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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

December 3, 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 requested removal of Consent Items 7.d and 7.e respectively entitled “Fire Department & Allina Health Emergency Medical Services Medical Direction and Oversight Agreement,” and “Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2013.”


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


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue

Mr. Houck advised that he had been concerned for some time about something that should have been addressed by the City Council some time ago; and that was the City’s requirement that an existing business in Roseville (North Suburban Ace Hardware Store) was required to buy an additional license to sell Christmas trees in his store.  If he already had a license to sell merchandise, Mr. Houck opined that he should not be required to purchase an additional license, and such a requirement was nothing more than double taxation of a good business in the community. If others wanted to come in to Roseville to temporarily sell Christmas trees on a vacant lot, Mr. Houck opined that this was a different situation.  However, Mr. Houck opined that this practice was not business-friendly, and the customer ended up paying for that double-hit on licensing; and he didn’t think this was right for everyone in Roseville to have to pay for it.  Mr. Houck strongly suggested that the City Council put this issue on a future agenda to correct the current ordinance and refund any businesses in Roseville that are being double-taxed, from a principle standpoint if nothing else.


Mayor Roe asked City Manager Malinen to follow-up on this issue and report back to the City Council and public.  Mayor Roe questioned if existing businesses were required to be licensed by the City for merchandise sold in their stores; and suggested this issue may be more specific to outdoor sales, whether temporary or permanent.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller responded that the City regulates outdoor tree sales on vacant lots; and offered to review City Code in more detail with the appropriate staff to determine if there was a distinction with the sale of real trees from an existing business or if it was based on the need to regulate potential non-conforming uses, in order to address additional vehicle traffic to a site beyond the normal day-to-day operations.


Mr. Miller confirmed for Mayor Roe that there was typically no license required by the City for the sale of general merchandise.


Councilmember McGehee, while not offering comment on the double taxation issue, opined that there was no significant difference in a retail store and their addition of a seasonal substance; and further opined that as long sales remained on their property and part of their operations, she saw no reason for further regulation or an additional tax.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like staff to research that further, and acknowledged the reason for regulating temporary sales lots; however, she reiterated that if a business was already doing retail operations, selling a small number of trees seasonally shouldn’t require a license.


Mayor Roe suggested the requirement, once staff had researched it further, may be simply applying a standard fairly to all; and if outdoor sales impeded sufficient customer parking, that was a consideration for the process.  However, Mayor Roe suggested that staff be allowed the opportunity to provide additional information before any decisions were made.


Councilmember Johnson noted that one major improvement made by the owner at Suburban Hardware during the recent redesign and remodel of the building was its conformity to the neighborhood.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the owner took firsthand responsibility and realized extra costs to make the new building blend into the neighborhood and existing uses in the neighborhood.  Councilmember Johnson advised that, one item of note with that new design was the owner’s addition of a roofed enclosure as a receiving area for small engine repair portion of the business; and for outdoor storage of mulch and other items sold that had previously required City approval for sale in his parking lot.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the owner’s intent was to avoid the additional fee he paid for storing the mulch outdoors; and suggested that may specifically address the concerns for Christmas tree sales if they were located in that roofed enclosure as well.  If that was the case, Councilmember Johnson agreed that an additional fee may no longer be applicable, since the enclosure was part of the building versus the parking lot.  Councilmember Johnson expressed his openness to reviewing this situation as a possible exception to the rule.


Mayor Roe noted that, if staff found that this situation fell into a category other than outdoor sales lots, it would be an administrative matter for staff to refund the fee and subsequently report their findings to the City Council, but requiring no formal City Council action.  If it was determined that City Council action was required, Mayor Roe advised that it could be determined at a future meeting.


Mr. Miller advised that he would review City Code for any distinctions with the appropriate staff; and would then report back to the City Council.


b.            Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue

Mr. Bahnemann stated that he was extremely frustrated with City Inspectors and the Fire Department regarding City Code requirements that trash containers be kept indoors other than on trash days.  Mr. Bahnemann questioned the consequences of something thrown in an enclosed receptacle that could create a hazard in a garage or home.  Mr. Bahnemann opined that the City had created a hazard every day of the week, and that the thinking of the City’s leadership was wrong.  Mr. Bahnemann advised that he had an “idea in my head that will alleviate the situation; the City won’t like it, but it will save lives, homes and garages.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that Fire Chief O’Neill discuss the issue later in tonight’s meeting related to garbage cans stored in garages.


Mayor Roe noted that flammable items would burn anywhere; and suggested that staff report back to the City Council at a future time as applicable.


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


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 November 19, 2012 Meeting

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2012 meeting as amended.




Page 23, Line 29 (McGehee)

·         Typographical error (duplicate language)


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

            Nays: None.

            Abstentions: Pust

            Motion carried.


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


68301 – 68392





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:



Type of License

Suburban Ace Hardware; 1930 Lexington Avenue N

Christmas Tree Sales

Premium Quality Trees; 3011 Rice Street

Christmas Tree Sales

Courtney Johnson at Massage Envy – Roseville

2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120

Massage Therapist

GMAN Enterprises

13112 Europa Trail N; Hugo, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

Lightning Disposal

1625 Meadow View Road; Eagan, MN

Solid Waste Hauler

Lightning Disposal

Recycling Hauler


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:







Motorola Solutions

Mobile Radios – 2 - with accompanying software



Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


d.         Fire Department and Allina Health Emergency Medical Services Medical Direction and Oversight Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly summarized this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 3, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this seemed to be an open-ended contract in some ways, beyond a flat fee.  Specifically, Councilmember McGehee noted that Exhibit B listed prices for a variety of other services during the term of the contract.  Regarding the East Metro SWAT, Councilmember McGehee opined that this appeared to be a duplication of service.  On page 4 of the contract, Councilmember McGehee questioned the hold harmless/indemnification clause related to “intentional misconduct” and asked for a City Attorney explanation of the rationale in including this language.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Mark Gaughan reviewed Items 11.a and b (Insurance) of the agreement, advising that the language was standard in this type of contract, and simply clarified that the City of Roseville was not responsible for the acts of Allina personnel, and that Allina was not responsible for the acts of City personnel. 


At the request of Mayor Roe, Fire Chief Tim O’Neill addressed the “ala carte” services by Allina (listed on Exhibit B) that were optional training opportunities available to the City by Allina as needed and based on contract rates per firefighter cost for training.  Chief O’Neill advised that, at this time, it was not possible to determine how many firefighters would go through those training options, or which training would be needed.  Chief O’Neill clarified that all such training was included in the Department’s training budget and would not request additional funding. 


Chief O’Neill further explained that the rationale for including East Metro SWAT in the contract is that some of those operations were outside the City of Roseville, but in mutual aid situations, it was important that they also had advanced training as necessary to provide the best protection possible for the City’s firefighters and residents.  Chief O’Neill added that some, but not all, members of SWAT are Roseville firefighters, but that all personnel needed to consistently operate under Allina protocols.


Mayor Roe observed that in training new firefighters, there were other choices beside Allina, but Exhibit B set the costs if the training services of Allina were used.


Chief O’Neill concurred, noting that basic training was usually provided through the Fire Chief’s Association with training by Allina; but that the advanced training package (IVs and medications) provided in service to Roseville residents required a specialized training and that was taught by Allina personnel.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, approval of an agreement between the City of Roseville and Allina Health Emergency Medical Services (Attachment A) for medical oversight and education; and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


e.            Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2013

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly summarized this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 3, 2012.


Councilmember Pust noted, and City Manager Malinen affirmed, that historically the City chose NOT to waive Statutory Liability Limits.  Councilmember Pust questioned if the City’s current insurance policy maxed out at $1.5 million, or if it insured itself for a higher limit above that maximum for a single occurrence.


Finance Director Miller responded that this is the level for this type of claim under Minnesota State Statute.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that this was typically specific to torts.


Mr. Miller cautioned that if the City waived the limit, it would be responsible for paying those claims if judgment was awarded.


Councilmember Pust questioned if staff was aware of any cities purchasing insurance above that amount; and if their only reason to do so would be if the limit was waived.


Mr. Miller advised that he was not aware of any cities who had waived the limits.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she read it that if the City was at fault through deliberate misconduct that caused death, under no scenario could a family be compensated for the loss of a life in an amount of $1.5 million; and therefore she had a problem with waiving the liability limit.  While understanding that the City needed to limit its liability, Councilmember McGehee opined that this limit seemed exceedingly low in a case of deliberate misconduct.


Councilmember Pust clarified that this was not related to such a situation, and provided an example of negligence and subsequent liability limits.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the limit seemed low to her in some scenarios, and suggested it be considered on a case by case basis; and that the City could put its own limit per death or per occurrence.


Mayor Roe noted that, while Councilmember McGehee’s concerns may be warranted, the flip side was that the City Council was responsible to protect the City’s exposure and liability risk for all of its residents.


Mr. Miller noted that there was no option to raise the limit on a case by case basis.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that at least not with the City’s provider, League of Minnesota Insurance Trust (LMCIT).


Mr. Miller advised that even if an insurance company was found that would provide additional coverage, it would be at an exorbitant amount to the City.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mayor Roe clarified that the Statute originated due to insurance companies lack of interest in insuring cities due to potential excessive claims; and the subsequent inception of the LMCIT to address the issue.


City Manager Malinen advised that, to the extent the City purchased higher liability insurance without that statutory limit, it didn’t limit the City’s outlay, but the City would then need to come up with the money from another source.


McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, NOT to waive the Statutory Liability Limits for 2013.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


14.         Public Hearings


a.            Final 2013 Budget, Tax Levy and Utility Rates


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:38 pm to address technical issues; and reconvened at approximately 6:43 pm.


Finance Director Chris Miller briefly presented an overview of the proposed  2013 budget and tax levy, with background information included in the agenda packet materials related to steps taken up to this point.  Mr. Miller noted that the City Council would be asked to take three (3) separate actions.


At the request of individual Councilmembers, supplemental material was provided as an additional bench handout and entitled, “City of Roseville 2013 Tax Levy Distribution” detail by fund for tax-supported and non-tax-supported funds.”


Mr. Miller’s presentation provided a budget snapshot; a budget process chronology over the last two (2) years for the first biennial budget for 2012/2013; budget impact items; a budget summary; and impacts for average single-family, median valued homes.  Mr. Miller also provided a comparison of services received by residents from the City with other private service providers.


Mr. Miller noted that the property tax statements recently mailed by Ramsey County were based on City Council actions to-date for the Preliminary 2013 budget providing for the City’s financial sustainability with continued emphasis on capital replacement needs, along with new obligations and contractual commitments for 2013.  Mr. Miller advised that the proposed budget remained in line with community goals and priorities as indicated from the Imagine Roseville 2025 objectives and strategic plans, as well as periodic community surveys used to establish those priorities.


Mr. Miller specifically addressed the adoption by the City Council in 2012 of a long-term performance management program to further monitor service delivery by the City over the next few years and well into the future.


Mr. Miller reviewed those items detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012 regarding pre-existing obligations, including debt service on park renewal and fire station bonds; those items included in the original 2012/2013 biennial budget, many specifically related to employee compensation obligations; and the recommendations of the City Council’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Subcommittee.  Mr. Miller noted that the only new considerations were related to the Human Resources function of the City as detailed in the RCA.


Mr. Miller noted that most homes in Roseville saw a significant reduction in market value, averaging 8.7%, which would reduce the impact of the increased tax levy proportionately. 


Initial discussion included clarification of budget spending versus total spending and partial funding for the budget in tax-supported programs along with other sources of revenue; clarification of carryover funds from 2012 and additional proposed funds requested for 2013 for the purchase of Information Technology equipment/replacement; historical perspective of COLA and step increases for employees; and anticipated operational savings in 2012 of an estimated $100,000.


After briefly reviewing the protocol for public comment, Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment as the City Council considers the Final 2013 Budget, Tax Levy and Utility Rates.

Public Comment


Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan addressed his concern with the $19 million spending set aside for park renewal, but his observation that the renewal actually included new ball fields, new – not replacement of – irrigation systems, and construction of facilities large enough to hold meetings.  Mr. Callaghan opined that this sounded like significant upgrades; and in his review of meeting minutes, was under the impression that another $31 million was intended to be spent on the park system over the next four (4) years, representing $2 million annually.  Mr. Callahan stated that this City Council appeared to have a problem assuming that there was an infinite well from which to generate these funds. 


Mr. Callaghan further addressed City Council discussions considering providing tax increment financing (TIF) for a potential developer in the Twin Lakes are; and questioned where the payoff was for Roseville residents and what they were getting for their money. 


Mr. Callaghan addressed an ongoing personal problem with the Police and Community Development/Code Enforcement Departments not responding to noise issues emanating from Northwestern College in accordance with his reading of City ordinance. 


Mr. Callaghan expressed concern with another personal issue with a neighboring property’s storm sewer running into his back yard, costing him money.


Mr. Callaghan questioned what residents were getting from the City Council other than spending tax money. 


Mr. Callaghan stated that, until the new fire station issue, he as a citizen had been unaware that two (2) of the City’s three (3) fire stations had been closed, allegedly without public notice. 


Regarding community surveys, Mr. Callaghan questioned the recipients of those surveys were, stating that, as a twenty-six (26) year resident of Roseville had never gotten a survey, and was also not aware of anyone who had received a survey.  In addressing the results of the park survey indicating that residents wanted more paths, Mr. Callaghan stated that, even though this had been requested, the 2013 budget provided no funding for paths.


Mr. Callaghan questioned when the City Council intended to start listening to its residents and following what they wanted.  Mr. Callaghan opined that the City Council seemed to be out of control with spending and everything else based on his viewing of City Council meetings.  Mr. Callaghan stated, “I’m ashamed of this group, especially the mayor; he doesn’t answer the questions people ask with this new system to answer questions after the hearing so no one disagrees with you.”  Mr. Callaghan further stated, “Where is the truth in governing?  You’re spending money that doesn’t exist; it’s beyond me.”


Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue

Mr. Bahnemann stated, “I agree with Callaghan 150%.”  In addressing something he didn’t think the City Council had touched upon: “the state-of-the-art fire station” questioning how the City could build it with non-union help.  Mr. Bahnemann advised that he had questioned people about this in the past, receiving differing or no responses.  Mr. Bahnemann provided examples from his personal observations of the construction process, and the workers coming from outside the City of Roseville rather than using its own residents.  Mr. Bahnemann referenced his union work before retirement, opining that unions had been good for him.


Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue

Mr. Houck stated that his previous public comments and being upset about sticking it to businesses and extra taxes had been just the tip of the iceberg. 


Mr. Houck stated that “Something that you as government people, and every other government entity, don’t get is we’re broke.”  Mr. Houck addressed the national debt and borrowing of the federal government to give away to other governments, when the United States couldn’t fix its own problems, but instead the state built new sports arenas and the county got into the property development business at TCAAP, causing his taxes to increase by $300 in 2013.  Mr. Houck opined that no one was getting an increase in their income in 2013 of $300, especially those on fixed incomes. 


Mr. Houck opined that what government was doing was taking money from residents that was needed for them to live on so government could spend more.  Mr. Houck stated that “it was cute when Mr. Miller said that inflow needed to equal outflow; with Mr. Houck stated that apparently the only place that happened was in the private sector, not government, since government’s answer was to raise taxes and take more money from residents that they needed for living expenses so government could spend more.  Mr. Houck further opined that during Mr. Miller’s presentation he had not heard one mention of anything being reduced, just increases. 


In looking at the proposed HRA levy, Mr. Houck stated that it doubled expenditures on twenty-nine (29) items, with a reduction in only one (1) item. 


Mr. Houck noted that government – whether federal, state, county, or local, all coming out of taxpayer pockets – failed to recognize that we’re broke and in debt, with more debt incurred daily.  Mr. Houck opined that this included the City Council; and if the Council thought the monthly amount represented nothing, the fact was that taxpayers didn’t have any more money to give; that it all came out of taxpayer pockets and deprived them of what they needed to spend for living expenses.  Mr. Houck stated “You people just don’t get it; we’re broke.  If you can’t cut your spending, take a complete, itemized budget home and find areas to cut.  If not, you’re not doing your job; and if not doing your job, resign and get out of it.”


Adam Wakefield, 1718 Maple Lane

Mr. Wakefield advised that his taxes from 2012 to 2013 had increased from $703 to $1,065, a 34% increase, which represented four (4) times what staff projected as the 8% increase on the average, median household. 


Mr. Wakefield noted that they had done a kitchen remodel last year with no additional square footage added, further increasing the taxes on his property by 40%.  Mr. Wakefield noted that these significant increases made it difficult to remain in their home.  Mr. Wakefield stated that he could have lived with the percentage increase projected; however, he found a 34% increase significant.


Mr. Wakefield advised that he was appealing the Ramsey County assessed value of the home, going from $214,000 to $270,000 after the kitchen remodel.  However, Mr. Wakefield advised that when refinancing after the remodel, the bank would only finance on a value of $240,000 appraisal.


Mr. Wakefield questioned the process for appealing his City and property tax increase.


Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:33 p.m. with no one else appearing.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus advised Mr. Wakefield on how to go about appealing the valuation of his home by Ramsey County, based on the particulars provided.  Mr. Willmus reviewed timing, process and contacts for filing an appeal on the revised appraised value and the significance of the market value shift and 34% impact on his property taxes.


Councilmember McGehee noted that instructions were also included on the back of the property tax statement; and suggested Mr. Wakefield may wish to check on line for comparable properties within a specific time frame.  Councilmember McGehee also noted that the impact for Mr. Wakefield, as well as other taxpayers, was also attributable to the shift in homestead exemption.


Mayor Roe clarified percent changes in values for median value homes versus median values after the homestead exemption when applied.


In response to Mr. Callaghan’s comments about $31 million for parks, Mayor Roe clarified that these were items included in the Parks Master Plan, and may include costs for a community center.  However, Mayor Roe advised that, as of this moment, there were not concrete plans to do any of those additional things listed until further community discussions were held; and a subsequent future City Council discussion.  Mayor Roe advised that this represented a desired plan versus actual reality.  Mayor Roe noted that more accurate numbers would be available after the first few years experience with the CIP.


Regarding Mr. Callaghan’s comments regarding TIF of projects in the Twin Lakes area, Mayor Roe advised that those funds came from TIF funds already collected and restricted to costs for development-related expenses.  Mayor Roe advised that these already collected funds had already been collected from developed properties – based on the difference in tax paid before and after development – and placed in a pool for those specific expenses.  Regarding the perception that this was money the community could have received, Mayor Roe noted the overall concept in TIF being that a project would not proceed without use of TIF; all obviously open to individual interpretation and opinion.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with the speakers; opining that she was embarrassed, and reminding taxpayers that she had been in the minority on most of the votes.  Personally as a Roseville resident, Councilmember McGehee advised that she didn’t agree with the direction being taken by the City Council majority.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was in support of the CIP where funds were being set aside for essential services.  In terms of the large park bond, while opining that park land is essential, Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t think the City needed to embark on that program at this time.  Regarding the fire station, and earlier decisions not to maintain or repair existing buildings, all things brought up by her in the past, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was happy to have a new fire station, even if she thought it was bigger and housing more equipment than necessary and should have had a more thorough examination.  However, Councilmember McGhee noted that she had also been a minority during that decision-making.


Regarding areas to cut in the budget, as previously discussed at the City Council level, Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t see any things to cut other than in the HRA budget and the proposed new program in the amount of $200,000 to purchase land and experiment with redevelopment.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, even though a really exciting project for the City if it worked and possibly providing some new housing stock for the City, there was no reason to pursue it at this time.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the most important act needed by the City Council was to substantially improve the City’s tax base; and further opined that she saw this as a huge failing of the body.  Councilmember McGehee opined that bringing in Wal-Mart had not achieved that and would prove to cost a tremendous amount of money over what it brought in, and was not a plus financially for the community.  Councilmember McGehee admitted that the City had a long way to go and had not been judicious to-date in substantially increasing its tax base.  However, Councilmember McGehee reiterated that she was in the minority and had expressed her concerns in the past.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the bulk of the budget represented things and debts incurred by the Council majority; and she was at a loss as to how much the current City Council could actually improve the situation in which it found itself.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that revisions could be made in the future to increase the City’s tax base.


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt a Resolution Establishing the 2013 Final Tax Levy

Mayor Roe initiated discussion on the three (3) budget actions before the City Council to determine those attainable tonight and those for deferral to the December 10, 2012 business meeting.


Councilmember Willmus clarified with Finance Director Miller the amount of carryover from the 2011 to 2012 budgets, and the amount projected from 2012 to 2013, estimated at $200,000 by Mr. Miller based on current trending.


Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and Mr. Miller on incurred and/or increased costs for the biennial budget, and distinctions in tax-supported and non-tax-supported funds in the General Fund for operations versus any surplus applied to reserve funds.


Councilmember Pust opined that there should be some mechanism in place to capture salaries and programs planned but not launched on schedule for application of those available funds to reduce future levies.  Councilmember Pust expressed her concern that this seemed to be a piece of the attempt at transparency that was missing, with those resources not clear for use to reduce future tax levies.


Mr. Miller advised that there were many mechanisms available; however, the levy position at this date in time, may not be there at the end of the year, since staff and the City Council was just making an educated guess on where the actual dollars would land at the end of 2012.  Mr. Miller noted that a lot could potentially happen between now and year-end that could make the projected operational savings evaporate.  Mr. Miller noted that the difficulty occurred since that savings was not a known quantity when making spending decisions for the next year.  However, Mr. Miller noted that within about three (3) months, the City Council could have absolute certainty whether or not they had a surplus, and could then apply those funds to future budgets in future years (e.g. 2014 budget).


Councilmember Pust opined that this was a piece of the budgeting process that needed to be included in the equation.


Mr. Miller noted that repeated policy discussions on reserve levels were held; however, recognized that they may not be as transparent as they should be in determining whether or not to draw down reserves.


Councilmember Pust opined that that discussion was too disconnected from this discussion on where the tax levy should end up as the budget was tweaked and finalized; and noted the advantages in public perception if and when the City could give money back.


Mayor Roe noted his request earlier in the year from Mr. Miller on legislative and property value impacts projected.  Mayor Roe opined that another piece to add to the process would be a final accounting for the year, as included in the presentation of the annual certified financial report after the audit process that included that information, but was not as clear as it could be.  Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Pust to report the previous year’s savings more prominent in reports to the City Council and public. Councilmember McGehee concurred as well.


Councilmember Pust reviewed the pre-existing obligations, items included in the original 2012/2013 biennial budget, CIP Subcommittee recommended items, and new considerations (pages 1 and 2 of the RCA), and summarized her findings that the only things that were not already committed to and available for tonight’s discussion were the two (2) new considerations.  Councilmember Pust concurred with public comments made tonight that some employees in this current economy were not seeing a 2% increase this year, nor had they received comparable increases in the past two (2) years.  Councilmember Pust further noted that in several recent years, or the past two (2) years, as was proposed for the City’s employees; however, she also noted that in past years, employees did not receive any COLA, and that this 2% increase had been a conscious decision of the City Council majority.


Councilmember Johnson noted that this proposed COLA did not fully address union contracts under which the City had an obligation as well.


Mayor Roe clarified that not all of the City’s work force was eligible for the wage step program.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that the budget provided a set aside of $55,000 in the 2013 budget to accommodate changes in the employer’s cost for employee health care (e.g. premium increases from providers).  However, Mr. Miller noted that while negotiations to-date had proven favorable for the City, a significant variable remained in the employee election process to change tiers of coverage and/or for new employees coming on board that could create swings in that fund.  Mr. Miller advised that this was the rationale in that allotment until the 2013 election was finalized.


Councilmember Pust asked that staff closely monitor that fund, and provide an updated accounting in March or April of 2013 comparing that amount set aside with reality.


Discussion ensued on the new considerations, with clarification that the City Council had approved the HRIS software after having deferred it for several years; and the Compensation Study’s specific 2013 expenditure for the implementation of the study results.


Councilmembers Pust and Johnson concurred that those two (2) new considerations remained the only discussion points for tonight.


Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Miller why this City Council should not leave the Compensation Study implementation discussion and decision-making up to the next City Council, anticipating that the results of the study would not be available before year-end.


City Manager Malinen advised that staff hoped to have the study results available for the December 10, 2012 meeting for this City Council’s consideration and potential decision.


Councilmember Pust questioned the prudence of that, and suggested it be deferred until 2013.


Mayor Roe suggested that this City Council could set aside the funds for that future City Council to take the next step in implementation if it was the majority’s preference; however, he noted that the next City Council could defer implementation until 2014 or take funds from reserves.  Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council wanted to allow something in the budget to cover that or cover it in some other way or at another time.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal preference to remove that amount of $50,000 study implementation amount from the 2013 levy and allow a future City Council to discuss it.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, to reduce the 2013 levy and budget by $50,000 deferring implementation of the Compensation Study results.


Discussion ensued regarding both the HRIS software already approved and the Compensation Study results; with clarification by City Manager Malinen that they were two (2) distinct and independent issues; and Mayor Roe recalling from earlier presentations that the actual cost of the HRIS for the first year was to actually acquire the software, with some portion of that coming from reserves, which City Manager Malinen confirmed, noting that approximately half of the $40,000 would come from reserves.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller tentatively concurred from his recollection on the actual amount attributable to the 2013 budget and levy; with Councilmember Pust finding and referencing the RCA dated August 27, 2012 showing the total HRIS cost of $40,000, with only $20,000 needed for ongoing costs from the 2013 levy and the remainder from General Fund reserves.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, to call the question.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.

Roll Call (Willmus Motion)

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

            Nays: None.


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, a technical clarification and adjustment of the 2013 budget and levy to reflect $20,000 for the HRIS, with the remaining $20,000 coming from reserves.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11028, “Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2013;” in the total amount of $17,269,826.


Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion; recognizing her past position and votes accordingly related to the bonding without a referendum, but advising that it had now become an official debt of the City and she would not oppose this motion based on that conclusion.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Pust.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of adopting the levy as currently laid out.  Specific to CIP funding needs, Mayor Roe opined that the bonding falls in line with that, and clarified that the bond funding included $2 million for pathways over the next four (4) years, as supported by the community and without funding otherwise.  In additional, Mayor Roe opined that over the last few years, in addition to the CIP, this City Council had made significant cuts in operating costs and this proposed budget and levy continued to retain that status quo.  Based on property tax statements from Ramsey County, Mayor Roe noted that the average taxpayer would indeed see an increase with the median payers would see a $1.98 per month increase on their bill.  Mayor Roe noted that, due to property values changing, impacts would be smaller than the actual dollar amount levied.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe; and emphasized the CIP put in place over the last two (2) years.  Councilmember Johnson noted repeated cautions during his first two (2) years in office by Finance Director Miller that the way the City was doing business and funding operations was not sustainable.  Through working cooperatively on strategies, Councilmember Johnson opined that many things had been accomplished with this budget and the bonding that would take care of infrastructure issues not taken care of in the past, including addressing the condition and status of the existing three (3) fire stations and the City’s thirty (30) parks.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it was important to recognize and tie in the overall picture with bonding funds and existing infrastructure needs.  For those people saying that the City Council was not listening, Councilmember Johnson stated that he had heard overwhelming support from the public with the proactive actions of this City Council.  While some would obviously disagree, Councilmember Johnson reiterated the overwhelming support from the community who support the funding as a way to catch up with the City’s drastically underfunded CIP. Councilmember Johnson concluded by stating that he was proud of the City Council decisions made to-date and was proud to have been a part of that process.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


b.            Adopt a Resolution to Adopt the 2013 Final Budget


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11029 entitled,” Resolution Adopting the Final 2013 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;” in the amount of $45,435,010, of which $21,781,042 is designated for the property tax-supported programs.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


c.            Adopt a Resolution to adopt the 2013 Final Debt Levy

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11030 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2013 Bonded Debt;” in the amount of $646,049.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


d.            Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Final 2013 HRA Tax Levy

Finance Director Miller summarized the proposed 2013 Final HRA Tax Levy as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012.  Mr. Miller noted that this was a significant increase from the 2012 HRA Budget based on the previously presented initiatives to be undertaken by the HRA; with no increases to HRA levy requests over the past three (3) years.  Mr. Miller advised that the increase would represent an additional $1.28 per month cost to taxpayers based on a median valued home in Roseville.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee seeking more detail, Mr. Miller noted the supplemental information provided in an August 21, 2012 memorandum previously presented to the City Council, and included as a bench handout.


Councilmember McGehee noted a significant increase in general expenditures in the proposed budget for attorney and secretary/staff fees, and requested a further explanation of those increases.


HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that those additional fees in general staff expenditures were for increased hours for the Housing Program Manager position from twenty-nine (29) hours to thirty-nine (39) hours; and re-allotment of increased secretarial support for the HRA, not any new hires.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the increase in HRA attorney fees were in anticipation of upcoming property purchases and drafting of development agreements.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon noted the allotment for an updated housing study in 2013, with the previous study dated 2009, and with the redevelopment of the Dale Street property and other pending projects, the HRA thought it important to update that study and confirm community housing needs.


At the request of Mayor Roe for the other area of significant increase from the 2012 to 2013 budget for economic development, Mr. Trudgeon advised that this was an entirely new expenditure as part of the HRA’s strategic plan to emphasize the “R” or redevelopment aspect of the HRA function.  While not having an exact breakdown of anticipated expenditures at this time, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the bulk of the $30,000 allotment would be for a study to craft an economic development for the City of Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that this research by experts in the field would help the City create strategies and provide seed money to encourage desired businesses to locate in Roseville, thus improving its tax base, a goal shared by the City Council and HRA.  Mr. Trudgeon further noted that a direct marketing of existing businesses by the City, a long-identified need, was planned to determine specific areas of need and how the City could best assist its existing business community.


Mayor Roe concurred that the goal for improving the City’s tax base was a long-time community need.


For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe reviewed the specific areas of proposed increase in the HRA Levy: $40,000 for economic development efforts; $70,000 to $75,000 for increased staffing costs; and $200,000 related to a housing replacement program.  Mayor Roe asked that Mr. Trudgeon provide a brief description of the latter item.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, as properties came on the market that were deemed dilapidated of needing major repairs, this fund would allow the City to take advantage of that and purchase the properties for demolition and then resell the vacant lot to the private market for redevelopment.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the HRA had missed an opportunity with one such property along the Rice Street corridor as no funding mechanism was in place.  Mr. Trudgeon recognized that this would not be a revenue generating source; and that no properties had been identified at this point.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was the hope of the HRA that a revolving fund could be created, and if successful, would eliminate the need for this line item to recur on annual budget and levy requests.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would support one of the goals of the HRA Strategic Plan to improve the community’s housing stock.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11031 entitled, “A Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate, to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2013;” in the amount of $698,471.


McGehee moved, Roe seconded for discussion purposes, an amendment to reduce the total levy and budget request by $200,000 to eliminate this entirely new proposed program for the housing replacement program.


Councilmember McGehee stated that her rationale in eliminating this amount was based on the energetic program identified by the HRA in their Strategic Plan, and intent to embark on a multi-family housing policy, the economic development program to create policies; and the large Dale Street project.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she felt it wise and not inappropriate to hold this $200,000 for consideration in the next year’s budget.  Should a property come forward, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the HRA bring it to the City Council’s attention for discussion at that time.


At the request of Finance Director Miller for clarification, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if this motion was approved, and it was the desire of the City Council majority to reduce the HRA Levy by $200,000; the HRA would then need to take subsequent action to adjust its budget accordingly and bring forth ideas to accomplish that.  Before a guarantee was provided that the entire $200,000 reduction would be made specifically to that one area, Mr. Trudgeon advised that HRA analysis would need to be completed.


Mayor Roe suggested several options for the program in either 2013 or 2014; and if in 2013 no properties were identified, the 2014 HRA levy could be reduced accordingly; or the levy reduced in 2013, and reinstituted in 2014 if a need was identified.


Councilmember McGehee noted that this year the City was asking for the biggest bump from the public, and it seemed judicious to defer this to 2014, allowing materials to be gathered from other programs.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the HRA was attempting to position themselves so at such time as a property was identified and came forward, they could act on it.  Councilmember Willmus referenced the Rice Street property that was lost and turned over.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he was not supportive of the proposed amendment, as it did not serve the intent of the requested funding initiative.


Councilmember McGehee stated that before an arm of the City began buying property, she remained unconvinced that property could be purchased basically to acquire the land, with added demolition costs and material removal costs; and still make money on a bar lot.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she was unsure of the economics of such a decision.


Mayor Roe clarified that it was not the intent of the program to allow for 100% recovery of HRA costs; but the loss was a cost to facilitate redevelopment of the property, as outlined in detail in prior HRA presentations to the City Council.


Roll Call (Amendment)

            Ayes: McGehee.      

            Nays: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Motion failed.


Roll Call (Original Motion)

            Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.   

            Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


e.            Adopt a Resolution Establishing the 2013 Utility Rates

Mr. Miller provided a brief presentation summarizing staff’s analysis, previous City Council actions to-date, and recommendations for 2013 Utility Rate Adjustments, as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012. 


Mr. Miller noted that the utility rate adjustments were to address over $66 million in unfunded and/or previously deferred water and sewer infrastructure needs; and had been recommended by the Council-appointed CIP Task Force and the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC). Mr. Miller noted that the City Council in 2011 had approved a two-phase program in 2012 and 2013 to address the funding gap, representing a significant 60-65% increase in the base rate for water, sanitary and storm sewer, with only inflationary increases proposed thereafter.  Mr. Miller advised that customers would realize an average of $6.00 per month in 2012 and another $6.00 per month on average in 2013. 


Mr. Miller reviewed costs outside the control of the City of Roseville, including a projected 3% increase for the City’s purchase of water from the City of St. Paul, even though ongoing negotiations will continue between the cities in 2013; the cost of wastewater treatment charged by the Metropolitan Council increasing by 4%; and customary inflationary impacts.  Mr. Miller advised that these increases combined would have an impact on 2013 operating and replacement costs for a typical, single-family home in Roseville at $6.07 per month.


Mr. Miler provided water and sewer costs in Roseville with peer communities (first-ring suburbs with a population of 18,000 to 50,000 and having their own stand-alone system) and advised that Roseville’s water rate is higher than average, but lower than the average for sanitary sewer services.  Mr. Miller noted that the wide range of disparities in rates among the communities was based on their local priorities and funding philosophies.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if those communities with lower rates were absorbing costs through increased levies or combined with other fees or taxes, or how they compensated for operational and infrastructure needs.


Mr. Miller responded that variables could indicate that Roseville’s fee schedule for infrastructure needs and replacement is really ambitious or peer communities with lower rates were not providing sufficient CIP funding for their systems, as had been the case with Roseville over the past decade.

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz suggested that the City Council also keep in mind that several peer communities (e.g. Fridley and New Brighton) received low-cost water services from the TCAAP site from the federal government.  Mr. Schwartz also noted that the City of Roseville provided fully-softened water to homes in Roseville, while other communities on the low end in the rate comparison provided well water that needed to be treated at the point of use by customers who would have the additional cost for water softeners and maintenance.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Schwartz advised that other line item costs for sewer repairs may be handled by communities through franchise fee agreements for gas and/or electric providers, as well as possibly through assessments.


City Manager Malinen noted that in discussions with Mr. Schwartz, he had advised that it is prevalent in discussions in public works circles that older, first-ring suburbs are not fully funding their replacement costs either.


Generally speaking, Mr. Schwartz advised that everyone knew the need was out there, but not many communities were fully addressing CIP needs as this City Council had recently made the commitment to do.



In response to Councilmember McGehee regarding increased rates affecting the base rate only, Mr. Miller advised that, while he didn’t prepare additional information for tonight’s meeting, it was safe to say that based on Roseville’s philosophy, its base rates were significantly higher by comparison; however, he noted that usage rates were also much lower by that same comparison.  Mr. Miller advised that this was due to those other cities relying on high volume users to address some or all of their infrastructure needs.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the City of Roseville needed to be more aggressive about its usage rates.


Councilmember Willmus, specific to recycling fees, noted that the proposed increase was for $.10 per household, with the fund subsidized by revenue share from Eureka Recycling.  Councilmember Willmus questioned the impact if the 2012 rate was held for 2013, or potentially reduced by another $.10 for another $6.00 per unit.


Mr. Miller advised that the revenue impact would not be huge, with only $6,000 sacrificed, and dropping it back another $6,000 would reduce it for a total of $12,000.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that there were adequate reserves in that fund at this time to accomplish that – either keep rates flat or reduce them further.


Mr. Miller advised that the only risk would be if revenue sharing didn’t materialize as the 2013 budget contemplates; however with the fairly good reserve in place thanks to prior years’ revenue sharing coming in stronger than projected, this should limit the City’s exposure.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, to reduce the 2013 Recycling Fee to $6.00 per unit.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the current contract would expire in 2013.


Councilmember Pust observed that the fund had a huge reserve at this time.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


Regarding projected increases for purchase of water, Mayor Roe observed that this was basically a function of usage, with the rate based on flow, similar to that of sanitary sewer usage.


Mr. Miller referenced the conservative estimate shown on page 1 of the RCA.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of increasing fees for a tier structure that would be revenue neutral, or actually reduced in 2013.


Mr. Miller referred Councilmembers to staff’s careful analysis of various scenarios, and unintended consequences of a three-tiered rate structure for water as originally recommended by the PWETC and further analyzed by staff for impacts to a number of customers in Roseville, including those using the retirement income rate subsidy.  Mr. Miller asked that the City Council, before their decision-making, carefully review those considerations.  Mr. Miller noted that the schedule detailed in the RCA reflected different philosophies; with the City providing at two-tier system at this time, and the PWEC recommending a three-tier system; with staff’s report outlining impacts for determining whether or not the desired impact would be achieved.


Councilmember McGehee assured Mr. Miller that she had read the report, and continued to support the three-tiered system; opining that it was long overdue for the City to implement a conservation minded system.  Councilmember McGehee referenced recent Department of Natural Resources (DNR) acknowledgement of heavy water use on area aquifers; and spoke in strong support of conserving water, opining that the best way to do so would be to make that commodity cost enough to create value in saving water.  Councilmember McGee noted that this could also serve to help some Roseville residents, and observed that the City currently offered an enormous senior discount that seemed to be pretty substantial.


Mayor Roe clarified that there were two (2) proposals for a tiered system, a revenue neutral option versus others.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that approximately 20% of the City’s single-family households were currently receiving the retirement rate.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller reviewed the calculations for the revenue neutral rate approach and without the revenue neutral approach, with additional revenue used to reduce other tiers.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller confirmed that approximately 70% of customers would fall within the tier 1 rate structure category.


Discussion ensued on the rate structure and various tier options and impacts; with Council consideration of whether to take action tonight, to take action at the December 10, 2012 meeting, or defer action to January of 2013 depending on the City Council’s need, if any, of additional information before they were comfortable making a decision.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that, based on legislative action taken during the last session, cities were no longer required to have conservation rates in place, as long as they could prove an overall reduction in aggregate water usage, which had been the case in Roseville over the last few years. 


Mayor Roe noted that this occurred even in drought years; and Mr. Miller responded that the data indicated to him that the City truly didn’t have a lot of water usage, but noted that this could also be due to the City not having a significant number of irrigation systems in place at this time.


Mayor Roe noted that one notion of a conservation rate structure would be that all customers pay the same rate and if you use more water, you pay more.  Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council was making this more complicated than necessary, especially in consideration of the limited impact to rate payers.


Councilmember McGehee noted her personal experience in living in communities that often paid $8.00 per thousand gallons, and the rate structure did make a difference.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the biggest reason for reduction in water usage was due to the loss of multiple family members, based on the current Roseville demographic with households now at 1-2 members only.


Mayor Roe noted that the City’s population had only changed by thirty (30) people in the last ten (10) years.


Councilmember McGehee responded that households with young children had dropped.


Mayor Roe responded in turn that while family size may be shifting around, he found it difficult to be persuaded that because a family may have more members, even if using less water, that they should be penalized.


Councilmember Johnson concurred completely with Mayor Roe’s comments.


Councilmember Pust suggested staff bring this rate adjustment discussion and decision to the new City Council in 2013 to address, since they would be responsible for implementing and administering any utility rate adjustments upon coming into office.


Mayor Roe questioned why the current City Council should not take action on this tonight, since it was approving 2013 tax levies and budgets that would be administered by the new City Council.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller confirmed that the City Council traditionally took action on the coming year’s utility rate structure during budget and levy discussions and decision-making.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of adopting either a revenue neutral or usage rate as recommended by the PWETC; noting that this advisory group had been very productive and thoughtful in their recommendations to the City Council.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there was nothing wrong with implementing their recommendations at this time, since their analysis had been well-thought out as was obvious from discussions provided from their meetings.


McGehee moved adoption of revenue neutral 2013 utility rates as presented, including a revenue neutral water usage rate based on a three tier system.


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


Councilmember Johnson opined that water usage should be a fixed cost, with no penalties for families using less or more water; and suggested rates remain as they are.


Councilmember Pust noted that Councilmember Johnson’s suggestion would be different than the current two tiered structure.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that staff would need direction from the council to return with adjusted rates in accordance with Councilmember Johnson’s suggestion.


Councilmember Willmus asked that staff be directed to return with their adjusted rate schedule in accordance with Councilmember Johnson’s recommendations at the December 10, 2012 meeting.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING this item to the December 10, 2012 meeting; directing staff to return with rates for a two tier water rate system.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


Councilmember McGehee also requested more information on water rates for residential versus commercial customers.


Mayor Roe noted that those rates were already listed in the information provided for proposed rates in the RCA.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the financial impact between a one versus two tier system.


Mayor Roe advised that the financial impact would be to cover the cost of water for the City in either scenario; with the one option allowing the City to make extra money and the other revenue neutral.


Mr. Miller concurred, noting that the rate for a one tier rate structure would be $2.20 across the board to cover the cost of purchasing water from the City of St. Paul.


f.             Accept the 2012-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

Finance Director Miller noted that previous actions of the City Council formally accepted the CIP Subcommittee’s reports and recommendations regarding long-term capital replacement plans and funding mechanisms; however, staff recommended that the City Council accept, by resolution the 2012-2031 CIP for the purpose of institutionalizing that support.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that a proposal for a biennial review for review of the CIP at the staff level was in place for recommended adjustments as indicated based on actual versus assumed projections.


Mayor Roe noted that the CIP Subcommittee recommended that such a review be incorporated as part of the City Council’s CIP Policy.


Councilmember Pust reiterated comments she had made in the past, opining that the most important work she saw accomplished was the work of the CIP Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen and Finance Director Miller.  Councilmember Pust noted Mr. Miller’s repeated comments through the years that this was a significant need; and she was unsure if it would actually happen.  However, Councilmember Pust expressed her appreciation for the great work accomplished by the Subcommittee.


Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11032 entitled, “Resolution Accepting the 2012 – 2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012.



Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


g.            Approve Contract for Engineering Services to Acquire Right-of-Way for the Twin Lakes Area Public Improvement

City Engineer Debra Bloom briefly summarized the request in the RCA dated December 3, 2012; and the rationale for the request.  Ms. Bloom noted that this process was very involved and required expertise from an outside consultant.  Ms. Bloom assured Councilmembers that if could take up to a year on average for negotiations, but this would be the first step in the process and would probably take 3-6 months, with any costs for easements coming to the City Council for formal action.  Ms. Bloom estimated the cost for consultant services to be as proposed at $19,480, with funds for easement acquisition to come from the Hazardous Substance Subdistrict of TIF District 11.


Discussion ensued regarding the actual location and ownership of the various segments totally approximately 2.5 acres; Phase II construction of a temporary roundabout that would need to be upgraded in the future; and a settlement agreement proposed to come before the City Council at their December 10, 2012 meeting representing a number of items, including demolition of existing truck terminals based on very favorable bids recently received.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorization for City Manager to contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to acquire right-of-way for Twin Lakes Area Public Improvements, as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012.


Councilmember McGehee, based on her understanding, advised that she would support the motion as long as it was going in tandem with revisioning efforts for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


g.         Approve Contract for Engineering Services to Develop Twin Lakes Area Public Improvements Feasibility Report

City Engineer Bloom provided a brief summary of this request, as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012.  Ms. Bloom advised that staff was recommending approval of this request to develop framework to discuss the feasibility of construction additional improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, specific to four (4) adjacent areas that could potentially influence future development in the area.


Ms. Bloom noted that this would allow the City to demonstrated benefits to those living on the roadway, various land uses, traffic projections as it moves away from the immediate area (e.g. Cleveland Avenue and the I-35W interchange).  Ms. Bloom noted that one of the areas of impetus included the City’s need to have a plan in place for expending the awarded $1 million in federal funds allotted to redo the Twin Lakes Parkway and Cleveland Avenue by the end of 2013.  In order to match those funds or before additional redevelopment occurred, Ms. Bloom advised that there was a significant need to establish a framework to consider benefits of larger scale improvements, and the modeling expertise of SRF Engineering was needed to identify the benefitted areas through a benefit test process.  Ms. Bloom clarified that this action would not entail ordering any feasibility reports at this time.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she would be closely watching how traffic patterns developed to ensure protection of residential properties from business traffic in the area. 


On a related note, Councilmember McGehee asked that future spreadsheets provided by staff, such as Attachment A to this report, be printed in larger format to facilitate readability, which was duly noted by staff.


Discussion ensued regarding the benefit of performing this analysis at this time based on necessary environmental review and receipt of federal funds; length of time required for the various components and complexities of such an analysis; 2013 fiscal year for the federal government on June 30, 2013; and the need for the City to get in a better position for future development.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, authorization for the City Manager to contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to develop the Feasibility Report for Twin Lakes AUAR Infrastructure Improvements. – 39,934 –


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


h.            Approve City Attorney for Civil Legal Services

City Manager Malinen reviewed in some detail the review process to consider firms to provide Civil Legal Services to the City, based on the Best Overall Value Process, as outlined in the RCA dated December 3, 2012.  A number of bench handouts were distributed at the dais as supplemental materials for this selection, including a list of participants in the evaluation and interview process; a redacted copy of each of the four (4) finalist firms for comparison purposes; and a matrix of those firms with comparable scores and rankings.


Of the original ten (10) firms contacted, City Manager Malinen advised that four (4) proposals had been received pursuant to the City Council’s Professional Services Policy; and reviewed the subsequent criteria applied to each firm and used for the interview process.


City Manager Malinen focused on firms identified as “Civil 3” and “Civil 4” as the finalist firms, and reviewed the rationale for recommending “Civil 3” for City Council ratification of the City Manager appointment of that firm; and authorizing him to negotiate an acceptable contract for those services as outlined.


Based on City Manager Malinen’s analysis and recommendations for revising City ordinance to address assignment of legal fees to applicable development projects in an effort to recoup funds, and potentially reducing the “Civil 3” proposal further versus paying those costs from taxpayer funds, further discussion ensued on the practical application of such a provision and impacts to the retainer for legal services.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, City Manager Malinen advised that staff should be able to negotiate a contract for presentation to the City Council at their December 10, 2012 meeting; using the existing contract developed by the City Council three (3) years ago and used as a part of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process for all firms submitting proposals, including “Civil 3.”


City Manager Malinen suggested that revisions to the City’s Ordinance be recognized as an alternative in negotiating a contract; with formal ordinance revisions moving forward early in 2013.


Councilmember Pust suggested that the City avoid serving as a collection agent for attorney fees from developers; with City Manager Malinen responding that the City could require that all legitimate billings as part of the review of applications be finalized prior to issuing applicable permits.


After further discussion, Mayor Roe recognized the City Council consensus in directing staff to take the approach and proceed with contract negotiation for “Civil 3” and proposed ordinance revision as applicable.


i.             Confirm Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Process

City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this annual consideration, as detailed in the RCA dated December 3, 2012; specifically referring Councilmembers to the proposed calendar on page 2 of the RCA.


          Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, confirmation of the reappointment/appointment process for Citizen Advisory Commissions in 2013.


            Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember McGehee’s request to discuss reappointment and term limits be addressed as a separate item for future agenda consideration.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


13.      Business Items – Presentations / Discussions


a.            Discuss Uniform Commission Code

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded to TABLE this item to the December10, 2012 regular meeting.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


b.            Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Discussion

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded to TABLE this item to the December10, 2012 regular meeting.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


c.            Discuss Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded to TABLE this item to a future meeting.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


d.            Discuss Pedestrian Activated Crosswalk Signal at Dionne Street and Lexington Avenue

Councilmember Johnson expressed his appreciation of the City Council’s willingness to address this issue prior to the end of his Council term.  Councilmember Johnson reviewed the specifics of his safety concerns at this intersection; and specific examples he had witness of handicapped and/or senior pedestrians almost being hit at the intersection, basically due to the turn lane.  Councilmember Johnson noted that, in his discussions with the Public Works Department, they concurred that this intersection had received the most complaints and was considered the most dangerous walkway in Roseville. 


Councilmember Johnson opined that the City Council owed it to the community to be proactive and consider some type of solution, potentially an electronic crosswalk signal.  Councilmember Johnson acknowledged that Lexington Avenue, as a roadway under Ramsey County jurisdiction, had reportedly been tested low on pedestrian crosswalks in the county. 


Councilmember Johnson advised that it was not his intent to point fingers at Ramsey County; and noted staff’s intent to hold further discussions with the county related to this dangerous intersection.  However, Councilmember Johnson noted that they also didn’t anticipate any different results than those already received. 


Councilmember Johnson asked that the City Council take it upon themselves to earmark money from existing reserves to pay for an electronic crosswalk at this intersection.


Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided additional information beyond the staff report based on previous discussions with Ramsey County.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the average crosswalk signal, similar to that at Central Park, was in the range of $20,000; with another type of signal to stop traffic (Hawk Signal) would cost $150,000.  However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the Hawk option would have broader implications to traffic; and require further study to identify those impacts for the intersection at Lexington and Larpenteur Avenues.


Discussion ensued regarding the need to receive permission from Ramsey County for any type of signal installation, which was typically a local cost.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of analyzing some type of signalization at this intersection to assist pedestrians.  Councilmember Willmus voiced one concern he had, referencing the signal at Victoria serving a two (2) lane road, but this one required to serve a five (5) lane road.  Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that the situation not be made worse; and advised that he would require additional information and examples of similar situations in other cities; however, he reiterated that he was more than willing to look at allocating funding for a crosswalk signal.


Mr. Schwartz recognized Councilmember Willmus’ concerns; and advised that staff would return to the City Council with Ramsey County’s concerns or issues.  Mr. Schwartz noted that a personal concern was not having a safe refuge in the middle of the five (5) lanes, since there was a center turn lane rather than a median.


Councilmember Johnson opined that cost should not be an issue at all; but that all due diligence be completed to alleviate this serious situation; further opining that it was only a matter of time before something happened at the intersection.  Councilmember Johnson asked that future City Councilmembers keep this at the forefront, opining that it was paramount to the safety of residents in that area; and asked that the City Council remain fervent in its pursuit of a solution.


At the same time, Councilmember Johnson suggested other opportunities be taken to visit some other intersections (e.g. Snelling Avenue); and offered his service as a citizen to keep the ball rolling.


Mayor Roe opined that he had no problem spending money for the intersection; however, he wanted to ensure that the expenditure effectively served to protect pedestrians at the intersection and solve the problem.  Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember Johnson for bringing this safety concern to the attention of the body.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded extending the meeting for two (2) minutes.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items; reminding Councilmembers of the scheduled public reception for outgoing Councilmembers Pust and Johnson at the December 10, 2012 meeting at 5:15 pm.


i.              Councilmember Initiatives Items for Future Meetings

Mayor Roe publicly apologized to Mr. Bahnemann for failing to recognize him when he attempted to make public comment on the HRA Levy.  Mayor Roe advised that he inadvertently failed to recognize that he had not allowed for specific public comment on the HRA Levy.


ii.        Adjourn

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:05 pm.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.