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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

June 19, 2014


1.        Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


2.        Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.d entitled, "Approve Fire Department & Northeast Metro Intermediate District 916 Medical Training Program Agreement, for discussion.


Councilmember Willmus suggested accepting public comment prior to going into Closed Session; at which time Mayor Roe sought comment from audience members with no one expressing interest in speaking at this point.


Etten moved, Laliberte seconded approval of the agenda as amended.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Closed Session

Mayor Roe noted that all meetings of the City Council are open to the public, with the exception of  certain instances, one of which was to consider property sale or acquisition, in accordance with MN State Statute, Section 13.d.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, moving into Closed Executive Session at approximately 6:04 p.m.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


a.       Consider Possible Property Acquisition at 2680 -2690 Prior Avenue


Mayor Roe convened the City Council in closed executive session at approximately 6:05 PM to consider possible property acquisition at 2680-2690 Prior Avenue in Roseville. City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, and City Engineer Marc Culver were also in attendance.


Councilmember Laliberte  moved, Councilmember McGehee seconded, adjourning the closed executive session and returning to open session at approximately 6:20 PM.


3.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak.


4.        Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe thanked community volunteers who worked at Howard Johnson and Materion Parks last weekend to do community playground builds.


Mayor Roe offered congratulations to Roseville Police Officer  Wan Chao who was recently honored for part-time work with Metro Transit.


Mayor Roe announced the upcoming "Coffee with a Cop" scheduled for Monday, June 23, 2014 from 7:00 - 8:30 a.m. at the Eat Shop, an informal opportunity to get to know Roseville officers and voice any concerns.  Additional information is available at 651/792-7008.


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


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 Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


73931 - 74040





                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

            Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, unless otherwise noted, for the following applicants:



Type of License

Liang Li; Asian Massage; 2334 Lexington Avenue N

Massage Therapist

Veronica Churchill; Massage Envy

2480 Fairview Avenue; Suite 120

Massage Therapist


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


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

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows; and as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 9, 2014; and Attachment A entitled, "2014 Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 05/31/2014."











ARC Document


Document Scanning Services




                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


8. Consider Items Removed from Consent


d.            Approve Fire Department & Northeast Metro Intermediate District 916 Medical Training Program Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 16, 2014.


Councilmember McGehee noted that this was the first time she'd heard about this program, and sought more discussion for a variety of reasons.  Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with the age of these high school students from an EMT perspective and privacy concerns of residents requiring these services and the reception of such a program in this community.  Councilmember McGehee expressed further concerns with liability issues spelled out in the agreement, even though reviewed by the City Attorney, with additional people on an accident scene.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if this was the right place for these youth to be; or how program participants were vetted before being invited into the homes of elderly and/or vulnerable adults in many cases.  Councilmember McGehee questioned why this was included on the consent agenda without an opportunity for more discussion; and further questioned if this program should actually be done in Roseville at all.  Councilmember McGhee noted that the agreement required  one-year notice by either party for termination; and questioned why such a long notice requirement and why the City couldn't opt out sooner if so indicated.


Fire Chief Tim O'Neill and Battalion Chief & Emergency Manager Greg Peterson

Chief Peterson recognized Councilmember McGehee's concerns; however, noted that this program had been in operation for some time, with youth already riding along with other agencies (e.g. Allina); and they had reached out to the Roseville Department to determine their interest in this program.  Chief Peterson advised that he knew the lead instructor, and had actually gone through part of their program; and he found it a good opportunity for youth, given the difficulties of the Department in obtaining ride-along options with so many programs already seeking agencies for ride-along opportunities.  Chief Peterson advised that these were younger adults involved in these types of programs.  Chief Peterson noted that one of the City's current firefighters had gone through this program before deciding on this career.  As far as liability issues, Chief Peterson opined that it would always remain no matter what agency they were riding along with; and while recognizing Councilmember McGehee's personal concerns, the program provided a great opportunity for these youth to get exposure early on; and was a good program that had been around for at least one or two decades.  Chief Peterson noted that during the City Attorney's review of the agreement, he had diverted liability responsibilities to the School District even further than originally proposed.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that a one-year notice clause was a common provision when dealing with an educational program, allowing the School District to plan out their curriculum, and causing a hardship for them to be at another entity's whim when offering educational opportunities. 


Specific to confidentiality of clients as noted in Section I, "Requirements of Students," Section C (page 3), City Attorney Gaughan noted the confidentiality waiver clause for students to read and execute; and to ensure that they have an understanding of  HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) confidential information requirements as part of the City's permission to ride along.  Mr. Gaughan advised that he wasn't aware of this being thought out for the program before this additional requirement inserted by the City of Roseville.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that and  HIPAA was a concern of hers; and clarified with Chief Peterson that students received a primer on patient confidentiality  HIPAA before a ride along.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed another concern was the length of the shifts for these students: 10-12 hours, which seemed long, and suggested that they be involved rather in two, six hour shifts, and only during daytime hours.


Chief Peterson clarified that these discussions had been held to limit or reduce their shifts, and to ensure they were not sleeping at the station.  Chief Peterson advised that students would be involved in late afternoon and/or early evening shifts, and advised that the length of shifts could also be reduced.


Councilmember Willmus shared concerns with the length of shifts; and asked that it be formally addressed in the agreement; questioning how old the students were and how it was determined by the School District and/or Fire Department if and when students were eligible for ride-alongs.


Chief Peterson stated that it was his understanding that the students were high school seniors.


Councilmember Etten suggested that, if not with the Roseville EMT, these students would ride along with Allina or other agencies to obtain this work experience.  Councilmember Etten advised that this program was in force when he went to Irondale; and currently several of his students were involved in this EMT training.  Councilmember Etten advised that these students were career-focused and mature young people, and noted that this was a rigorous program.  Given his personal connection as a teacher to some of those students coming through the program, Councilmember Etten opined that that these students were excellent people for involvement in the Roseville community.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Councilmember Etten for that insight, which she had not found through the meeting packet materials; and given that it was seniors involved in this two-year program made a significant difference in how she viewed the opportunity.  Councilmember McGehee opined that such information would have been useful to include in the meeting materials to avoid further questions.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her concerns with the length of the shifts as well; and asked that it be addressed.  While still troubled with the one-year notice requirement, Councilmember McGehee noted the rationale in an educational institution not wanting less than a year's notice; but if something catastrophic
happened or the program was not working out, suggested an opt-out clause of
less than a year.


Chief Peterson noted that, if the program were found not to be working, the City could just stop scheduling the ride-alongs.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that, if the agreement didn't provide for a unilateral termination, the City would need to abide by its responsibilities; noting that with the relationship of the parties, it could be a mutual understanding on winding down the program.


At the request of Mayor Roe on timing of the contract, City Attorney Gaughan advised that there was nothing defined, but there was no reason both parties couldn't mutually agree to terminate the agreement.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he preferred that the agreement be revised to reflect the reduced shifts; and suggested the agreement be returned for a future meeting after revision.


Chief Peterson agreed to that suggestion.


Mayor Roe questioned the need for the City Council to dictate the length of shift, without input from District 916 staff, unless Councilmember Willmus preferred the agreement to return; to which Councilmember Willmus stated that he would like to see other options from the District before approving the agreement.


City Attorney Gaughan pointed out Section 3, "Mutual Responsibilities" (page 3), with each of the six items requiring communication between parties; and opined that the length of shifts would be arrived at through that mandate to communicate, addressing areas of mutual need or concern and seeking solutions to any problems (items 5 and 6).  Mr. Gaughan opined that, if the City Council authorized this agreement, it could mandate staff to provide shifts of less than ten hours or whatever length they preferred, and staff would need to live up to that area of authorization.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that this would enforce the City Council's objective, but not create a specific term in the


Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding a sentence that: "Shifts are not to exceed 8-10 hours, and not be past midnight."


Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council be careful not to add something that District 916 may not like as part of their program.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that City Attorney Gaughan's recommendation be followed; with Chief Peterson take the revised agreement back to District 916 and return for approval at a future City Council meeting.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief Peterson confirmed that there was no time sensitivity for the agreement; however, he stated that it wasn't clear to him
exactly what the City Council was seeking.


Mayor Roe clarified that the intent was for the shifts to be long enough to be effective and productive, but not too long or too late into the night; which was confirmed by Councilmember Willmus.  Mayor Roe reminded all that there were curfews and other considerations for youth in Roseville that needed to be taken into consideration.


Chief O'Neill suggested that typically the shifts would end at 6:00 p.m. when shift changes occurred, and be no longer than six hours and no later than 6:00 p.m., but was open to the City Council's discretion if they preferred another option.


Councilmember Etten opined that the students could handle a 10-12 hour shift; and suggested that the School District wouldn't have asked for that parameter if they hadn't been doing so for years.  Councilmember Etten opined that the shifts could be limited to ten if desired by the City Council; and with the time of day and not sleeping at the fire stations as part of the considerations, he was agreeable to the agreement as outlined and agreed to by District 916.


Etten moved, Roe seconded, approval of an agreement (Attachment A) between Northeast Metro Intermediate District 916 and the City of Roseville for teaching assistance for their EMT program; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document, as per RCA


Councilmember Willmus stated that he wanted to see the length of time and shifts included in the agreement; and if District 916 confirmed that this was standard practice, he would agree, but he didn't see that included in the agreement as currently written.


Mayor Roe noted that a motion to table would supersede the proposed motion.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this item until the June 23, 2014 regular City Council meeting.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe noted the homework required of the Fire Department before the document returned.


9.         General Ordinances for Adoption


10.      Presentations


a.            Update from Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire

Mayor Roe welcomed Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire and invited her to provide an update on Ramsey County happenings.


Commissioner McGuire reviewed her tenure and districts she represented, as well as committees she was currently serving on: Active Living-Ramsey County, Library Board liaison; Alternate for the Ramsey County Collaborative; Ramsey County Mosquito Control Board; and newly-elected to the Transportation Advisory Board; along with State and National level involvement with Criminal Justice Policies; and chairing the Ramsey County Board's legislative committee.


Commissioner McGuire provided highlights from the last legislative session and funding during this second year of the  State's  biennial budget; capital improvement program infrastructure needs and state funding; and public health and safety mandates of the state and federal government, delegated to the County.


Commissioner McGuire addressed work at the Twin Cities Army Ammunitions Plant (TCAAP) in Arden Hills and redevelopment plans to increase the tax base for area cities and address affordable housing needs in the area; and funding for Safe Routes to Schools and Bus Rapid Transit, including her advocacy for expanding that BRT line as far as the TCAAP area.


Further items addressed by Commissioner McGuire included the recent opening of the Green Line and connecting routes involving Roseville, and improved and more frequent service on Snelling Avenue as a connector to the Green Line, scheduled to start service in 2015. 


Specific to Roseville, Commissioner McGuire addressed completed negotiations for County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue as a turnback to the City, and the County taking back some of the Victoria  to Dale Street section of County Road B-2, requiring more extensive repairs.  Commissioner McGuire noted concrete rehabilitation work being done throughout Ramsey County, including several roads in Roseville.


Commissioner McGuire spoke to recent discussions with City and County Public Works Directors and the access off Hamline Avenue into the Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch.  Commissioner McGuire noted that to-date she'd been involved in the discussions
that addressed the history of the access and how it happened, as well as how to
inform future access spaces into county buildings off county roads. 
Commissioner McGuire stated that at this time, a meeting among the Library
Director, City of Roseville, and Ramsey County was being scheduled to consider
a safe solution.


Commissioner McGuire stated that she was looking forward to Rosefest, and gave kudos to the City for this great community festival.  Commissioner McGuire noted that she had provided a copy of the legislative session review for Councilmembers; and sought input from Councilmembers on any issues or concerns they wanted her to work on between now and her next update to the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked Commissioner McGuire for following through on those items addressed previously, providing more voices.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Commissioner McGuire for her assistance on issues; and suggested her future presentations include a display for the viewing public.


Councilmember Willmus also expressed his appreciation to Commissioner McGuire for her work.


Mayor Roe sought a follow-up on Economic Development and Economic Gardening issues as presented by Ramsey County to the City Council earlier this year.


Commissioner McGuire briefly reviewed the program intended for tier two-level businesses and CEO's needing mentoring to take their business to the next level; advising that the program had proven to be a great success and hoped it would continue in the future, and her hope that Roseville businesses would be a huge part of that effort.  Commissioner McGuire noted that there were now spokespeople available from businesses that can attest to the value of the program, and expressed her interest in spreading the word to businesses to give them the support they need. 


Mayor Roe suggested that, once the program was approved in the County's budget during the second year of the biennium budget, presentations be made to the areas joint chamber of commerce and Roseville Business Council effort as a valuable venue to get the information out.


Mayor Roe thanked Commissioner McGuire for her attendance and the update.


11.      Public Hearings


12.      Budget Items


a.       Discuss 2015 City Council Budget Goals & Priorities

City Manager Patrick Trudgeon introduced this discussion, as detailed in the RCA dated June 16, 2014; and the intent to seek Council direction for staff in creation of the City Manager Recommended Budget.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that Finance Director Chris Miller was available, as well as Department Heads, to respond to any questions or additional information needs of individual Councilmembers during this discussion.


Mayor Roe suggested using the primary points of discussion outlined by staff in the RCA as a way to organize tonight's discussion; referring to the preliminary
report on the budget and tax levy impact items addressed in the May 12, 2014
staff memorandum.


General Comments

Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Miller to provide a recap of the Finance Commission's
discussion at their recent meeting, specifically regarding the tax levy
discussion, since they didn't finish their discussion on reserve policies.


Finance Director Miller advised that, specific to the value or merit of developing multiple budget scenarios (decreased, frozen and/or an increase) it was the consensus of the Commission that such a practice would be conceptually healthy for any organization.  However, Mr. Miller noted that they also understood the sensitivity of doing so in a public forum in which the City operated.  Mr. Miller advised that the Commission's guidance to the City Council was to go ahead and do so,
but as program impacts were discussed, those impacts should be broad-based, and
not specific programs and/or service cuts unless really determined to go down
that path, at which time it would be appropriate to let the public know what
was being contemplated versus not simply unnerving the public for the purpose
of an exercise.  Mr. Miller clarified that the consideration of the Commission
was for a plus 5%, zero and minus 5% levy scenario exercise. 


Mayor Roe clarified, with agreement by Councilmember Willmus, that this exercise was specific to the levy, not the overall budget.


From the last discussion, Councilmember McGehee suggested a broad policy discussion first, following the most recent community survey, indicating that citizens are satisfied with the level of service they're receiving and the level of competence in which is being delivered.  Councilmember McGehee suggested assigning to the City Manager and Department Heads the task of reviewing the entire City and bringing forward areas in which the City currently contracts out for service and/or provided services in-house and if any of those areas could be changed to see cost savings.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this is the way she would like to see the City do their budget work; tasking staff with trying to provide savings and review expenses on the basis of providing citizens with existing services and retaining the existing tax level.  Also, Councilmember McGehee addressed cash reserves, opining that she wanted staff to have the opportunity to review this as a whole, rather than having the City Council "dig in the weeds" for specific things as done in the past; but to have the City Council take a higher policy review and allow staff to do their job.


Mayor Roe opined that staff did that now, looking at the entire budget as a whole and services.


Councilmember McGehee opined that staff did so at the City Council's direction; but if they
find any significant cuts to be had, it would be more appropriate for them to
do so on a larger policy level, as they were much more aware of the contracting
aspects and could find more efficiency.


At the prompting of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not interested in pursuing the three proposed budget scenarios preferred by Councilmember Willmus, but more interested in staff coming to the  City Council with proposals, knowing that the goal was not to raise taxes but to do the best job possible, while finding any savings possible.  Councilmember McGehee opined that staff was more able to make those determinations and bring them forward to the City Council, and suggested that they be given the opportunity to do so.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that some discussion may be tied together, noting that his consideration for additional personnel or COLA would be determined in part by responses from staff on previous discussions and his information requests for License Center revenue generated, and whether more of those revenues could be used to offset the General Fund levy beyond current practice, and as a broader discussion about reserves and the License Center.  To get at the crux of his question, Councilmember Willmus questioned to what level those revenues could be used to offset the levy; and to hear guidance from staff as to what would be reasonable.


Mr. Miller advised that in the 2104 budget, the General Fund tapped  $110,000 to support other City programs/services, as that much was available to tap into.  However, Mr. Miller advised that the way the facility was run and efficiencies of day-to-day operations were balanced with the fees allowed to be charged being set and mandated by federal and state oversight agencies, for which the City had no control.  Mr. Miller noted that, while the fixed costs could go up or down, it was important to remain sensitive to the vulnerability of the License Center operation to those areas not within the City's control.  Mr. Miller advised that, even though excess revenue generation had been tapped annually for General Fund needs, if the City Council chose to depend on those revenues, he could not ensure they would be sustainable in perpetuity.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the City Council, at the end of budget deliberations in 2013 for the 2014 budget, raised transfers of revenue from the License Center to the General Fund Levy by an additional $75,000, with $35,000 in administrative services already charged into that budget.  At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that the total in 2013, that total had been $85,000.


Councilmember Willmus noted year-end reserves for the License Center in 2012 were approximately $800,000, and 2013 year-end were $925,000, showing significant growth in those reserves.  With the additional personnel brought in recently, Councilmember Willmus questioned if that didn't indicate that the service of the License Center continued to grow fast.


Mr. Miller opined that it wasn't growing as fast now as it had in the last few years.  Mr. Miller advised that it had been intentional for the License Center business model to be managed differently over the last few years in order to amass funds to build a new facility or add onto an existing city-owned facility versus renting space as is currently done.  Mr. Miller advised that he hadn't recently
looked at a five-year business plan to see what could be sustained; and while
the $800,000 held in reserves for that new location could be reallocated by the
City Council, Mr. Miller sought to alert them that it could have implications. 
However, Mr. Miller noted that there may be some room for a limited additional

Councilmember Willmus asked, if the City Council decided to build a new building, would Building Replacement Funds be available, and if so how much.


Mr. Miller noted that the Building Replacement Fund currently had $800,000 available; however, he also noted that a discussion was scheduled later in tonight's meeting for using those funds to bridge the funding gasp for the new fire station.  Mr. Miller reviewed the original purpose of the fund contemplated to address long-term facility needs (e.g. roofs and mechanicals), and noted the millions of dollars of unmet needs identified in the CIP over the next twenty years.  Therefore, Mr. Miller advised that he had challenged the License Center staff to not depend on someone else to build a new facility, but challenge them to manage their operation so efficiently so as to amass funds to build it with those savings.  However, Mr. Miller reiterated that the City Council could choose to repurpose those funds, even though staff had been challenged to address heir facility needs with their own revenue streams.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller clarified that  setting aside funds for a new license center building had been a staff directive, not done by the City Council.  However, Mr. Miller noted that such discussions came up every three to five years when the License Center lease was renewed; with indications perceived that it wasn't a high priority in the context of other park and recreation facility needs and other significant, unmet needs throughout the community.  Therefore, Mr. Miller advised that he personally challenged License Center staff to find a way to get it done.


Having been involved in those discussions, Mayor Roe didn't recall any nuance given
about saving money to build a new building, opining that he made that connection
during CIP deliberations and needs assessments.  Mayor Roe asked Mr. Miller for
a projected estimate for a new License Center.


Mr. Miller advised that the License Center currently operates in approximately 4,000 square feet for passport and regular motor vehicle areas; and estimated that $800,000 would suffice for a similar 4,000 square foot facility.  However, Mr. Miller noted that this was only for a structure, and did not include any funds if land was acquired as part of that relocation, creating an entirely different story. 


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller reviewed projected annual costs for debt service to borrow $800,000, at approximately $65,000 to $70,000 over a fifteen-year period at today's interest rates; and compared with the $62,000 in
annual rent for the leased facility.


Mayor Roe opined that this was his interest in balancing out operations and comparing revenue bonds versus rent.


Mr. Miller clarified that borrowing was one approach, or simply paying $800,000 in cash today, freeing up an additional $60,000 for other City services from that current rent payment, as well as not requiring interest payments for bond holders.


In general, Mayor Roe suggested that as the City Council looked at the 2015 levy, they consider calculations on the current tax base and average property value for single-family residences in Roseville.  If there are no changes in the levy in 2015, Mayor Roe estimated that with those residential market values going up as  tax base proportions were shifted from commercial properties, the average taxpayer was looking at a 7% increase just from that market value rate increase.   Mayor Roe asked that the City Council and staff be mindful of that; and therefore, was looking to other areas for funding on a short-term basis to avoid such a huge impact for taxpayers, opining that this would be meaningful from his perspective.  While not suggesting that reserves be depleted down to zero in one year, Mayor Roe suggested that consideration be given to making things work.  Mayor Roe noted that the City of Falcon Heights had a reserve fund review over time to address providing some tax relief as needed.


Specific to the License Center, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of relocating it to city-owned property; and further expressed her support of paying cash versus bonding which would only increase the City's debt service, opining that the
City had already increased its debt service significantly.  While not suggesting
that the Center needed to be built immediately, Councilmember McGehee opined
that it would be prudent not to have the License Center not forced to pay over
$60,000 annually in rent and instead allowing it to build up a revenue stream
to build a building and then opening up that additional revenue stream for the
City going forward.


Mayor Roe questioned if the License Center reserve fund could be left as is without making additional contributions, but not making a decision on a building right away.


Councilmember Etten questioned options discussed to-date.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there were quite a few opportunities city-wide, including the downstairs of City Hall recently vacated by the Fire Department, Fairview Fire Station, or adding onto existing buildings.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it could be made as an addition to one of the new park buildings, allowing sufficient parking and tying into a current construction project. 


Councilmember Etten opined that, while each may have some potential, there were limitations with the park buildings; and he didn't see many of those facilities with
sufficient parking availability.  While loving the conceptual idea of using the
old fire station on Fairview Avenue, Councilmember Etten noted that it was a disaster
to access due to other commercial properties in the area, and therefore prohibitive
to him.  Councilmember Etten noted that the lower level of City Hall was
already spoken for to expand the Public Works/Engineering area.  Whether the decision
was to build or now, Councilmember Etten expressed his understanding that the
space would inform whether or not it was desirable compared to remaining with
the current situation.  From his point of view, Councilmember Etten opined that
he was in favor of parking the money but using more surplus, such as another
$50,000 from the License Center operating surplus reserve reallocated to the
2015 budget:  and if they needed the money, it could be reallocated from other
open reserves.  Until a location was selected, Councilmember Etten stated that
such a scenario would be his preference.


Mayor Roe questioned the need to have the discussion on locations as part of this budget discussion.


Having just joined the City Council last year, along with Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Laliberte opined that, while she heard some rumblings about the License Center and built-up reserves, she did not recall being part of those discussions during that 1.5 year timeframe, but just a listener in the process.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe regarding the Levy and what was happening to residential property values due to the shift being experienced from commercial to residential properties, typically cyclical and potentially swinging back as commercial values caught up.  However, Councilmember Willmus stated that it was something to be seriously considered in using reserves to offset expenses during this time.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this was especially true if the City Council continued to go down the road of increased staff expenses; opining that it would become more prudent to look at using revenue streams to offset some of those things.


Mayor Roe noted that the discussion should be open to other areas as well as the License Center.


Mayor Roe noted that the amounts or rates recovered from licenses, and the number of transactions, was out of the City's control, and therefore, it made no sense to budget for optimistic happenings at the Center until a better trend was identified.  However, from an operational standpoint, Mayor Roe noted that there were additional revenues available from License Center reserves, since it continued to operate with an annual surplus that covered other costs.  Mayor Roe suggested that the proposed new positions and COLA recommendations may inform the amount retained in the fund balance and how that may become part of the mix.


Other Reserves

Mayor Roe noted that the 2013 annual financial report reviewed the current reserve policy goal of 35%-45% for the General Fund based on its annual operating budget.  With Councilmember Etten recognizing that the reserve percentage was 43%, Mayor Roe addressed the unrestricted side  was above that at the 45% level, and whether the City Council chose to reduce that level some but remain within the 40% target goal.  Mayor Roe stated that this would be one of his suggestions to consider using up to an additional $75,000 in General Fund reserves toward the 2015 levy.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, during budget discussions held in December of 2013, he had asked Mr. Miller for his forecast for General Fund growth in 2014, and he anticipated an increase of $50,000, but in actuality, was approaching $200,000, minus the funds used for emergency tree and storm damage.  Councilmember Willmus questioned that factored into such a large discrepancy in those projections; noting that the year-end 2012 to year-end 2013 reserves increased by almost $198,000. 


Mr. Miller clarified that the General Fund declined by $350,000.  Mr. Miller further clarified that the City Council was looking at two different things, only one of which was cash reserves.  Mr. Miller advised that he had been basing his projections on what happened and what would happen in operations, and he would need more specifics to address how and why there more cash reserves than anticipated.  In his April 4, 2014 memorandum, Mr. Miller noted the General Fund target level of 43% reserves, with a $494,000 plus excess reserve, with the General Fund calling for $346,000 in reserves, as well as Park & Recreation reserves, which could also decline before year-end 2014 as well, opining that the natural reserve level would decline in 2014.


In the April 2014 memorandum from Mr. Miller, Mayor Roe clarified that need for the City Council to understand the 2014 budget levels versus 2013 reserves, noting that his 45% calculation was based on 2013 reserves, reconciled at year-end 2013.  However, over that year, Mayor Roe noted a higher than 40% target, using $269,000 of that from 2013 that remained in savings, and that left about $75,000 which could be applied to the 2015 levy.


Mr. Miller noted that as the General Fund increased, the funding percentage would decline accordingly.


Councilmember Etten noted that Information Technology (IT) reserves increased dramatically over that same year's period, and questioned if that was a one-time spike or if
it would continue.


Mr. Miller clarified that it would not continue, and was due to funds received over time from other agencies and/or school districts involved in Joint Powers Agreements (JPA's) with the City of Roseville; and for the purpose of funding the construction of fiver build-out estimated at approximately $250,000 to complete.  Mr. Miller advised that authorization for that build-out was intended to come before the City Council yet this summer, representing that large capital expenditure.  While the surplus has been growing, Mr. Miller advised that it would not continue to do so beyond a gradual reserve fund.


When voting last year in setting the budget, Councilmember Etten noted his concern then and ongoing concern in any continued use of budget reserves on an annual basis.  Councilmember Etten opined that he had problems with that type of budgeting for the long-term.  Councilmember Etten advised that he was open to reducing the amount of reserves in 2015 as indicated to avoid hammering residents, he couldn't support cutting them all away, but would look toward splitting the
difference as a reasonable compromise.  Councilmember Etten opined that he
would prefer not to use those reserves at all since it indicated larger and
broader budget problems and a lack of ability to make hard choices.


Mayor Roe concurred that he was not supportive of a long-term use of reserves; and noted previous discussions and former City Council's having a Tax Levy Reduction
Fund in place to reduce levy increases as indicated.  Mayor Roe advised that
his suggestion was to look at overall funds that way; and opined that the General
Fund and License Center made sense, not to deplete it all, but to transfer a
sensible reserve amount; while still understanding that eventually the levy had
to go up at some point to cover those costs.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments of Councilmember Etten.  From his position, Councilmember Willmus opined that continuing the use of reserves over many budget cycles would not be sustainable, and the City could not support that practice.  However, Councilmember Willmus opined that there were other aspects outlined for the City Council that needed a hard look, using non-union COLA already put in place as just one example.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his understanding of the original intent in October of 2013 for the 3.26% adjustment for employees, but when an additional 2% COLA in 2014 was approved, and now an additional 2% in 2015, he found that tying the Council's hands on
other things.  If some of those things are taken of the table, Councilmember Willmus opined that a different balance could be found.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the reserve policy established in 2013.  Councilmember McGehee noted the use of reserves last year with a promise to pay it back, but now considering taking out of reserves yet again.  Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments that some hard choices
needed to be made; and since the recent community survey indicated citizens
being happy with services and programs, and not seeking any reductions, the
City Council should act accordingly.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that it
was not the City of Roseville that raised property valuations for its


Councilmember Willmus opined that this should be no surprise to anyone; and for the short-term, further opined that some things needed to be balanced out.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that no formal motion was necessary to direct staff, but they should be in the position to utilize the information from this discussion, expressing his anticipation of the City Manager Recommended Budget in response to this discussion.


Mayor Roe clarified that the purpose of tonight's discussion was to provide guidance
to staff to develop the City Manager Recommended Budget through providing a
majority consensus, specifically on the use of reserves in this case.  Mayor
Roe asked for a formal motion.


Roe moved, Willmus seconded, guiding the City Manager in development of the City Manager Recommended Budget to consider the use of both operating surplus and reserves of the License Center for 2015 budget operating funds for the City.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mayor Roe clarified that his motion intentionally did not include a dollar figure target.


Councilmember McGehee opined that based on sufficient discussion tonight, the City Manager and his staff should be allowed to base their recommendations on this robust discussion.


Mayor Roe clarified that the motion was for the City Manager to consider the use of reserves.



Etten moved, McGehee seconded, amending the motion to direct staff to keep the use of reserves the same or reduce the total amount to balance the budget, in an amount not to exceed $269,000, and preferably less.


Councilmember Etten noted that this took into consideration the reduced amount of total reserves for 2015 compared to the 2014 use of reserves.  At the request of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember Etten confirmed that his intent was to use less than $269,000 used in the 2014 levy for the 2015 budget; and without specifying the Fund, recognized that the License Center reserves had been the main topic of discussion at this point.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he would not support the amendment, and was more interested in seeing what staff came forward with.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would likely not support the amendment as well; since that considered talking about the head of a pin, when there were much bigger issues to discuss, and this particular fund or limit was not dealing with the bigger issue or harder decisions to make.


Mayor Roe advised that he would not support the amendment, concurring with Councilmember Willmus that he was curious to see what staff came forward with.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she would not support the amendment, allowing staff to do what they were hired to do.

Roll Call (Amendment)

Ayes: Etten.

Nays: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.

Motion failed.


Councilmember Etten advised that he would support the motion, based on the word "consider."


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would not support the motion based on the same rationale in not supporting the amendment, that this was too small of an effort when a broader discussion was needed about the use of reserves.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she would not support the motion, opining that it was giving too much direction with bigger issues having a much broader impact.

Roll Call (Original Motion)

Ayes: Willmus; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Laliberte.

Motion carried.


COLA Adjustment

Councilmember McGehee noted previous discussions and action in computing market adjustments and how to match other cities having made the decision already.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, supporting a 2% employee COLA for 2015.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she would not support the motion; opining that by making the market adjustments and then the COLA adjustments immediately starting in 2014, it added up to a significant impact in personnel costs, and she was unsure if that pattern could be sustained.  Councilmember Laliberte also her ongoing questioning of how the original set of peer cities used for the market study was determined.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he would not support the motion, as he needed to review and consider everything before the City Council, and if it was to consider offsetting some of the increases and timing of amounts received by staff in January of 2014, which he found to be fair and adequate, action needed to be taken at this time to limit increases over time.


As a point of information, Mayor Roe sought information from Mr. Miller on the index used in the City's policy when considering COLA.


Mr. Miller clarified that the CPI was used, not other cities, which provided a market based versus a peer based analysis.  Mr. Miller noted that the City had already approved and become contractually obligated for a 2% or more COLA for its union contracts, and others; with the local CPI currently at a 1.8% - 2% projected as of three to four months ago.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, noting that the trends could be further analyzed as the year progressed; and was supportive of using the guidance in using the CPI and Municipal Wage Cost Index as a way to calculate annual COLA.


Roll Call

Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: Willmus and Laliberte.

Motion carried.


New Personnel

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of an adjustment in the Fire Department Model, as outlined in previous discussions; and increasing the current Forestry Position to work with developments and other city needs for forestry that are not currently being taken care of, suggesting that Community Development Department dollars may be available versus any new tax-supported levy dollars.


Mayor Roe noted that the Forestry position need had been identified, and was not a specific Parks & Recreation request for 2015.


Councilmember Etten concurred, opining that it would allow the City to get more immediate needs taken care of outside of parks.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not comfortable with the Fire Department proposal, as referenced by a memorandum she had sent to Councilmembers earlier today.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was looking for an "apples to apples" comparison, and had yet to receive the figures she wanted; and once she had them, she could then participate in this discussion.  Absent that information, Councilmember McGehee advised that she could not support the proposed Fire Department model.


To preface the discussion, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had previously received specific items recommended by staff: a Public Works right-of-way technician (fee supported); a Public Works customer service position (utility fee supported); transition of the Fire Department to six full-time firefighters in 2015; two Police Department commercial patrol officers; with no new positions requested in the Administration, Community Development or Parks & Recreation Departments.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller provided comparison FTE's, with 167 budgeted in 2013 and 174 budgeted in 2013; and an additional 11 FTE's proposed for 2015; at a forecasted tax-supported levy impact for those 11 FTE's at approximately $400,000.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the right-of-way technician would be supported by fees from a combination of utility companies for right-of-way permits and other engineering services provided to the City of Falcon Heights.  Mr. Schwartz advised that other development fees (e.g. plan review and construction oversight) would supplement that support; and would essentially remain at fee levels now set.  Mr. Schwartz noted that there would be a slight increase to utility fees to support the customer service position in the utility area.


Councilmember Etten advised that he would support the right-of-way technician, but not the customer service position, since he wasn't sure if he felt comfortable
increasing utility fees at this time.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that the utility increase would be across the board for all City utilities.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, at some point, the City Council was going to have to reconcile the number of people with pay adjustments; and advised that he could not support any additional positions at this time accordingly.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was generally supportive of the Fire Department transition, but reiterated that for her, some of these discussions needed to come in the bigger context.  While being in support of adding here and taking out from other areas, to address things the City was mandated to do on a regular basis, Councilmember Laliberte advised that, she continued to hear about things needing maintaining or increased, but never where they could be reduced or eliminated.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she was happy to support the right-of-way technician.  While supporting the Fire Department business model conversion in general, Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not sure she could support a model to move six paid on-call firefighters to a full-time position, while leaving the remaining 59 part-time on-call positions in place, at least until she received the additional figures as previously stated.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she was not supportive of commercial police officers for a variety of reasons, the least of which was that it would nullify the specifically-negotiated agreement with WalMart.  If the City could work out a PILOT program with the University of Northwestern, Councilmember McGehee opined that a reasonable agreement or program could surely be worked out for retail areas to make a contribution to support police services that they apparently so badly needed.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the Cities of Bloomington and Edina had done so, and questioned why the City of Roseville could not manage to do so as well.


Mayor Roe advised that he was generally supportive of the Fire Department conversion in the long-term, but needed to look at the numbers further.  Mayor Roe advised that he would support the right-of-way technician, but could not support the customer service position for utilities, based on his desire not to further impact utility fees at this time.  Mayor Roe advised that he was supportive of the IT position if there was a way to pay for it; but was not supportive of any commercial patrol officers at this time.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was somewhat in agreement with Councilmember Etten on the forestry position; but needed a discussion sooner rather than later to understand how the departments worked together with that need and cost allocations.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's comments
on the forestry position.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he would support no positions at this time until he received the City Manager Recommended Budget.


Councilmember Etten advised that he supported the IT position to alleviate the current work load of the senior department staff, but was concerned with the levy impact and needed suggestions from staff on how they intended to fund the position to avoid a significant levy impact.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the IT position as well.


Desired Changes in Programs or Service Levels

As previously stated, Mayor Roe noted that the most recent community survey indicated that residents were happy with the current levels, and questioned if there were any areas that needed adjusting from individual City Councilmember perspectives.


Councilmember McGehee brought to the attention of staff and Councilmembers the problems experienced last winter with frozen water mains and suggested additional or more powerful equipment to allow staff to address thawing those lines in the future.


Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council formally direct staff to provide the three levy scenarios as previously discussed, based on the recommendation of the Finance Commission.


Roe moved, Laliberte seconded, directing staff to come forward with three separate 2015 levy scenarios: an increase of 5%, 0% levy, and a 5% reduction, indicating the related impacts from each.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she would not support the motion, opining that it was a ridiculous exercise, and obviously staff didn't have any desire to increase the
levy any higher than necessary, and.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that
she could personally find ways to save money versus the City Council attempting
to address these small issues, just because no one was willing to step up to
the plate and make the decision.


Mayor Roe suggested that Councilmember McGehee submit a memorandum to that effect outlining those cost savings; to which Councilmember McGehee responded that she would be happy to do so.


Councilmember Etten advised that he would support this motion, as recommended by the Finance Commission.


Mayor Roe advised that he would support the motion, with the understanding that  it was not concerned with specific cuts, but general impacts, such as previously suggested by Mr. Miller as an example of the current FTE level and how that may change based on the varying levy scenarios.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she did not view this as an exercise, but as a legitimate way to see what services and programs would be impacted with those various scenarios and how it impacted the tax levy assessment, opining that the City Council was obligated to pursue such a process.


Councilmember McGehee  suggested an amendment: to see staff come back with creative ideas to reduce and reformulate the budget entirely.


Mayor Roe clarified that this was inherent in the original motion, and would inform the discussion going forward and delve more deeply into all areas.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Councilmember Etten noted that the staff memorandum indicated $160,000 from street bond #25 that remained undedicated; and advised that he would be a strong supporter of applying that money to the CIP and not using it toward the budget.


Mayor Roe recognized that  the CIP committee had previously recommended that funding be applied to the street infrastructure CIP funding, with a recommendation to look more broadly at street funding.  However, Mayor Roe noted that staff had  not recommended that re-purposing in its May budget memo.

Mr. Miller sought to clarify that staff had yet to reach that conclusion, but did want to have further discussion about the CIP and necessary funding strategies whenever the best opportunity to do so became available.  Mr. Miller advised that staff had additional information to share at the time of that discussion; and suggested it be sooner rather than later, as it may not be independent of the City Manager's Recommended Budget.


Mayor Roe advised that he was strongly supportive of CIP recommendations.  Specific to that topic, Mayor Roe referenced a comment in the May 12, 2014 memo regarding calculating the loss of Local Government Aid (LGA) and any funds received applied to CIP funding.  In his quick analysis of reserve fund levels versus CIP needs for the next 20 years, Mayor Roe, advised hat, based on the same methodology, the loss of LGA funding for the CIP may not have significant impacts based on the twenty-year outlook and cost impacts.  Mayor Roe advised that he had sent that information to the City Manager and Finance Director for their comments; and looked forward to further discussion on that in the near future.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that the current median value for an average single-family home in Roseville was $194,000 in 2014, and anticipated an increase to $215,000 in 2015, an increase of 11%.


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Memorandum of Agreement for the Purchase of Right-of-Way for Twin Lakes Improvement Project

City Engineer Marc Culver provided a revised draft resolution as a bench handout, following discussions at the Closed Session earlier tonight as it related to the purchase price negotiated at $1,135,200, and including permanent acquisition of 78,328 square feet of property and temporary easements valued at approximately $12,000.  Mr. Culver noted that the purchase price information had been intentionally redacted until tonight's Closed Session.


Mr. Culver reviewed the property and proposed Memorandum of Agreement, as detailed in the RCA dated June 16, 2014.  Mr. Culver noted that the changes to the original draft resolution addressed contingencies now found in the last "Be It Resolved" section of the revised resolution.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver advised that the remaining funds would come from TIF District 17 to pay any remaining balance after application of federal funds.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11156 (Attachment A) entitled, "Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the Memorandum of Agreement for Parcels 1 & 2 and the Memorandum of Agreement for Parcels 3 & 4 for the Acquisition of Land from PIK Terminal Company;" as amended REVISED BENCH HANDOUT.


Councilmember Willmus commended staff for the significant length of time taken to get to this point and complete this corridor; and expressed appreciation for their diligence in completing this acquisition.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the property was originally mapped in 1983; and she had not supported it then nor did she support the concept now.  It was nice the funding was available to put it in, but in a different world now, other options should be considered rather than being bound by 1980s ideas.


Councilmember  Laliberte expressed appreciation that this was done; and opined that it was an important key in ongoing discussions with landowners and developers working in the Roseville area, and everyone's high priority to finish redevelopment in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Etten's comments; and spoke in support of the
motion; opining that it was important to get this done so the rest of the
development can come together.


Mayor Roe also thanked staff and the property owner for their involvement and willingness to come to agreement with the City.  While times may have changed since 1983, and further discussions in 2003, Mayor Roe opined that the connection needed to be made, and spoke in support of the motion.


                                                            Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

                        Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:37 p.m.


b.            Consider Cable Renewal Franchise Agreement

Mayor Roe, in his role as City liaison to the North Suburban Cable Commission and current board member, reviewed the process laid out and background of cable services provided, based on the current agreement in place over the last sixteen years, and its transfer to Comcast, with that agreement actually expiring in 2013, and extended for a year to continue negotiations.  Mayor Roe advised that four years ago, Comcast notified the ten member cities of the expiration and negotiations; with both informal and formal negotiations following by a set process, and Comcast's response and subsequent public hearing recently held this spring.
Mayor Roe noted NSCC's recommendation to the ten member cities to preliminarily
deny the proposed franchise agreement from Comcast.  In the meantime, Mayor Roe
advised that informal discussions were ongoing, but there was a need to take
action on the calendar on the formal response.


Mayor Roe advised that both parties were present and would be heard from, first Comcast and then NSCC; followed by City Council questions, rebuttal available to both parties, and then public comment.


Emmet Coleman, Comcast Vice President of Government Affairs Area

Mr. Coleman thanked Mayor Roe for his service on the NSCC and his succinct summary of the issue; and provided his presentation as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Coleman provided a brief review of his area of responsibility covering four states and approximately 200 communities.  However, Mr. Coleman advised that 40% of his time and that of his team at the corporate level had been dedicated to responding to issues on the franchise renewal process for these ten communities.  Mr. Coleman opined that the franchise agreement for the ten communities was tied to the commission, but the cities didn't have a clear, direct discussion
of the provisions on a regular basis. 


As detailed in the RCA dated June 16, 2014, Mr. Coleman addressed the various issues from Comcast's perspective in their proposal (Attachment A: Executive Summary) and his handout presentation.  Mr. Coleman reviewed the areas of dispute or contention, and his perception of misrepresentations or misperceptions, including PEG fees, federal laws, Comcast's substantial investment in the community, triggers for formal
negotiations, original construction of the institutional network and its ownership, future of educational and government access channels going forward, the NSCC reserves it has available that had been collected from member cities, and Request for Proposal provisions and the historical provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding with predecessors of Comcast.


Mr. Coleman addressed federal requirements for the formal process from Comcast's perspective and the Federal Act rules and regulations both Comcast and the NSCC were required to operate under.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Coleman addressed the current PEG fee and proposed above and beyond the 5% franchise fee to address capital and operating costs of Comcast, which was addressed in Comcast's response to the Request for
Proposals (RFP) and its codicil; averaging rates across the customer base for
government access based on demand; and potential areas for litigation.


Coralie Wilson, NSCC Executive Director

In addition to the summary provided by Mayor Roe, Ms. Wilson stressed the reason NSCC recommended denial of the Comcast franchise proposal, based on cable company use of public rights-of-way through franchise fees and media support for public educational and government channels, providing value to their network for I-Net.


Ms. Wilson agreed, as noted by Mr. Coleman, that the franchise renewal process was set by federal law, and allowed for both informal and formal negotiations, advising that those informal negotiations continued, and had become especially intense over the last few weeks with some progress being made toward resolution of the top three issues: financial support for public education and government access channels and community media, the number of public education and government access channels, and institutional networks and their transition.


With all other verbiage aside, Ms. Wilson advised that the formal proposal submitted by Comcast on December 20, 2013, in response to the NSCC's formal RFP sent out in
July and allowing Comcast five months to prepare their response, provided time
for Comcast to clarify any issues they had, but no requests from them had been
received.  Ms. Wilson advised that extensive staff and consultant review had
been done of proposals, followed by the Comcast public hearing and extensive
public comment on that proposal, with the final analysis removing operating
funds from the table.  As stated by Mr. Coleman, Ms. Wilson confirmed that
Comcast could not be required to pay it, but it was hoped that they would voluntarily
be willing to do so, even though it was not included in their formal proposal.


Ms. Wilson reviewed the remaining issues, specific to equipment needs for NSCC and member cities, clarified that there was no reserve fund as alleged, but money came from city funding grants and a letter of credit required to hold during the franchise renewal.  Ms. Wilson reviewed NSCC's and C-TV's operations, equipment, and access channels currently provided. 


Ms. Wilson referenced the Executive Summary, noting that if the City Council accepted the Comcast proposal as written, it was final and they would not get the benefit of any informal negotiations.  If the City Council didn't vote, Ms. Wilson informed
them that they would in effect be accepting the proposal.  Ms. Wilson advised
that nine of the ten member cities had now voted to preliminarily deny the
Comcast proposal.


Comcast/Mr. Coleman Response

In assuming the City will preliminarily deny the franchise, Mr. Coleman cautioned that the City not consider that this was a step taken lightly, even though under the Federal Act, not voting would essentially accept the agreement and remove their involvement in informal negotiations.  Mr. Coleman opined that it was unfortunate that the City was in this position with time deadlines in place.


Mr. Coleman again reviewed the context of remaining issues, and the formal and informal processes as driven by FCC Order 621.  Mr. Coleman opined that the proposed franchise agreement provided fair operating support for the NSCC, further opining that the provisions of the original MOU and agreement had way outlived their original anticipated value, and therefore Comcast was not interested in renewing or extending that agreement.


NSCC/Ms. Wilson Response

In deference to time, Ms. Wilson opined that there remained a considerable amount of leeway within the federal law referenced by Mr. Coleman, especially during informal negotiations.  Ms. Wilson advised that many cities have initiated formal review processes, including a group of cities in the State of Oregon.  MS. Wilson advised that overall cities and the NSCC were frustrated with the formal negotiation process by Comcast.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11157 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution of Preliminary Assessment that the Comcast of Minnesota, Inc. Cable Franchise Should NOT be Renewed."


Councilmember McGehee opined that she was disheartened by the conversation and continued debate tonight, and disappointed that it's come this far.  While it was clear there
are some negotiations still going on at this point that may actually lead to
resolution, Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn't like the idea that the
City Council was put in this position, nor suggestions that a litigious path
may be necessary, which would ultimately cost everyone.  Councilmember McGehee
opined that there was room on both sides for negotiation, and considerable
leeway as well, with Comcast improving their offer and NSCC asking for less.


Councilmember Etten concurred with some of Councilmember McGehee's comments, and noted the frustration he heard from both parties, and the need to consider that level of frustration moving forward in future years.  Councilmember Etten opined that the program offerings on access channels were important to connect families and communities, and recognized the Internet program offered by Comcast for families with limited financial means to help bridge the digital divide.  Regarding viewership ratings for access channels provided by Mr. Coleman, Councilmember Etten argued that when looking at the overall offering of 160 channels, there may be more people watching access channels than sports channels offered by Comcast.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the majority of the comments of her colleagues, expressing her disappointment with this looming deadline and being forced to vote for a litigious path, even when negotiations were ongoing.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed that there was room to give from both parties; and agreed that there were a lot of channels with varying degrees of viewership.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of this motion, agreeing with Councilmember Etten's comments.  On a personal level, Councilmember Willmus expressed his frustration in all of this.  Based on the communications he'd received over the last month about this being a property tax issue for Roseville, Councilmember Willmus disputed the misperception of that, opining that it perhaps came from semantics
being presented or Roseville being synonymous with the NSCC.


Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for everyone's comments, opining that the most important thing available on public access television were access to City government channels and keeping people interested in their local government.  She also spoke in support of programs from the local public school events such as athletic events and concerts.


In his review of viewership, Mayor Roe noted that percentages indicated a fairly good percentage for  CTV channels, with schools dropping off some, and advised that he did not want to discount viewership.  However, Mayor Roe clarified that the real question is about this preliminary denial.  While wishing that the City of Roseville was in a position to accept Comcast's proposal, Mayor Roe noted that this was largely under the control of Comcast and it would have seemed in their best interest to give member cities an offer they couldn't refuse to address capital needs and acknowledge additional funding, with their proposal well short of the numbers laid out in the RFP.  Mayor Roe noted that Comcast had cut funding for C-TV, with a portion of capital funding subtracted from their proposed franchise fee and shifted to C-TV, which would not keep them in
operation in any manner similar to their operations today. Mayor Roe noted that comments to-date from member cities indicated the same disappointment, and even though staff and legal consultants at the NSCC had asked for on several opportunities to pause for informal negotiations, but Comcast had refused to do so.  Mayor Roe advised that he found that concerning, but expressed his hope that resolution could come with the informal process.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Authorize Staff to Release a Request for Proposal for Engineering Services for the Cleveland Avenue at I-35W Interchange Improvements

City Engineer Marc Culver briefly reviewed this request, as detailed in the RCA, with RFP's scored under Best Value Process scoring, and a subsequent return to the City Council with staff's recommendations for a consultant.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver advised that some funds were available from the initial WalMart project, since federal funds would not cover all construction and other Twin Lakes Parkway improvements.  In the coming weeks, Mr. Culver advised that staff would return with a feasibility study for Council approval to assess the cost of improvements, including engineering, to benefitting properties in the area, and staff's rationale in proposing that
process under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval authorizing staff to release a Request for Proposal for Engineering Services for the Cleveland Avenue at I-35W Interchange Improvements.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Discuss New Fire Station Project Closeout

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill provided a brief summary of this request, as detailed in the RCA.


Finance Director Chris Miller noted the challenges, since expenses exceeded the $8 million bond funds; and reviewed possible solutions as outlined in the RCA, to address the funding gap of $733,639.  Mr. Miller advised that the Building Replacement Fund had been established for such a purpose, and past practices had been done in the past, including the Public Works, City Hall and Skating Center.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, extending the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. curfew to conclude this item.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Councilmember Willmus noted the error in the RCA in identifying the fire station as #2, when it should be #3, which was duly noted by staff. However, Councilmember Willmus suggested a separate discussion be held in the future specific to Fire Station #2.


Councilmember McGehee opined that charging the HRA for the fire station purchase seemed to be imprudent.  She felt that since the HRA was funded through tax dollars, it was simply taking money from one pocket and putting it in another with Mayor Roe correcting that statement.


City Manager Trudgeon concurred with Mayor Roe, noting that the cost for purchase of the fire station had been initially been built into the GMHC proforma, and though not finalized yet, TIF dollars generated would pay the HRA back and be available to revolve into another project, with those dollars collected over time and recycled into other redevelopment dollars.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if this was an appropriate place to spend the Building Replacement Fund dollars, suggesting that a major portion of the fund should be retained.


Mr. Miller clarified that, if the Dale Street property sold for $300,000, a funding gap of $433,000 would still remain.


Councilmember McGehee suggested using a portion of the $27 million bond funds for this purpose, since flexibility had been built into it.


Mr. Miller clarified that the bond issues had been structured by splitting them, with a portion for the fire station and another portion for the park renewal program, with enough flexibility to do so at the discretion of the City Council.

Councilmember Etten opined that there were other potential sources for funding (e.g. reserve funds).


Mr. Miller advised that the City Council had that discretion; however, prior City Councils had established this Fund for specifically this purpose, and it was consistent with past practice.


In his review of the Building Replacement Fund, Mayor Roe opined that it was fair to say that extensive renovation of the Skating Center budgeted in the CIP in 2020 could be borrowed for at that time if it was so decided, at which time some relief could be achieved in the Building Replacement Fund.


Mr. Miller concurred, advising that it could be accomplished to obtain bonding financing.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller advised that the Building Replacement Fund does not have a specific policy funding level percentage like operating funds do; with $10 million in CIP expenditures scheduled over the next twenty years; and $10 million needing to be raised over that same amount of time.  Mr. Miller reiterated that past City Council's had laid this Fund out, but subsequent City Council's had taken action to repurpose the City's debt load, and yet another
future City Council would be tasked with having to wrestle with those

Councilmember Willmus suggested that perhaps Responsible Governance for Roseville could pay the shortfall.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the final Fire Station construction costs; and authorizing the use of the proceeds from the sale of Fire Station #3 property and the Building Replacement Fund to complete the financing package.


Exclusive of the added geothermal heating option costs, Councilmember McGehee expressed her offense in staff's and Councilmember Willmus's implications that the funding
shortage was due  delay costs  resulting from litigation  brought by a a community
group. Councilmember McGehee pointed out that the overruns in the cost of the
fire station were due to staff and Council decisions, not by citizens
attempting to achieve a referendum on the bonding by exercising their legal
rights. She contested the attributions of certain delay costs to that group.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.


14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review


16.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


17.         Adjourn
Etten moved, Willmus seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:13 p.m.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.

Nays: None.