination to use Springsted’s proprietary system not currently recommended by staff; 2013 budget impacts from this study, with any proposed reclassification and/or compensation data relevant upon receipt rather than deferring it until it was outdated.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded authorizing City staff to hire Springsted to immediately begin a classification and compensation study as proposed in their bid document in an amount not to exceed $16,500, as previously negotiated by staff.

 

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

d.         Approve Wal-Mart Security Plan

Mayor Roe recognized Police Chief Rick Mathwig who summarized the requested action and draft security agreement for Wal-Mart, as detailed in the RCA dated September 24, 2012.  Chief Mathwig noted that the original Wal-Mart Preliminary Plat approval by the City Council included a condition that a security plan be drawn up by Wal-Mart and approved by the Roseville Police Department.  Chief Mathwig thanked Ms. Sue Steinwall, Wal-Mart attorney, for her cooperative efforts and productive consultation with his department in developing the agreement. 

 

Chief Mathwig advised that the proposed agreement (Attachment A) has the approval of his department as well as that of Wal-Mart’s management staff, including the law enforcement cost-sharing.  In reviewing that particular provision, Chief Mathwig advised that, even though personnel costs represented 87% of his department’s annual budget, the Post Board required certain stipulations; and outlined the options available for funding increased public safety costs in redevelopment or commercial areas, as reviewed by the City Attorney, and detailed on page 2 of the staff report.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned what other options were discussed with the City Attorney beyond this form of cost-sharing; and questioned why a cost-share to fund another officer could not be achieved.

 

Chief Mathwig advised that, while this may be possible, he had not gotten a sense from the City Council that they would authorize half of that cost; nor had he ever heard Wal-Mart representatives agree to such an option from the outset.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that this appeared to be a lovely agreement for Wal-Mart’s benefit, but a poor one for the citizens of Roseville, given minimum hours Wal-Mart would pay for 3.5 hours per day, when the store would operate 24/7.  Councilmember McGehee provided her research of other Wal-Mart stores in the immediate metropolitan area, their hours of operation and questioned why the City of Roseville should be required to offer 24-hour service and settle for only reimbursement of 3.5 hours per day.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a poor contract, with stipulations for computer equipment at a not-to-exceed amount, and only requiring Wal-Mart’s best efforts to preserve digital imagery.

 

Chief Mathwig responded that the security plan remained fluid as operations changed at Wal-Mart and would be based on their future theft and loss history; and was currently based on three (3), 8-hour days per week as observed and provided by the Roseville Police Department for prime shoplifting calls currently received by the Department.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t see the fluidity, even with the early termination clause.

 

Chief Mathwig responded that, since this was the first installment in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area requiring accelerated public safety needs, it may be determined that the actual need may be small or adequate; and thus an early-out was included for Wal-Mart if the City Council authorized the Police Department to hire a commercial patrol officer in the future, who would spend their time among all commercial areas in Roseville (e.g. Target, Wal-Mart, Har Mar Mall,  and Rosedale) and provide increased public safety services in those areas.  Chief Mathwig advised that the not-to-exceed levels had been provided to Wal-Mart by Roseville City Information Technology (IT) staff based on their expertise, and noted that Wal-Mart had chosen to actually further inflate them to make for a better fit.  Chief Mathwig clarified that, as outlined in the RCA, he and the City Attorney had only discussed those three (3) available options, and the recommendation was based on those other two (2) options were not on the playing field at this time.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned why Wal-Mart had more security at their University store than they thought was needed in Roseville.

 

Chief Mathwig suggested that this was based on the University store being an inner-city store and dealing with more police matters than in a first-ring suburb such as Roseville. Chief Mathwig advised that he had spoken directly with a detective and officers about organized crime potential, creating current policing levels at that store.  Chief Mathwig noted that the Roseville store was only the second Wal-Mart store to have off-duty officers working on site, with St. Paul being the other location.  Chief Mathwig advised that the West St. Paul Wal-Mart had private, security guards, manned by off-duty officers.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if this was an add on to their own security before we asked them to do anything, or if they used this agreement to reduce their own previous plan.

 

Chief Mathwig advised that this would serve in addition to their original plan and there was no back out.

 

Councilmember Johnson, from his recollection, noted that the City Council had put their faith in Chief Mathwig to go forth and negotiate an agreement; and expressed his personal confidence in working this out for the benefit of the community above and beyond his normal call of duty.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the City Manager, Mayor and Chief of Police to enter into an agreement entitled (Security Plan for the Roseville Wal-Mart Store (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as presented.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that her comments were meant in no way to be a reflection on Chief Mathwig.

 

Mayor Roe duly noted Councilmember McGehee’s clarification.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to have the engagement between the Chief and Wal-Mart; and was pleased to see a provision for quarterly meetings and an ability to renegotiate as applicable.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for the reasons previous stated.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.   

            Nays: McGehee.

            Motion carried.

 

Councilmember Pust expressed her hope that Wal-Mart would consider the City of Roseville’s well-trained staff for off-duty security.

 

At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief Mathwig reviewed the practice for off-duty Roseville officers choosing to serve as private security when off-duty as private contractors; with nothing funded through the City as overtime, but still authorized to wear their uniforms and be armed.  At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief Mathwig noted the differences in the practice of the City of Bloomington in their practice to fund their off-duty officers working private security at overtime rates through the City’s system, with an added finance charge above that overtime rate.  Chief Mathwig noted that this practice is considered too costly for most cities, and was not recommending it.  Chief Mathwig advised that many off-duty Roseville police officers currently are working in similar capacities at other retailers throughout the community; and it provided additional public safety for the entire community.

 

e.         Community Development Department Request to Declare the Vacant Accessory Structure located at 2609 Snelling Curve as a hazardous Building and to Order its Repair or Removal

Permit Coordinator Don Munson summarized the request to declare the vacant accessory structure at 2609 Snelling Curve as a hazardous building and order its repair, removal or razing; as detailed in the RCA dated September 24, 2012.    Mr. Munson reviewed previous consideration of this issue by the City Council this year, and request of the owner to defer the original abatement request as they were in the process of selling the property.  With nothing further having happened, staff was now recommending this action to ensure follow-through by the property owner, Olta Holdings, LLC.

 

Mr. Munson noted that the property owner was not present.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Munson advised that this process and State Statute had also been used on the former Cattle Company Restaurant property.

 

Councilmember Pust sought clarification on how this building was deemed a hazard to health, if it was currently boarded up.

 

Mr. Munson advised that the statute stated conditions that constitute public safety and/or public health concerns; and noted that his inspection earlier today indicated the boards had been removed allowing access by children or others to this unsafe structure.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11014 entitled, “Declaring the Accessory Structure located at 2609 Snelling Curve a Hazardous Building and Requiring its Repair or Razing.”

 

  Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

 

f.         Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1991 Eldridge Avenue

As previously noted, this item was removed by staff as it had been resolved.

 

13.      Business Items – Presentations / Discussions

 

14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

 

Discussion included potential cancellation of the November 26, 2012, meeting due to the holidays if no quorum was available, or agenda items could be rescheduled to another meeting; potential of November 5, 2012, as a meeting date if needed and recognition of November 12, 2012 as the Veteran’s Day holiday; City Manager Malinen advising that he would be unavailable for the October 8, 2012, meeting; and potential rescheduling of the HRA joint meeting with the City Council to facilitate City Manager Malinen’s attendance for budget discussions on October 15, 2012.

 

Councilmember Johnson requested that budget discussions be scheduled earlier on the agenda rather than later, as previously requested.

 

Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

Adjourn

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:28 pm.

 

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.