City
Council Meeting Minutes
October 15, 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: McGehee; Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe).
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee and Mayor Roe
requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.i; entitled, “Approve a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (RHRA) and the City of Roseville regarding the Sale of the Dale
Street Fire Station Property to the RHRA.”
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and
Roe.
Nays: None.
Interviews for Human Rights Commission
Mayor Roe, Councilmembers and Human
Rights Commission (HRC) Chair Gary Grefenberg interviewed three candidates: Brian
Wiger; Linda Hartz Rump; and Scot Becker for a vacancy on the HRC.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a.
Gary Grefenberg, HRC Chair
HRC Chair Gary Grefenberg
announced an upcoming panel discussion on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm at the City Hall Council Chambers with the State Commissioner of Human
Rights, Steven Lindsay, regarding potential impacts if either or both of the
proposed constitutional amendments post the November General Election.
4.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe announced an opportunity
for Roseville residents at an upcoming Wellness Fair at Roseville City Hall on
Thursday, October 18, 2012 from 4:30 to 7:00 pm. At the Fair, residents will
be able to receive flu shots as well as have blood pressure, hearing and eye
tests. Mayor roe advised that most health insurance will be accepted, with
health insurance cards presented; and costs for those not having insurance
would be $29 for a flu shot or $32 for flu mist; with checks or cash only
accepted, no credit cards.
Councilmember McGehee noted there
were two versions of the shots: a more potent “over 65” version; and another
less potent version and cautioned residents to seek advice from their providers
as to which version they should receive if they didn’t need the “stronger”
version.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
a.
Approve Minutes of October 8, 2012 Meeting
McGehee moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the minutes of the October 8, 2012 meeting as submitted.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Abstentions:
Johnson.
Motion carried.
- 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, Pust McGehee,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
874,789.38
|
|
67857-67943
|
308,404.95
|
|
Total
|
$1,183,194.33
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of license applications for the following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Friends of the Oval Foundation; 2661 Civic Center Drive
|
One—Time Gambling Permit
|
|
|
|
Ace Solid Waste, Inc.; 6601 McKinley Street NW
Ramsey, MN
|
Solid Waste Hauler License
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
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
|
|
Community Development
|
Nelson Auto
|
New Inspections Vehicle (to replace 2001 Ford Taurus)
|
$15,499.89
|
|
Stormwater
|
Freelance Professionals Inc.
|
Seasonal Labor for 2012 Leaf
Pickup Program
|
10,000.00
|
|
Streets
|
North American Salt Co.
|
Road salt per MN Sate Bid Contract
|
35.600.00
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval
of the following sale of surplus vehicles and/or equipment:
|
Department
|
Item / Description
|
Amount
|
|
Community Development
|
Sell 2001 Ford Taurus
|
Estimate $2,400.00
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Accept Roseville Area High School Police Liaison Officer
Agreement for the 2012-2013 School Year
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the 2012-2013 Roseville Area School Police Liaison Officer Agreement
(Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Set November 14, 2012, for a Special Meeting to Canvass Election
Results
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, scheduling
a Special Meeting for Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. to canvass
Municipal General Election results.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Adopt Multi-Agency Law Enforcement Agreement – Minnesota Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Force (MICAC)
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11016 (Attachment A) entitled, “City of Roseville
Participation in the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Program (MICAC);” entering into the Multi-Agency Law Enforcement Joint Powers Agreement
with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ((Attachment B).
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Adopt PERA Resolution for Part-Tim Firefighters
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11017 (Attachment A) entitled, “Part-Time Firefighter PERA
Declaration;” accepting the following as members of the Public Employees Police
and Fire Plan effective the date of the employee’s initial Police and Fire Plan
salary deduction by the City of Roseville: David Doucot; Tom Fehrenbach; John
Huber; Thomas Alexander; Gretchen Johnson; Jody Kelting; Nick Krueger; Tom
Liberkowski; Tom Martinez; Patrick McKee; Erin Stone; and Peter Tierney.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
h.
Authorize Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal
Inflow and Infiltration Grant Application
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11018 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Supporting Application
for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration/Inflow
Grant;” for improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
- Consider Items Removed from Consent
i.
Approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Roseville
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (RHRA) and the City of Roseville regarding
the sale of the Dale Street Fire Station Property to the RHRA
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly summarized provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) (Attachment A), as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated October 15, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee referenced
Section B.4 (line 27-29) of the MOU regarding rezoning; and expressed her
concern in rezoning the property that high of a designation when it was
adjacent to lower density residential properties. Councilmember McGehee noted
that Councilmember Willmus had alluded to similar concerns in previous
discussions at the joint meeting of the HRA and City Council; and while seeking
to make a statement with this development project in Roseville, Councilmember
McGehee felt the City Council should not commit to rezoning in advance of seeing
the development plans or hearing from adjacent residents as to their
preferences. Councilmember McGehee suggested that language be revised to state
that the parcel would be rezoned in conformance with an agreed-upon plan coming
forward to the City Council following negotiations with residents and the HRA,
rather than rezoning the entire area for HDR-1 at this time, since that seemed
to be a very broad and intense use of the land, and not her recollection of
previous discussions.
HRA Executive Director Patrick
Trudgeon advised that the language, as written, states “… up to” HDR-1, noting
that there was an even higher zoning designation, HDR-2, but that was not being
recommended recognizing the lower densities adjacent to the parcels. Mr.
Trudgeon clarified that this MOU was specific to the fire station property
only, rezoning it from its current Institutional (I) zoning to the HDR-1, and
as stated was for “up to” HDR-1 and remained flexible at this time. Mr.
Trudgeon further clarified that the ultimate zoning would be up to the City
Council once guidance and plans had been determined. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
staff thought it was appropriate to highlight in the MOU; realizing and
reiterating that it was ultimately up to the City Council at a later date.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the fire station parcel was on the corner, with single-family residential
across the side street as well as at the rear of the parcel, with vacant lots
behind the other lots. Councilmember McGehee concurred that the language was
sufficient as written as long as it would come back to the City Council again;
opining that she did not like to make a commitment to the HDR-1 zoning at this
time.
On another note, Councilmember McGehee
noted the need for the City Council to be alert to the use of union and
non-union workers for any future construction projects to avoid similar issues as
those being experienced with construction of the new fire station. If
partnering with a private developer, Councilmember McGehee suggested that any
municipal contracts should stipulate a certain percentage of union and
non-union workers. While Councilmember McGehee admitted that this was an
entirely separate issue, and not necessarily applicable to the MOU, she noted
the need to bring it to the City Council’s attention at this time, since the
City and HRA were entering into a new role with this proposed redevelopment
project.
Mayor Roe duly noted that City
Manager Malinen had taken note of this union-related discussion for future
reference.
Councilmember Willmus clarified
that his concern with HDR zoning was for the fire station site only; and the
need to create a buffer for those single-family lots adjacent to residential
lots. If the neighborhood raised such concerns in the future, Councilmember
Willmus noted that this would raise a flag for him.
Mr. Trudgeon recognized the
concerns; noting that, in this instance, the City Council remained in control
of the redevelopment as a development partner with the HRA and the
neighborhood, and clarified that the HRA would not be making any land use
decision through execution of this MOU with the City. Mr. Trudgeon advised
that he anticipated significant engagement and interaction with the
neighborhood and among all parties during this process. Mr. Trudgeon further
noted that the term of this MOU was through 2017, and that there would a lot of
time to address issues as the process moved forward.
Mayor Roe noted a correction on
page 1 of the MOU (lines 41-42) suggesting striking language in the parentheses
“…(the cost of which is offset against the purchase price, as described
above);” as this was addressed in Item B-.1 (lines 19-22).
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment A) between the City of
Roseville and the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (RHRA);
regarding the sale of the Dale Street Fire Station located at 2335 Dale Street
to the RHRA; as amended with Item C.3 to read as follows: “The RHRA will
undertake environmental review and remediation of the Property, including
conducting a Phase I and Phase II environmental review as necessary; a
Hazardous Building Assessment and resulting remediation as determined by the
studies.”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
14.
Public Hearings
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a. Approve
LHB Consulting as Lead Consultant for the Park and Recreation Renewal Program
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie
Brokke and Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson highlighted the RCA dated October
15, 2012; for approval of LHB Consulting as lead consultant for the Park and
Recreation Renewal Program.
Mr. Brokke reviewed the recent
interview process and six (6) selection criteria.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Brokke described the scope of services provided in this consulting activity and
how it related to staff involvement and teamwork in the process.
Mr.
Brokke assured that the consultant would be tasked with coordinating planning efforts
with the community and staff, recognizing other amenities and working with
agencies (e.g. watershed districts); and advising how best to package upcoming
Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) to gain the greatest efficiencies throughout the
process. Mr. Brokke advised that it was the intent to continue the process
similar to the successful Master Plan process, with even more refined
engagement of neighborhoods as projects developed that would impact them. Mr.
Brokke noted that this would take the City to the next level of design work and
that the consultant would develop consistent and appropriate construction and
design standards for each item (e.g. features and maintenance efficiencies);
and assist with other sub-consultants (e.g. natural resources consultant) to
assure that consistency continued to flow through the adopted Master Plan,
updating it along the way as indicated.
Mayor
Roe asked for clarification as to why a consultant was recommended versus using
in-house staff and resources.
Mr.
Brokke advised that the specific disciplines needed for design, civil and
mechanical engineering, and landscaping were not all available in-house to the
level needed.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned the value of the consultant allotting up to two (2) days per
month at City Hall or other sites for meetings, and why those meetings couldn’t
be facilitated by staff.
Mr.
Brokke clarified that this was the value piece to provide a regular and
consistent discussion of concerns (e.g. if community group recommendations and
projects needed further refinement) based on the expertise of the consultant;
and was separated intentionally from the base contract itself as noted in the
RCA.
Discussion
ensued regarding flexibility of the meeting times/days at the discretion of
City staff and the community groups; not-to-exceed amount of hours depending on
the length of time needed for the design work and program plan to be fully
developed and refined; and significant interest of Roseville citizens in
participating in the planning process itself.
Councilmember
McGehee suggested adding a full-time staff person in-house for the four (4)
year duration of this project; questioning if this would provide any cost
savings with Mr. Evenson overseeing the finer details of the design standards.
Mr.
Brokke advised that he and City Manager Malinen had discussed this at a staff
level; however, it was their intent given current workloads and potential
future employee needs for maintenance and other deliverables, it had been the
consensus that it would be more cost-effective to use Mr. Evenson’s landscape
design expertise to oversee the projects and forego a construction manager,
since allocating his time upfront appeared to be more beneficial. Mr. Brokke
noted that this would allow for use of the consultant’s expertise upfront and
then allow staff to manage the project through to the end for those
construction projects; and through thinking the process through in the
beginning would provide for less monitoring time needed by staff and allow the
contractors to think through the projects more efficiently.
Further
discussion included the four (4) year process and shifting projects into
alternate years due to the later than anticipated start time; recognizing the
expertise and level of in-house expertise; reliance on Arizona State for the
Best Value Procurement Method once designs and plans/specifications had been
completed; clarification that this consultant was not intended for the
construction process itself; City hiring of contractors for specific projects
with staff oversight versus a construction manager/consultant; and
clarification that bond funds could not be used for staffing.
Mayor
Roe noted the need to rely on input from City management staff for future,
long-term staffing as projects develop may be more prudent than attempting a
more specific, short-term hire at this time.
Mr.
Brokke expressed appreciation that Mayor Roe recognized that future need,
noting that he and City Manager Malinen continued with ongoing discussions on
that potential need; and suggested that if any savings were realized from the
2012 budget, that savings was intended to be allotted for hiring part-time
staff to take on some of the responsibilities currently being undertaken by
more senior staff, and provide more flexibility as needs developed.
Councilmember
McGehee opined that, from a management perspective, she thought those issues
would be worked out during the design stages; noting that the current Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) may not sufficiently address ongoing maintenance
needs in the future. Councilmember McGehee further opined that an employee
could be trained in on the process and coordinate activities with Mr. Evenson
in conjunction with Arizona State, allowing for one additional person as the
keeper of design standards for the projects. Councilmember McGehee opined that
this was a new day for the Parks and Recreation Department moving forward in
setting standards and branding goals over the next few years, and work would
continue to escalate. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this
responsibility should not be relegated to only a few available people; and
while recognizing that Mr. Evenson brought his historical and technical
expertise to the table, it would be advantageous to have someone with
complementary skills to his. Councilmember McGehee opined that such a major
project should not rely on a consultant, but be supported by in-house staff.
Mayor Roe
advised that staff could certainly take Councilmember McGehee’s recommendations
under advisement; noting that the entire process was evolving, as well as the
Public Works Asset Management Software Program and applicable staffing and the
expertise and management controls that would provide city-wide.
Councilmember
Willmus expressed his appreciation for Councilmember McGehee’s observations and
comments; suggesting that the discussion certainly may come forward down the
road. Councilmember Willmus further recognized the response of Mr. Brokke for
his and City Manager Malinen’s consideration and background analysis of value
of in-house staff versus consultants at this time. Councilmember Willmus spoke
in support of staff’s recommendation, opining that it appeared to be the best
route indicated at this time.
Councilmember
Johnson echoed the remarks of Councilmember Willmus; and recognized the
comments of Councilmember McGehee about future staff needs. However,
Councilmember Johnson opined that now was not the time for that evaluation
beyond that already done by staff prior to this recommendation. With a new
City Council in place in the future, Councilmember Johnson opined that this
would be sufficient time to address those needs. Councilmember Johnson
recognized the complexities of upfront planning, and spoke in support of
staff’s recommendation to seek outside consultation as the most cost-effective
approach to utilize expertise for that planning. Councilmember Johnson
concurred that the design work and planning necessary for implementation
required a vast amount of work to be done; and expressed his confidence in
having expert advice available moving forward; and reiterated his support of
the recommendation.
Along
those lines, Councilmember McGehee, echoed Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus;
agreeing that upfront planning was the most critical piece. However,
Councilmember McGehee asked that, once that was done, staff would not rush to
get things done, but do the projects in a logical, orderly fashion, with some
flexibility; with the key need being to have a good plan in place over the next
nine (9) months.
McGehee
moved, Johnson seconded, approval of entering into a professional services
agreement with LHB Consulting for services as detailed in the pre-award
document (Attachment A) to assist in leading the Park and Recreation Renewal
Program as outlined, at a cost not to exceed $194,418 ($172,338 base and
$22,080 for value added item community interaction item); with funds to be
taken from the Park and Recreation Renewal Program Budget; authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents, contingent upon final review
and approval by the City Attorney.
Mayor
Roe opined that it made sense to use experts available for this planning, while
allowing in-house staff to continue offering programming and maintaining
facilities over the next four (4) years.
Councilmember
McGehee, from her perspective, opined that she also wished the many City
departments retain their broad range of management for services, vehicles,
expertise, and facilities during the process and not shortchanging them during
that time.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:38 pm and
reconvened at approximately 7:44 pm.
13. Business Items – Presentations / Discussions
a. Budget Discussion
Mayor Roe recognized Finance
Director Chris Miller, who provided a summary of discussions to-date specific
to the City Council-adopted 2013 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget. With that
Preliminary 2013 Tax Levy at $17,319,826, an increase of $2,357,532 or 15.8%
from 2011, Mr. Miller advised that the increase was detailed on page 1 of the
RCA dated October 15, 2012 by category to facilitate additional City Council
discussion. Mr. Miller further noted the decision packages created by staff
throughout the RCA in an effort to isolate those specific areas for City
Council review; as well as additional information included from staff, as
requested by individual Councilmembers at previous meetings, related to vehicle
replacement policies of the Police and Public Works Departments.
Mr. Miller referenced three (3)
bench handouts supplemental to preparation of the meeting packet and identified
as follows:
·
August 27, 2012 Memorandum from Finance Director Miller entitled
“Summary of City Cash Reserves” (Attachment G);
·
“Debt Service Payment Summary” for Series 23, 25, 27, 28 and 31
Bond Issues and debt service over the next twenty (20) years; and
·
January 6, 2011 Memorandum from Finance Director Miller entitled
“Summary of City Cash Reserves.”
Regarding the process for bench
handouts, Councilmember Willmus sought clarification, based on comments heard
from residents, that they were updated online as supplemental to packet
information and asked that they be included online as part of the record.
Mayor Roe concurred that this was
a valid comment; and asked that staff ensure bench handouts were provided
online for historical purposes; and suggested that they be clearly identified
and classified as addenda, not part of the original packets, in order for the
public to understand that the information was provided as supplemental to the
meeting agenda packet materials.
Councilmember Willmus thanked
staff for providing the debt service summaries; and sought clarification from
Mr. Miller for the 2003 City Hall Bonds (Series 27) as to the call provision
and any cost-savings if the bond issue was prepaid in the immediate future.
Specific to the rationale for his query, Councilmember Willmus noted the
General Fund reserve position at year-end 2009 compared to year-end 2011, along
with reserve fund target levels, and how healthy some of those reserves
appeared to be. Councilmember Willmus sought further information from Mr.
Miller as to the proposed allocation for those reserves in the near future,
especially those not designated in Enterprise Funds and at the City Council’s
discretionary allotment; and whether staff had recommended purpose for those
funds in the near future.
Mr. Miller advised that his
response would vary depending on which specific reserve funds were being
addressed. Mr. Miller referenced his August 2012 memorandum, noting that the
General Fund reserve target was currently 40%, with the City Council Policy
outlining between 35-45%. However, Mr. Miller noted that since the General
Fund varied over the course of a year based on receipt semi-annually of
property tax revenues from Ramsey County, as well as the reserve level growing
with the General Fund annually as indicated, the amount of the reserve fund was
ever changing. Mr. Miller noted that, while the reserve level was funded at
40% on average in 2011, in 2013, that level dropped off considerably, and by
2014, trended below 40%, and would continue to systematically decline.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that he could only provide estimated year-end
projections at this time with information available through September of 2012,
indicating that it was trending close to projections and budget levels, with
reserve levels remaining fairly consistent, and a potential small surplus in
operating funds.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
future staff presentations include identification of savings carried forward
from 2011 to 2012; and projected savings from 2012 to 2013. Councilmember
Willmus advised that he needed to have a clear understanding of that data prior
to his approval or denial of the Final 2013 Levy.
Mayor Roe clarified, and
Councilmember Willmus confirmed, that he was seeking actual versus budget
dollars annually.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to
how staff would provide that information, Mr. Miller advised that it would be
presented in a format by fund similar to that included in page 2 of the RCA
dated October 15, 2012. Mayor Roe spoke in support of staff providing the
information in that format.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller clarified that the target percentage for General Fund reserves would be
based on the total General Fund budget, inclusive of all non-tax and
tax-supported monies. Mayor Roe clarified that his rationale in calling out
the distinction of non-property tax funding was based on receipt semi-annually
of property tax funds from Ramsey County.
Councilmember Johnson sought
clarification on why the target reserve percentage in 2009 was at 50% and was
now less, with Mr. Miller responding that this had been a City Council policy
to reduce the reserve levels; but clarified that reserve balances were
sufficient and allowed the City to remain in a good fiscal standing. Mr.
Miller, in response to Councilmember Johnson, advised that the reserve balance
was captured at the end of the fiscal year, December 31st, and noted
that it did fluctuate throughout the year based on receipt of semi-annual
property tax payments.
In response to questions regarding
the Communications Fund and healthy reserve levels at this time, Mr. Miller advised
that, while they were strong now, revenue was through cable franchise fees, and
there was a fair amount of uncertainty about whether or not those fees would be
retained at the same level in the future, with renewal of the franchise
agreement scheduled for 2014. Mr. Miller advised that he could not, with any
confidence, assure that fees would remain the same, and expressed his concern
that revenues may decrease. Admitting that current strong position of those
reserves may not be needed, Mr. Miller opined that things could look
drastically different in a few years. Mr. Miller also clarified that those
Communication Funds were legally restricted funds.
Mayor Roe clarified the restricted
uses of those Communication Funds (e.g. cameras in City Hall, soundboards) and operational
costs for the City’s newsletter and website.
Mr. Miller concurred with Mayor
Roe, noting that the City should correlate those future needs with the twenty
(20) year CIP to determine if the CIP was adequately funded or not.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller confirmed that staff could be funded from the Communication
Fund as long as they were performing communication-related work, no matter
which department.
Regarding the License Center, Mr.
Miller advised that reserves were in a strong financial position at this time;
however, Mr. Miller noted that the intent was to keep the reserve level strong
in anticipation of the potential future plan to house the License Center in a
city-owned facility, requiring funds to construct such a facility or portion
thereof; and when that occurred, those reserves would drop significantly.
Regarding the Water Fund, Mayor
Roe noted that there was no reserve in place right now, and advised that, based
on his discussions with Mr. Miller, he would address how the Water Fund related
to the CIP in his presentation later tonight. At this point, Mayor Roe noted
that the intended transfer of funds into the Water Fund based on actions taken
last year, had not happened to-date.
Mr. Miller concurred, noting that evaluation
is ongoing as to whether to transfer funds from the Storm Sewer Fund to the
Water Fund to boost the bottom line.
Mayor Roe noted that this was
dependent on final costs yet to be determined for some projects, and also on
whether capital project costs in the Water Fund would provide a better idea of
how to get that fund back into the black. Mayor Roe noted that the Water Fund
as an Enterprise Fund indicated the need to segregate capital funding from
operating funds; and asked Mr. Miller if a subfund underneath that broader fund
could be created.
Mr. Miller responded
affirmatively, if a cash flow could be equalized for monthly operational needs,
and the rest designated for capital needs; opining that such an effort should
not prove too onerous.
Mayor Roe suggested future budget
cycles (2014/2015) consider such a designation.
Regarding Recycling, Councilmember
Willmus sought clarification as to why there was a reserve fund for recycling,
since the City’s monthly rate for residential recycling was similar to that of
other communities; with a revenue sharing program also in place. Councilmember
Willmus questioned if the reserve account was being built from that revenue
sharing or other sources.
Mr. Miller advised that the
revenue sharing had generated the surplus; however, he noted the significant
variables in that revenue sharing, with it almost disappearing in 2010; making
the Recycling Fund susceptible to spikes – negative or positive – as well as a
portion of its annual revenue funding source from the SCORE grant from Ramsey
County of between $65,000 - $70,000, that was not a given either.
In response to Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the intended use of the reserve funds was to
mitigate future rate increases, or revise types and/or frequencies of
pick-ups. Mr. Miller noted that the use of the reserves was at the discretion
of the City Council and their preferred business model approach for this
Enterprise Fund.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the recent rate increase with Eureka Recycling
was not mitigated with reserve fund balances to reduce it, since most of the
reserve was received in 2012. Mr. Miller reiterated that, if the Fund took a
hit from reduced SCORE grant funding from Ramsey County or revenue sharing was
significantly reduced again, the surplus would go away as well.
In recognizing that the original
intent of revenue sharing was to offset resident costs, Councilmember Willmus
sought to make sure that was how it was being utilized. Mr. Miller responded
that it was; however, he clarified that the City did not know the amount of its
revenue sharing annually; and suggested when the City Council took action to
set its rates later this year, it should determine trends and set rates accordingly.
In response to Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that, at the City Council’s discretion, revenue
sharing projections and application could be used as a criterion in weighing
and evaluating future RFP’s of potential vendors.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Miller provided projected impacts in 2013 for median value homes in
Roseville and annual levies for average homeowners, compared with 2012 numbers.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
there would be an increase for water utilities fees as well as an increased
property tax levy.
Mr. Miller clarified that the
utility fee increases were different for each utility (e.g. water, sewer, storm
sewer), but that total for all three (3) in 2012 was $6.23 per month, and 2013
would be an additional $6.22 per month, as determined by the City Council to
phase the rate increases in over two (2) years.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that, if approved as recommended, the dollar impact
for a typical median valued home in Roseville for the HRA levy would be an
additional $1.28 per month.
Mayor Roe noted that the HRA tax
impact on the average homeowner had not been very high in past years.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
her intent was to provide information for homeowners on the median impact in
dollar amounts versus percentage. Councilmember McGehee noted the importance
to recognize economic impacts to property owners over the last few years, as
well as the drop in home values over that same time.
Based on the figures provided by
Mr. Miller, Council member McGehee stated that the impact on the average home
for 2013 was $12.68 per month or $152.16 per year. The 2012 levy and fees
resulted in $7.5 per month or $85.80 per year.
Thus the total increase for the
average homeowner during this biennial budget cycle was $237.96. She also
noted that this amount will continue in the base going forward.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that the average drop in home values, based on
information from Ramsey County, was approximately 8-10% per year over the last
two (2) years.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, and as confirmed by Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller clarified that the loss of
homestead credits had been factored into the numbers he had provided; and
represented a net effect.
Councilmember McGehee noted the
impacts to property owners with reduced home values if and when they attempted
to sell their homes, as well as recognizing impacts for those who have lost
their jobs or if fortunate enough to locate another job, finding the salary
substantially lower.
Mayor Roe noted that the City
Council was cognizant of those issues, even though many were out of its
immediate control. Council member McGehee agreed that many economic factors
were out of the Council’s control, but felt it is necessary to be mindful of
them when making our the Council’s own economic impacts on residents.
Referencing the October 15, 2012
RCA, Councilmember Pust addressed the proposed 15.8% levy increase for 2013, as
itemized on page 1 of the RCA in fourteen (14) categories that would be added
to the base budget for 2014 budget discussions, or $2.3 million. Councilmember
Pust sought clarification on those fourteen (14) categories, and which were
actually specific to the base budget and which were one-time expenses and
should therefore not be included in the base budget for future budget
discussions.
Discussion ensued on those
individual categories, with Mr. Miller clarifying that items (e.g. call volumes
for Ramsey County Dispatch services; Fire Relief Pension obligations based on
actuarial calculations; COLA); and other considerations and rationale for
including those categories in the base budget.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
City Council needed to further review the list to determine which items should
remain on the base budget and which should be addressed in other funding
categories as one-time expenses. Examples provided by Councilmember Pust
included the Compensation Study costs versus implementation of those results;
and equipment replacement as it correlates with the CIP. Councilmember Pust
noted that this was her last opportunity to address the base adjustments and
details for the record during her tenure on the City Council.
City Manager Malinen referenced
pages 2-3 of the RCA and the decision packages provided by Finance Director
Miller, and his subsequent review of each package on pages 3-4 of the RCA. Mr.
Malinen noted that many were part of the City Council’s budget process for 2013
and summarized each and their specifics. As an example in response to
Councilmember Pust’s concerns, Mr. Malinen advised that he and Mr. Miller
always projected COLA at 2%, as had been done previously, and then agreements
had been subsequently negotiated, with the 2013 budget amount reflecting those
adjustments to the levy.
Mr. Miller concurred, noting that
there was additional funding needed beyond the levy amount, reflected through
2012 turnover and hires at the lower end of the wage scale to replace retiring
employees at the higher end of the wage scale, representing some savings in the
base.
Mr. Malinen reiterated that the
percentage coming forward affecting the employee would be 2% projected, but
that would not be 2% reflected over the current levy amount.
Councilmember Pust thanked Mr.
Malinen and Mr. Miller for that clarification; however, she opined that if
staff was spending captured salary savings and only building in 1%, they were
not increasing the base.
Mr. Miller clarified that 1% was
what was needed for 2013, based on an annual formula, with staff always asking
for the net needed.
Mr. Malinen noted, with
clarification by Mr. Miller, that those items were already part of the base
moving forward into this projection and budget.
Councilmember Pust noted in the
first biennial budget passed in 2011, 2013 health care premiums were unknown;
however, she noted that they were now known.
Mayor Roe noted that the Cafeteria
Plan for employees was passed at the previous City Council meeting.
Mr. Miller clarified that, getting
back to the starting point and Preliminary Budget adopted by the City Council
at their September 10, 2012 meeting, those projected healthcare premium
increases were projected at $55,000, but had come in between $35,000 to
$40,000. However, Mr. Miller cautioned that the actual amount needed remained
an unknown based on Open Enrollment and potential changes elected by employees
moving from single to family coverage and/or new hires moving the range of
coverage tiers, impacting that actual amount. Therefore, Mr. Miller advised
that, while not typically providing such a level of detail with the City
Council, assumptions remained an inexact science to determine employee costs,
and projected savings potential.
Councilmember Pust recognized that
concern, and therefore the need for reserves; however, opined that the City
Council needed to continually remind itself that they aimed high to provide a
cushion, but needed to consider how that cushion could and should be used.
While recognizing the challenge in projecting budget needs and revenue sources,
Councilmember Pust noted that it was her job to ask the questions, but assured
all that she appreciated Mr. Miller’s skill level and expertise, and asked that
her questions and/or comments not be taken as criticism.
Mayor Roe noted that, with Open
Enrollment completed before adoption of the final levy and budget, more firm
information should be available before those decisions are made.
Mr. Miller noted that the City had
experienced more operating deficits than surpluses in the General Fund over the
last five (5) years; advising this prompted him to be more conservative when
making presumptions and assumptions.
Councilmember Pust observed that
this provided a good balance for Roseville residents; with Mayor Roe
concurring, noting that staff and Councilmembers were all working toward the
same goal.
Councilmember McGehee noted the
need to have information available on impacts to taxpayers and answers to
provide as to why their taxes were increasing. Councilmember McGehee expressed
frustration that the City’s infrastructure and CIP needs and maintenance had
been deferred to now; however, she agreed with Mayor Roe and Mr. Miller that
the City needed to get back to a sustainable condition. Coming on the heels of
other economic concerns, reduced market values, loss of homestead tax credits,
and employment issues, Councilmember McGehee recognized the reality that
everyone was facing. While pointing out that a large number of Roseville
seniors own their homes without a mortgage, Councilmember McGehee also
recognized that many of those seniors were on fixed incomes. While this was
not the fault of the City Council, Councilmember McGehee recognized that the
Council needed to remain cognizant of that fact.
Regarding the Communication Fund
and an increase of $23,000 from 2011 to 2013 in personal services, City Manager
Malinen advised that this was based on a reallocation of duties and
reorganization within that area, and did not envision those numbers changing.
Councilmember Willmus advised
that, moving forward, he would be looking for more detailed information related
specifically to the Communication area.
Mayor Roe noted that the change
from 2012 to 2013 was based on the recent time study allocation changes and
refinements, in addition to changes in the election functions as well.
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) Subcommittee Report
On behalf of the CIP Subcommittee,
consisting of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen, and
Finance Director Miller, Mayor Roe referenced the Subcommittee’s Phase II
Report dated September 10, 2012 and included as Attachment D to the RCA dated
October 15, 2012. Mayor Roe advised that he wanted to provide a brief
refresher of 2012 CIP recommendations, and a more detailed review of the
Subcommittee’s 2013 recommendations.
Mayor Roe noted that the
Subcommittee had looked at current situations for all funds, and then had
provided their recommended solutions to specific funds and issues,
incorporating planned expenditures for all areas and annual itemization and
totals per category. Mayor Roe reviewed the entire process, and the Subcommittee’s
recommendation to provide a solution to make sure fund balances stayed
positive, not negative, while those healthy balances provided funds to address
annual costs, similar to what a bank would provide through an escrow balance
for a home mortgage.
Mayor Roe noted that the first
step had been taken in the 2012 budget, with significant cuts to the operating
fund transferred to the CIP; in addition to added property tax funds to
accomplish resulting fund balances that fluctuated annually in future budget years.
Mayor Roe updated the 2012 problem
(page 5 of 10) and remaining unfunded items, represented by the rest of the
solution and 2012 Subcommittee recommendations over the next eight (8) years
and their proposed actions for City Council consideration. Mayor Roe reviewed
each category, and advised that the City Council look at the CIP during every
biennium to ensure funds didn’t revert back into the negative again.
In pages 6-10, Mayor Roe reviewed
each CIP Fund needing immediate attention over those first eight (8) years of
the twenty (20) year CIP, including the Street Pavement Management Program
(PMP); Park Facilities and Park Improvement Program (PIP); Skating Center
Facilities; Information Technology (IT), Central Services and Administration;
Pathways & Parking Lots PMP; and Street Light Replacement. In attempting
to stabilize those funds, Mayor Roe noted that recommendations included use of both
existing tax levy amounts for current bonds when paid off, as well as new tax
revenue, in some years for those most immediate needs; resulting in significant
and sustainable solutions as outlined.
Discussion included parks and
pathways operating and dedicated maintenance funds for Parks and Public Works
areas; and annual adjustments to the twenty (20) year CIP as those annual
operating costs came into play.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mayor Roe noted that separation of funding between the Parks and
Public Works Departments were fairly easy to track in the annual budget as
separate categories broken out by program activity depending on how their roles
were defined. Mayor Roe clarified that this portion of the discussion was
specific only to capital funding, not ongoing maintenance.
Streets PMP
Mayor Roe noted the significance
and uniqueness of this fund, intended with annual projects to be funded from
interest earned and those funds dictating street rehabilitation projects with
the $12 million fund balance. However, Mayor Roe noted that at this time the
needs were increasing faster than current interest rates could address; and the
principle balance was being drawn due to those reduced interest rates and
ongoing needs. Mayor Roe noted the need for action soon, with the proposed
solution detailed in the memorandum (page 6, lines 192-217).
Discussion included annual miles
of projects that had remained consistent to-date, and pending Public Works,
Environment, and Transportation Commission (PWETC) review and their subsequent
recommendation as to annual miles to be considered and/or level of maintenance
for the PMP Fund.
Mayor Roe advised that the CIP
Subcommittee’s solution was based on current mileage going forward over the
next eight (8) years.
Councilmember Pust noted another
option was to seek recommendation from the PWETC or policy discussion by the
City Council on how much to recover through assessments.
Mayor Roe noted that the PWETC had provided their recommendation through the
recent Assessment Policy review and update adopted by the City Council
resulting in a negligible impact to the CIP.
Councilmember Willmus noted that the discussion also
addressed litigation issues in proving benefit to properties for reconstruction
projects and whether assessments were justified based on the benefit of a mill
and overlay to property value.
Parks Facilities and PIP (page
6, lines 220-238)
Mayor Roe reviewed the
Subcommittee’s proposed solution, outside the separate New Pathways discussion;
funding sources, repurposing, and stabilization.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mayor Roe noted retirement of debt service earlier than projected
could be repurposed for these needs, however, he advised that the solution was
based on current schedules.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mayor Roe advised that future fund balances would retain $2 million
for maintenance as well as a cushion for unexpected projects; however, he noted
that the 20 (20) year CIP could be fine-tuned periodically between now and
2030.
Skating Center Facilities (page
7, lines 241 – 260)
Mayor Roe summarized this category
as detailed in the Memorandum, with no specific discussion related to it.
IT, Central Services and
Administration (page 7, lines 263-281)
Mayor Roe noted these fund
balances were addressed in the August 27, 2012 staff memorandum, as well as included
in the September 10, 2012 packet materials as well.
Pathways & Parking Lots,
PMP (page 8, lines 284 – 295)
Mayor Roe recognized that this
much smaller deficit was easier to address as indicated for 2015.
Street Light Replacement (page
8, lines 298-306)
Mayor Roe opined that it made
sense to provide a designated fund for these needs, with funding coming from
the building replacement versus using General Fund reserves for that purpose.
Total Impact of the 2012 CIP
Subcommittee Recommendations (page 9)
In conclusion, Mayor Roe
referenced pages 9 and 10 of the Subcommittee report with their recommendations
and total impact of the 2012 CIP Subcommittee Recommendations as detailed, with
Table 1 on page 9 illustrating annual levy impacts between 2013 and 2012
independent of any other levy changes that may be required.
Additional Recommendations
(Page 9, lines 320-332)
Mayor Roe advised that the CIP
Subcommittee recommends that the proposed solutions, as outlined, be formally adopted
by resolution, making it the policy of the city, incenting future city
decision-makers to follow through on these critical funding plans.
Councilmember Pust opined that,
with the exception of the most recent bond issues, she was proud of the steps
taken by the City Council to address these issues and provide for a sustainable
budget. Councilmember Pust expressed her sincere appreciation to the CIP
Subcommittee for their phenomenal work, and thanked Mayor Roe for his clear
presentation tonight on behalf of the Subcommittee.
In looking at the 2012 budget,
Councilmember Pust recognized that the funding cuts to the operational budget
were hard to do, but commended staff and the City Council for taking those
steps; and going forward as they annually reviewed budgets, charged future City
Councils and staff to review those operational expenses annually as well.
Councilmember Pust recognized that the City already ran very lean, but
encouraged that periodic review as well.
While appreciating the City
Council’s review of and consideration of repurposing levy funds, Councilmember
Pust noted that the City Council needed to keep citizens updated on their
intent; and noted that citizens, when asked if they were willing to have their
taxes increased over a number of years, and assurances by the City Council that
the bonds would be paid off and the additional taxes no longer needed within
15-25 years, any changes needed to be clearly defined for those citizens.
Councilmember Pust addressed the need for honesty with citizens, since this was
not just new dollars; and she didn’t see any reduction or limit; and asked that
those plans needed to be acknowledged to citizens.
Mayor Roe advised that his
rationale for having this information presented and available to the public was
to ensure they were aware of this important and recommended solution.
Councilmember Willmus sought
clarification on impacts for the CIP funding to consistently be 1% annually,
rather than higher and lower by a portion of a percentage, and whether that would
provide any savings in the net levy.
Mayor Roe noted that a percentage
of 1.3% equaled $185,000 and the impact of a change to 1% could be calculated
accordingly to determine impacts.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
this was a delicate balance right now to replenish accounts in certain years
based on projected needed in each category and provided by staff in their
analysis of those needs.
Councilmember Willmus noted the
amount of work done by the Subcommittee to phase levy impacts, and questioned
if there was a way to further phase it.
Mayor Roe noted that there may
certainly be a way to make adjustments on the levy in the future; and that this
was intended to provide a framework going forward as a way to understand the
numbers, but opined that there would always be an opportunity in the future for
further refinement.
Councilmember Willmus noted his
need to understand annual budget savings, and potential ways for reallocation
or repurposing dollars to save levy dollars; and asked Mr. Miller to consider
that request for information in upcoming weeks.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
Mayor Roe had done an excellent job in outlining this very complex issue; and
expressed his appreciation to Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen and Finance
Director Miller for their guidance and work on the Subcommittee process.
Councilmember Johnson also thanked Departments Heads for their honest
assessments. Now that the big picture was in place and if the City Council
bought into the solutions as their philosophy going forward, Councilmember
Johnson opined that it would provide a healthy situation. Councilmember
Johnson opined that it was important to have the CIP overall picture, with a
2-5 year outlook to refine it and identify increases; and noted that the funding
as outlined in Table 1 represented critical times for each category.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her appreciation to the Subcommittee for their work as well; opining that they
did a good job, and provided a clear and healthier way to move forward, and
represented a path much more in line with her preferred philosophy.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City Council consider projecting
biennial budgets as well, while recognizing that there was more fluidity for
those situations. Councilmember McGehee opined that this represented a better
management process for the City’s budget and again thanked the Subcommittee for
their work.
Recognizing Finance Director
Miller for his initial recommendations for financial control policies,
Councilmember Pust noted the success of those projected targets being set for
reserve funds. While noting that they sometimes changed, Councilmember Pust
opined that they remained as a guiding framework and were accepted as true by
the City Council. Councilmember Pust supported adopting a formal policy as
recommended to encourage future City Councils to retain this framework, while
allowing for some flexibility, but still guiding future decision-making.
Councilmember Pust also asked that a way also be formalized for a review of
each biennial cycle to determine if designated amounts had been spent, whether
projections had proven high or low to actual expenditures and/or revenues; and
that those be incorporated by Department Heads in their long-range planning,
providing for continuing refinement based on those learning curves.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting the
need to have more focus on the CIP annually during budget discussions and as
part of the process moving forward, with feedback on previous biennial budgets
on a staff level as well as from the public.
Councilmember Pust noted that this
also provided Department Heads an opportunity to address best practices and
vehicle replacement needs.
Additional Topic: New Pathway
Construction (page 10, lines 335 – 346)
Councilmember McGehee noted her
observations with recently installed and/or currently under construction
pathways being used by the public, indicating how seriously people took those
pathways and how important they were in their daily activities.
At Councilmember McGehee’s
request, Mayor Roe advised that the public would be apprised of as much of this
information as possible; and his supplemental presentation materials would be
provided to staff to put online.
Mayor Roe suggested a CIP section
be incorporated into the City’s website for easier access by the public.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Mr. Malinen noted that, at this
time, it appears that the November 26, 2012 scheduled City Council meeting may
not be necessary, and if no objections of the City Council, an action item on
the November 19, 2012, agenda would include an item canceling that meeting;
leaving two meetings remaining in December.
Discussion included legislative
initiatives moved to 2013 as the new Council came on board; and upcoming
reception for retiring Councilmembers Pust and Johnson.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
the November 19, 2012, meeting provide additional time for budget discussions
as a follow-up to tonight’s discussion and information requests.
i.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
At the request of Councilmember Johnson,
Mayor Roe advised that the next meeting would include a discussion about the
form and process for the City Manager’s annual review; followed by initiation
of the 360 degree process; and results on November 19 or December 3.
Councilmember Johnson noted the need to schedule a Closed Executive Session at
that time to discuss those results.
Councilmember Pust reminded
Councilmembers that she would not be available to meet in November.
ii.
Adjourn
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:34 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Pust;
Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.