City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 17, 2015

 

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 Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

 

2.       Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.       Approve Agenda

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

4.       Public Comment

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

 

a.            Brandon Kowal, 2960 Old Highway 8

Mr. Kowal brought to the attention a significant discrepancy in his water billing since his meter was replaced and subsequent billing of in excess of $3,500.  Mr. Kowal advised that he had brought this to the attention of staff, and had also sought additional information via three different forums and seeking whether any other Roseville residents had experienced a similar discrepancy.  Mr. Kowal noted that the majority of those responses had been negative, indicating that there must be a mistake.  In checking with his neighbors, Mr. Kowal advised that their usage and bills were all relatively similar each quarter, and they had not experienced a billing discrepancy when meters were switched out. Mr. Kowal advised that he had purchased his home from his parents, and was sure the original meter was forty-plus years old, and at least had never been replaced during his fifteen years of ownership.  Mr. Kowal sought a more detailed breakdown on the actual consumption during those years to make sure it accurately reflects usage.

 

Mayor Roe referenced Mr. Kowal's e-mail communication to the City Council on this same subject with Finance Director Miller also copied.  Mayor Roe noted the need for further staff investigation to find out what was behind this large discrepancy in working toward its resolution.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned whether a meter reading was taken from the old meter head when replaced as well as the outside remote meter, which sometimes had damaged wires over time and could address differences in readings from the meters that could verify actual consumption.

 

Mr. Kowal noted that the old Badger brand meter - with a fifteen year factory life expectancy - had read 5,288,000 gallons when removed, but he was not sure if it was reading accurately before replaced.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated the need for additional staff follow-up, and while that may seem to be a large bill, over time it may prove accurate if the consumption was not recording as it should.  Mayor Roe noted staff could work with Mr. Kowal in addressing the issue, as well as assisting with a payment plan for the account versus a one-time payment.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested staff monitor Mr. Kowal's water usage and meter readings over the next few months to make sure consumption is similar to what the meter is recording.

 

Mayor Roe noted that his meter was twenty years old when replaced, and depending on where you were located in the City, there may be older or newer meters based on the time that area developed.  Mayor Roe expressed confidence that staff would research this further and find a fair solution.

 

At the request of Mr. Kowal, Mayor Roe confirmed that he could expect staff to follow-up with him and check the inside meter.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to make sure there were no late charges applied to Mr. Kowal's utility bill until this was resolved.

 

5.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced that Roseville would be hosting "Choosing Civility" Training for the community through its Human Rights Commission, for Participants to learn ways to sharpen their civility skills and explore belief systems; learn how to strengthen communication skills, and reinforce team work and individual responsibility.  The training is scheduled for Saturday, September 19 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., light lunch will be provided at Roseville Library, 2180 Hamline Ave N, Roseville, with spots available for 60 registrants and RSVP registration with library available at www.rclreads.org/events-and-classes.    Contact the Roseville Human Rights Commission at 651-792-7023 or kari.collins@cityofroseville.com if you have questions.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested staff check into recording that training if possible for future reference.  Mayor Roe noted that C-TV may have interest in recording it for airing as well.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised he needed to leave the meeting tonight immediately after discussion and potential action on the bond sale to facilitate a family medical issue.

 

Lawsuit Settlement

 

 

Mayor Roe read a statement announcing the terms of the settlement of a suit brought by Mr. Victor Yair Hernandez-Rivera against 4 Roseville police officers arising from a 2013 incident.

 

6.      Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.            Approve Minutes

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

 

9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

11.         Presentations

 

a.          Approve the Sale of the City's 2015 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds

Finance Director Miller introduced this item, and introduced Ms. Terri Heaton of Springsted who reported results of the bond sale held earlier today, as indicated on the bench handout, detailing aware of $3,060,000 in General Obligation TIF Bonds, Series 2015A to Raymond James & Associates, Inc.  Ms. Heaton noted seven bids indicating a lot of market interest, with twenty-six banks involved, and rates resulting in a true interest rate of 2.819% over the fifteen year term of the bonds, well below their estimate of 2.71%.  With those very favorable results, Ms. Heaton reported that there were sufficient revenues so that the city when offered a premium of extra cash or reducing the bond issue size, Finance Director Miller opted to reduce the size of the issue, resulting in the lower issue from $3,270,000 to $3,060,000, as reflected in the revised draft resolution.

 

Ms. Heaton reviewed the AAA bond rating held by the City of Roseville, and for the benefit of the viewing public reported that the city's report card from the bond rater Standard and Poors recognized the city's strong economy; management and financial practices under their methodology; effective police, procedures and City Council decisions; and management of the City Manager and Finance Department staff, all indicating strong budgetary performance and flexibility as well as strong liquidity.  Ms. Heaton noted the city's history and practice in not regularly issuing debt resulting in its very small debt load.  Ms. Heaton congratulated the City and staff on this glowing report in the industry; and recommended they accept this bid.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that he had the report available if of interest to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe sought public comment on this matter. No one appeared to speak to this issue.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution  (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Accepting Proposal on the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $3,060,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2015A, and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof;" as amended

 

At the request Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Heaton advised that the spend-down time for the City to expend bond proceeds was within twenty-four months, with an outside limit of three years, based on new regulations and other issues applying to the bond.  Ms. Heaton further reported that those expenditures were as specified to be used for public improvements within TIF District 17 and a certain percentage available within the immediate area of the district as also stipulated.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon reported that staff has initiated internal discussions for bringing recommendations for those specific infrastructure improvements, and would bring those and a recommended schedule for moving forward to the City Council in the very near future. 

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe noted how pleasing it was to hear that the strong financial efforts of the City Council and its taxpayers were paying off.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:24 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:27 p.m., with Councilmember Willmus leaving the meeting at approximately 6:25 p.m.

 

b.          Joint Meeting with Finance Commission

Mayor Roe welcomed the full Finance Commission, consisting of: Chair Robin Schroeder, Commissioners John Bachhuber, Angela Byrne, Edwin Hodder, Nagaraja Konidena, Justin Rohloff, and Peter Zellar.  Finance Director and staff liaison to the commission, Chris Miller was also present in the audience.

 

Chair Schroeder provided an overview of activities of the Commission since their inception, as detailed in the RCA dated August 17, 2015; and listed attachments to the RCA representing recommendations of the commission to the City Council for their consideration, comment and/or action.  Attachments included recommendations on financial policies, capital improvement program (CIP) funding strategies, use of park dedication fund, and a review of the water and sewer rate structure.

 

Chair Schroeder noted that some recommendations would require significant time by the City Council for their review, while others less time, but next steps and/or follow-up at the discretion of the City Council.

 

In Attachment A (Financial Policies) Chair Schroeder noted that revisions included terminology updates, as well as combining several similar policies.  Chair Schroeder advised that there were no major changes and asked for City Council approval of modifications as presented.

 

In Attachment B (CIP Funding Strategies) Commissioner Rohloff reviewed the revised plan from the Commission.  Commissioner Rohloff noted that the Commission found certain areas of the CIP woefully underfunded, yet provided twenty-four different scenarios for different ways to make funds sustainable over the next twenty years, as found in Exhibit B-4 showing all twenty-four scenarios and related charges.  Commissioner Rohloff advised that the Commission voted on how to bring the Pavement Management Plan (PMP), Park & Recreation Department's Park Improvement Plan (PIP), and the General Facilities in line.  Commissioner Rohloff noted that each of those recommendations provided the base plan at the top of the page, followed by the Commission's recommendation.  While the Commission recommends review and subsequent approval by the City Council, Commissioner Rohloff advised that the Commission recommended an annual review going forward.

 

Regarding Attachment C (Park Dedication Funds) Commissioner Bachhuber reviewed the fund in light of current CIP needs and funding challenges, as well as the background of the fund traditionally used for acquiring new park assets, building trails or adding green space.  Commissioner Bachhuber advised that the Commission was recommending that this fund also be utilized for maintenance of current park infrastructure since it represented a tremendous asset for the City, with ongoing challenges in maintaining that infrastructure.  Commissioner Bachhuber suggested rethinking the park dedication fee policy - depending on regulating parameters around those assets - to address maintaining existing assets versus acquiring more unless considered under separate consideration by the City Council as a whole, but otherwise to not use those funds for new acquisitions.

 

Regarding Attachment D (Water and Sewer Rate Structure), Commissioner Byrne noted the differences in municipal utility rate structures compared with her career in regulating private utilities and her analysis of electric and natural gas rates, providing a unique perspective.  Commissioner Byrne reviewed general rate design goals and how to build rates to achieve ongoing resources for investing in those utilities, typically based on four principles.  While recognizing many parallels, Commissioner Byrne reviewed them specifically and individually as applicable, including subsidies, recovery of fixed costs and recovery mechanisms, and what made the most sense and provide the greatest transparency.  Commissioner Byrne concluded that  based on her experience, the current municipal rates in Roseville achieved something not available for the public utility sector at the Department of Commerce in getting very close to the cost of delivery.  Based on this thorough review, Commission Byrne advised that the Commission was offering no specific recommendations to change 2016 rates, and if the City Council had specific areas they wished the Commission to pursue going forward for 2017 and beyond, sought their feedback accordingly.

 

Council Responses/Discussion

Financial policies (Attachment A)

Mayor Roe expressed his interest in recommended changes and new language, and expressed appreciation for some of the additions, especially within the capital investment policy.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if she had missed a recommendation for using cost benefit analyses; with Councilmember Etten noting it was included but not called out specifically as a change to the language.

 

Under the new policy, Commissioner Rohloff identified that analysis for future development proposals, and language related to fiscal analysis identifying uses and demonstrating costs and benefit, with the cost of that analysis borne by the developer.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the cost-benefit language had been added to the City's policies at the initiation of Councilmember Ihlan a few years ago and thanked the Commission for adding that as a policy and bringing it forward, even though he wasn't sure how well it was being followed at this point.

 

At Councilmember Laliberte's notice regarding striking of "monthly" updates from the policy, Chair Schroeder clarified that the City Council may not always get monthly updates, but sometimes they may be quarterly or on another timeframe, and this policy provided some flexibility for the City Council to address specific situations to determine what their preference was.

 

Mayor Roe suggested retaining "regular," AND "annual" in the revised language.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Schroeder clarified that the scope of the CIP was for twenty years out, with an annual review to provide a sufficient projection.

 

On page 2 of the CIP, Councilmember Etten noted referenced to the "Park Capital Maintenance Fund," and asked if that was intended to replace the PIP.

 

Commissioner Bachhuber advised that the PIP could be interpreted in a number of ways, including new assets, but the Commission's intent was to be clear that this fund was intended to maintain existing assets, with actual improvements falling elsewhere.

 

Councilmember Etten asked that the Commission discuss that further with the Parks & Recreation Commission in the near future to make sure their input is part of the City's thought process and this recommendation.  Councilmember Etten further noted the last sentence of that bullet point avoided using the word 'depreciation' in relating to funding an equal portion of estimated replacement costs.

 

Commissioner Rohloff responded that depreciation was not chosen for this type of asset; and if upon review fifteen years into a thirty-year life expectancy there was maintenance indicated that could extend the life of that asset proportionately based on useful life versus new cost, that was used consistently.  Commissioner Rohloff noted one example of that could be water pipes, with new technologies continually available to extend that life and provide more flexibility.

 

Councilmember Etten noted a consistent fifth bullet point within each enterprise fund that provided for ongoing preventative maintenance for replacement, and asked for clarification of its intent.

 

Commissioner Rohloff responded that the intent was to charge a sufficient built-in fee to cover the fixed cost for replacement.

 

In that same paragraph, Mayor Roe noted the use of both terms "useful expired life" and "depreciation," and questioned which was the most accurate, asking the Commission to review that for consistency before it came back to the City Council for formal action.

 

Commissioner Rohloff duly noted that request for consistency.

 

Councilmember Laliberte, with concurrence of the council, noted the need to cross-reference fund names in these updated policies to make sure they were renamed as applicable and referenced in other city policies for ease of following.

 

Regarding consistency, Mayor Roe noted a duplication of the second and third bullet points on page 1 of the New Capital Investment Policy.

 

Noting the recommendation for review of the CIP is recommended bi-annually, with Commissioner Bachhuber noting the intent was for a minimum of every two years, Mayor Roe suggested changing language accordingly to read "every two years" to avoid confusion (page 2)

 

On page 3 in the definition for "park system assets,' Mayor Roe concurred with excluding buildings to remain consistent with other city buildings, but to also make sure that was the intent on the part of commission.

 

Commissioner Bachhuber advised that considerable discussion on park facilities had been held among commissioners, and noted that language was very intentional on the part of the Commission.

 

On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Roe thanked the Commission for their thorough work providing a good ultimate product, and anticipated definite support from the City Council as those policies came forward for formal action.

 

CIP Funding Strategies - Proposed Solutions (Attachment B)

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chair Schroeder clarified that the Commission rewrote the policies in light of reviewing subsequent attachments so they would comply with each other.

 

Regarding the General Facilities and the PIP, Councilmember Etten first suggested a heading change from PIP to "Park Capital Management" but also asked if there had been a discussion with staff not connected to those particular pieces, specifically in a 10% reduction in their annual spending amounts.

 

Commissioner Rohloff responded that, in the case of the OVAL, even though the City would expect to cover 100% of the costs, there was a potential for state or private funds to cover a portion, thus the Commission's reduction to 90%.

 

Chair Schroeder further clarified that these were simply intended as examples, and other than the Finance Department, the Commission had not talked with departments, thus creating the presentation of twenty-four scenarios before further refinement, and appearing to be more doable moving forward.

 

Aside from the OVAL issue, Commissioner Bachhuber noted that all scenarios assumed the City was currently funding what was in the CIP now based on community and City Council discussions to-date.  However, Commissioner Bachhuber noted the need for further discussions and assumptions on what level of service, and level of maintenance of those assets was preferred that would impact fully funding the CIP as written.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that as relevant commissions or departments bring recommendations to the City Council, that would be a key part of how the Finance Commission could interact and become even more integral to the City Council's function to retain that positive influence going forward.  Councilmember Etten further opined that the more that was done, from his perspective it served to enhance community-wide aspects of those discussions going forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she was unsure if she agreed with Councilmember Etten, even though she agreed it was important to get this done and get a budget completed, it was the responsibility of the City Council do to so.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in having the Finance Commission come to the City Council to discuss the budget at which point that information gets back to departments or commissions rather than having the Finance Commission approach those other commissions or feel obligated to have them signoff before bringing it to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted the intent for the Finance Commission was to be of service to the City Council as well as the community at large.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Commission for the work put into this with consensus of commissioners, and especially in providing so many scenarios and options as well as their best recommendation.  In that sense, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in an unfettered recommendation to come before the City Council from the Finance Commission, at which point it would be filtered to other commissions and how it may affect their specific work if adopted by the City Council.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that if vetted by departments and/or commissions beforehand, it would not be a true or unfiltered recommendation of the Finance Commission.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that would be similar to the initial work performed by the City Council's CIP Subcommittee several years ago without benefit of other commissions other than that of the Parks & Recreation staff given the timing of the Park Master Plan process and valuable input from it enlightening how to move forward.

 

Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she would never receive a raw recommendation and go forward blindly without benefit of input from specific commissions being affected by that action and how it affected their work.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted it was the City Council's responsibility to connect with their advisory commissions at that point.

 

Under CIP recommendations for General Facilities Mayor Roe referenced exhibit B-2, noting that recommendation from the Finance Commission still had significant negative balances.  However, if removing the OVAL concrete replacement and cooling system in 2020, thereby removing over $2 million, it made the scenarios work pretty well.  As the City Council moves into CIP discussions, Mayor Roe suggested further consideration on how to treat that.  Mayor Roe noted that Commissioner Rohloff's analyses address numerous potential funding sources rather than using levy dollars for that replacement funding.

 

Chair Schroeder advised that the Commission had a discussion about using "additional levy" meaning "revenue source," which had been clued in other places (e.g. summary page) as "other sources."

 

Mayor Roe suggested plugging in a one-time additional funding source of $2 million to cover that, but sought input from the Parks & Recreation Commission as well.  Mayor Roe noted that if the city funded the large OVAL expenses in 2020 by issuing bonds, the remaining proposed funding amounts would cover the remaining expenses over the twenty years, while at other times the State of Minnesota had contributed to this regional asset, as well as identifying private entities that may be willing to participate in the future as well.

 

Further discussion included policy decisions in considering other revenue sources in order to make funds more sustainable if that $2 million for the OVAL was backed out.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that she didn't think other funding sources should ever be counted on in making long-term plans for the City or decisions based on a certain amount of dollars coming in from another source.

 

For discussion purposes, Mayor Roe observed that if the OVAL amount of $2 million was excluded, the remainder of the CIP at 100% looked to be on target.  However, Mayor Roe recognized that consideration always needed to be given to the timeframe for expected life expectancy for city-owned assets and properly timed going forward.

 

Regarding the OVAL, Commissioner Rohloff referenced Scenario 4 in appendix B-4 excluding the OVAL.

 

In the PIP, Mayor Roe noted a similar situation related to possibly changing timing of expenditures making the 20-year funding and fund balance work better, which brought discussion to park dedication funding.

 

Before moving on, Chair Schroeder offered the Commission's willingness to provide any other scenarios the City Council requested.

 

Commissioner Rohloff opined that if a surplus or reserve was achieved, any of these underfunded CIP funds would be a good place to put it, and if any levy decrease was initiated, it needed to be accounted for in the next year, but a good place for a one-time injection for the OVAL would go a long way as dedicated funding in the long-term.

 

Park Dedication Funding

Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to the Commission for bringing this forward, as well as their recommendation.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed interest in maintaining a certain level in the fund, and using anything above that level for park maintenance capital, or the old PIP.  From his perspective, Councilmember Etten noted the intent was not to accumulate a lot of things, but to provide a purposeful way to look for park and recreation opportunities, such as in SW Roseville where such amenities were sorely lacking or expanding buffer zones and connections around Langton Lake, and requiring a larger expenditure.  Councilmember Etten expressed the importance of looking for solutions to problems with this fund, and not bring it down to zero, but increasing assets identified as needs, or things that could come up in the future.

 

Commissioner Bachhuber noted that perspective was part of a very active discussion on the Finance Commission in brainstorming how to maintain and improve existing assets given the massive deficit in the current park plan in attempting to maintain those current assets.  Commission Bachhuber stated it was the Commission's thought that it was irresponsible to continue adding to park assets when the city was unable to take care of existing assets, and if in a different position, thinking strategically of ways to get more done to address that deficit.  With park maintenance funding, Commissioner Bachhuber opined that park dedication fees could accomplish that goal, and if the opportunity for acquisition came up, a discussion by the City Council and community should be held on strategies to find dollars somewhere else versus having assets banked for acquisition of additional assets.

 

Councilmember Etten advised that concept had gone through that filter with community discussions on Langton Lake and SW Roseville, and expressed his concern in putting the City Council in a position not to act upon community-expressed desires.

 

While having easy access to trail systems in Falcon Heights and Lauderdale, as a resident of SW Roseville, Councilmember McGehee noted the lack of Roseville green space and/or parks available.  Councilmember McGehee agreed that the city was already overextended and whether to add more assets under these circumstances needed to be addressed by the City Council and the community, or whether to acquire land coming off the tax rolls causing additional maintenance.  Councilmember McGehee opined that anything less than thoughtful consideration would be irresponsible on the part of the City Council whether the PIP, PMP or other area requiring maintenance of capital assets.  Councilmember McGehee opined that maintenance was important and expressed her personal concern that the city had gotten into this fix by overlooking that maintenance component as part of everything it did; and stated she was heartened by the Commission's recommendation. However, Councilmember McGehee clarified that this didn't mean she wasn't a staunch supporter of Langton Lake, but did represent constituents from the entire community.

 

Mayor Roe expressed interest in a policy that would retain some portion of the park dedication fund dedicated for ongoing CIP, but reserving a portion for potential acquisition of smaller sites that completed connections or corners of parks.  Mayor Roe clarified that this didn't preclude the city from those smaller scale acquisitions; and suggested the Finance and Parks & Recreation Commissions talk about a realistic percentage for replacement/acquisition.  The other piece noted by Mayor Roe was as development occurred, the money coming from dedication fees could be allocated using a different formula from the possible allocation of the current pool of money, into a respective pool specifically for acquisition.  Mayor Roe noted this would address any potential boon of development and a periodic review of the allocation formula or targets based on individual cases based on current development and need for additional parks.  However, Mayor Roe questioned justifying use of 100% of the park dedication fund strictly for CIP.

 

While understanding the incentives, City Attorney Gaughan cautioned council members and commissioners of State Law prohibitions on the use of park dedication fees, currently restricted to development or improvement of existing park assets.  Mr. Gaughan suggested eliminating any reference to the term "ongoing maintenance" as it related to park dedication fees.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that councilmembers and others often have been using "maintenance" when referring to CIP activities, but that in reality the CIP refers to improvements, and that everyone should perhaps use more discipline in their choice of words when discussing CIP items, and not use the word "maintenance" in those discussions - especially as it relates to the use of Park Dedication funds.

 

City Attorney Gaughan noted that it was often difficult to define, but a best practice would be to stop using the term "maintenance" and use terminology such as "development" and "improvement" as defined and clear in state law.

 

Further discussion included proposed use of park dedication fees as a funding source for park CIP needs; recognizing the need for guidance on what could and could not be funded (e.g. new club house at the golf course, or enhancements at the OVAL); development of trail and sidewalk connections as a permitted use of funding versus cutting weeds or other types of "ongoing maintenance;" and verifying the need for specific input from the Finance and Parks & Recreation Commission in defining that fund and initial allocations.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested the need for departments to also look at what assets to put money toward, which could create adjustments in the CIP, and need to define the highest priorities the money should be used for, which may prompt a long-term discussion.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in pursuing this discussion moving forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in identifying those assets needing targeted or enhanced funding that were currently sitting on the books.

 

Mayor Roe reported that he had shared a draft policy he'd created with the Parks & Recreation staff, suggesting it may find its way into the hands of the Finance Commission for further discussion.

 

Utility Fees

Mayor Roe thanked Commissioner Byrne for her thorough look at this, and her well-written memorandum defining the four design goals.

 

As noted from his review of the report Councilmember Etten advised that he agreed there were no significant changes indicated, with past action taken by the City Council in adjusting fees to assist some residents with utility fees if appropriate.  Councilmember Etten sought clarification that the Commission was comfortable with inter and intra funding policies currently being used by the City based on professional expertise of commissioners.

 

Commissioner Byrne reiterated that she found the practice used by the city in funding infrastructure to be fair with a fixed base fee for all and very transparent and to the point in making sure it recovered enough to cover that infrastructure.  Regarding a specific portion of the population needing a subsidy based on the type of customer or income level, Commissioner Byrne suggested those conversations were needed on a more targeted basis looking toward a specific program versus trying to pull fixed costs out.  For 2016, Commissioner Byrne reiterated that it made sense to continue with the course already laid out by staff until the City Council addresses any subsidy or special circumstance programs with more specificity.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she agreed with the goals of the rate structure, but not with its conclusions.  Displaying handouts showing her perspective on the current water utility rate program between 2008 and 2015 base rates, Councilmember McGehee addressed expectations for those enterprise funds based on fees to service holders in order to pay for infrastructure.  Councilmember McGehee noted this had been accomplished by various means as the city developed, but requested during previous discussions, she wanted further discussion as to whether that infrastructure funding should be accomplished through the levy to set aside dedicated money similar to the PMP that remained transparent and for a specific identified purpose, or by bonding for those improvements.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not a proponent of the senior discount program, since while some may need it others took advantage of it who did not need it.  If the intent was to use a means test for eligibility, Councilmember McGehee opined that people would not seek the subsidy as they were too proud to do so. 

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the underground utility infrastructure should be treated the same way as funded similar to the PMP program for street improvement. Councilmember McGehee proceeded to review comparisons for the benefit of the Finance Commission based on consumption, opining that the current system didn't provide any conservation incentives and therefore placed an unfair burden on those using the least amount of water and penalizing those who used more water. Councilmember McGehee reviewed her idea for potential alternative funding for the water infrastructure and estimated cost impacts for those options over a twenty-year period.  Councilmember McGehee also displayed a proposed tiered system for water usage to encourage conservation by restructuring rates, also providing more simplicity and transparency in pricing while retaining stable funding spread across the tax base.  Councilmember McGehee displayed examples of rate structures used by the Cities of Shoreview and St. Paul compared to that used by Roseville.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked that the Finance Commission look at her data from their perspective.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that advisory commissions received their charge from the perspective of the City Council as a whole, not individual Councilmembers.

 

From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe spoke in support of the fairness of the current system using the same base fee to cover water service based on his analysis.  While the initial change to this rate structure was significant for the community, Mayor Roe noted it had been implemented in two phases in 2011 and 2012 to make it more feasible.  Mayor Roe acknowledged that the initial change in the rate structure startled many in the community, but once they understood the basis for it, there was no ongoing outcry and it provided a much more transparent fee through water and sewer fees versus from levy support or bonding.  When comparing the potential annual levy increase for an average household, Mayor Roe stated his difficulty in understanding how a homeowner could come out ahead using Councilmember McGehee's proposal based on his analysis.  Mayor Roe stated he was not supportive of looking further at this proposal; and expressed his concern that this reverted to the old rate structure where heavy users subsidized other users without the base cost covering the actual cost of providing services.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe, recognizing that while the rate structure changes made in 2011 and 2012 were difficult, it created a transparent system even though it made it difficult to compare rates with other communities using a different structure that didn't build in capital and infrastructure in their base rate.  Councilmember Laliberte also noted the considerable time discussing and coming to a decision for the senior discount program, opining she found no need to consider another subsidy in a different way.

 

Councilmember Etten noted having had this discussion in the past and decision resulting in the council action supporting the current rate structure and situation.  Councilmember Etten advised that it would take him more time for a thorough read of the information provided by Councilmember McGehee and determination as to whether it provided any actual savings before he could respond beyond tonight's initial read.

 

Mayor Roe expressed his desire to make sure the City Council had that discussion prior to charging the Finance Commission in pursuing it; and expressed his willingness for Councilmember McGehee to bring this back for further discussion in the future if supported by the Council majority.

 

Discussion ensued regarding whether the Finance Commission felt any new information came out of Councilmember McGehee's analysis.

 

Commissioner Bachhuber noted the Commission's previous support for and their analysis of the current structure and the logic of that structure.  Commissioner Bachhuber opined that if the City Council charged the Commission with looking further into how it set utility rates, it needed to be done using a full set of criteria including other factors as part of that analysis.  From the point of view of the Commission, Commissioner Bachhuber opined it would not factor in as a super high priority and while there were certainly different dimensions to consider than the current structure, there was no perfect system, but the consensus of the Commission was that this current structure provided an awesome starting point.

 

Commissioner Byrne agreed with Commissioner  Bachhuber that any rate design in general had flaws, but noted the need to consider costs, benefits and all pros and cons, as well as subsidies in one place versus another.  However, Commissioner Byrne opined that a more productive conversation may be to consider the potential complications with a block rate and harms for low income/high usage customers to achieve conservation.  If the Commission were to check the math on bonding - or staff - Commissioner Byrne echoed her colleague that considering another funding mechanism would be low on her priority list.  As a newer resident of Roseville, Commissioner Byrne referenced her personal reaction to the water rates in Roseville until she understood it better; and while the base rate is higher she admitted she still paid attention to her water usage.  Commissioner Byrne noted this current structure sent a strong signal to users that there was a cost for the infrastructure they were using it.

 

Mayor Roe noted the apparent policy question involved here seemed to be more social in nature and expressed his lack of interest in asking the Finance Commission to weigh in on a social policy.  If the City Council discussion is whether to change the current policy, Mayor Roe opined that required a financial analysis and staff should be tasked with that.  Mayor Roe asked individual Councilmembers where they wanted to go from here based on the merits of this discussion rather than just delegating it to the commission to get if off the City Council's table.

 

Councilmember Laliberte clarified that her intent was not to move it off the City Council table; and since the work had already been done and customers had already taken the hit and rates had been made as transparent as possible, she felt that had been the right thing to do based on cost.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she still didn't feel the City had a good conservation policy; and from her understanding of state statute, that needed to be addressed by the City.

 

Mayor Roe noted that discussion had been held before as well.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he was comfortable with the decisions made by the City Council on its rate structure for the foreseeable future.

 

In conclusion, Mayor Roe clarified that there was no direction from the City Council to the Finance Commission on this topic at this time.

 

Regarding the water and sanitary sewer funds, Mayor Roe noted one item for the City Council to consider asking the Finance Commission to look at was interfund loans.  Mayor Roe questioned if the city should continue doing loans between funds or simply call them transfers and be done with it. Mayor Roe sought Council feedback as to whether to charge the Commission with looking at this as a new topic for further discussion at a future date if so directed by the Council as a whole.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that she believed reserve funds were tax dollars already collected from taxpayers, and when legal flexibility is available to use those funds as needed, she saw no need for a loan as long as they remained within those recommended changes, supporting a simple transfer versus an interfund loan with interest.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that in the end it all goes back to the City Council for a decision; and the only reason he saw the need for input from the Finance Commission was if they thought the City Council was breaking a law so-to-speak, from a financial or accounting perspective.

 

Chair Schroeder expressed the Commission's willingness to review the current policy and make a recommendation.

 

Mayor Roe suggested if the Finance Commission wanted to look at it, the City Council could bring it up at a later date.

 

As noted in the RCA, lines 44 - 48, Chair Schroeder noted future work plan items for the Finance Commission, seeking any input from the City Council as they moved forward or guidelines they wished to share.

 

Discussion included the intent and general philosophy for the Police Forfeiture Fund and utilization similar to that of the PIP and how those funds were earmarked.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Gaughan briefly reviewed the restrictions and regulations for these funds, and offered to provide that information to the Finance Commission prior to their review and as a guide for their discussions, duly noted appreciatively by Chair Schroeder.

 

Mayor Roe referenced an excellent memorandum prepared by Police Chief Mathwig several years ago emphasizing the reporting and budgeting aspect which was often not as obvious as other city finances.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that, when the Finance Commission had been created, part of the discussion involved how to present finance documents for the City Council and community that were easier to understand.  While recognizing that some changes had been made and the budget process continued to evolve, Councilmember Etten asked the Commission for their input on those improvements and whether additional revisions should be made.

 

Chair Schroeder responded that it was evident during the Commission's review of various documents, there were different audiences needing different formats, whether documents for presentation to the City Council or to the public through the city's newsletter.  Chair Schroeder noted that Mayor Roe had drafted a format that the Commission liked and were adopting it for some information, and would continue to revise materials.  Chair Schroeder encouraged input from anyone, noting that the Commission was made up of volunteers working in the finance field, so they looked at things differently and wanted to make sure materials were presented for the particular audience in way that made the most sense, whether summary versus detail or whatever format worked best.

 

Councilmember Laliberte recognized Councilmember McGehee's introduction of the budget feedback post card, opining that was a great step to obtain community feedback.  In addition to that as she'd brought up in the past, Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in a dashboard for the general public that could be shown on a regular basis and updated throughout the year that provided a clear visual rather than more details, and providing the budget at a glance for the average citizen.

 

Chair Schroeder suggested the Commission start out with the same document detail then rolled into a summary dashboard rather than needing to create numerous different documents.

 

Councilmember Laliberte left it to the discretion of the Commission as long as it came forward sooner rather than later, and presented the city budget in a transparent fashion without the creation in a different format appearing to be different information every time.

 

Chair Schroeder noted the limitations of current software capabilities for Finance Department staff, but committed to look it from that perspective to avoid any additional or undue burden on staff.

 

Mayor Roe commended the capabilities of the Community Development and Communication Departments' spreadsheet presentations providing great data, suggesting consulting with them on ideas.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred, noting that the Communications Manager was hired to present information to residents as they desire, and if the silo practice is still occurring with departments, it shouldn't be.

 

Mayor Roe noted consulting someone more versed in communication and less versed in financial matters would be an effective way to determine the value of the documents from their perspective as well rather than through the lens of a finance person.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the website and postcard information was simple and easy to understand, noting this was the first time that had been made available for residents, with their general response involving debt service.  However, based on their comments, Councilmember McGehee suggested a breakdown for the public to understand how and where that debt service was assigned rather than in a lump which provided a different picture when divided out.

 

Beyond the dashboard, Councilmember Etten suggested something on the website that showed how all the pieces came together, creating an annual problem for Finance Director Miller in seeking to give the public a complete picture without overwhelming them with the details.

 

Mayor Roe concurred that, with the different audiences, the taxpayers may want to know how much each area of government was costing rather than the total debt service, suggesting two different breakdowns.

 

To complicate it even further, Councilmember Laliberte noted the bigger picture was where revenue was coming in as there was currently no way to show that for offsetting some costs.

 

Chair Schroeder noted one item already discussed by the Commission involved their desire for an annual review of the budget, CIP, water/sewer rates with the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the council consensus to pursue that goal.  Along that line, Mayor Roe encouraged the Finance Commission to bring forward any recommendations for adjusting the timing as the City Manager recommended budget was brought forward -whether internal or external- to further streamline the budget process.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed, seeking recommendation annually from the Commission of when specific areas of the budget should be reviewed and/or put forward to the public in that process.

 

Chair Schroeder noted the recommendation they made in bringing the CIP forward earlier in the budget process since that represented such a large portion of the levy.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the Commission had held any discussions regarding the HRA funds and levy or their annual budget, not suggesting they do so, but simply wondering if it  had come up.

 

Chair Schroeder advised that they had not yet gotten into that, but asked if the City Council wished to charge them with doing so.

 

Mayor Roe, without objection stated it made sense to charge the Commission accordingly.

 

City Manager Trudgeon sought clarification from the City Council on what they wanted the Commission to do related to the HRA budget and levy, or the deliverable they were seeking.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in a historical review of how the HRA had used their funds, how and when funds were replenished upon sale or purchase of a property; and any recommendations for those funds coming back or how used or drawn down in the future.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need for the Commission to feed back any recommendations through the HRA Board process.

 

City Manager Trudgeon sought further clarification as to whether the City Council intended a role for the Finance Commission for the  2016 levy given the time frame.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested the first step from a historical perspective with program priorities studied for future reference.

 

Chair Schroeder noted there would be a steep learning curve initially for the Commission.

 

Mayor Roe thanked the Finance Commission and their great teamwork, as well as pride in the Council having appointed these individual members.

 

Chair Schroeder expressed her appreciation for a great team with diverse talents of which she also was proud to serve with.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:08 p.m. Councilmember McGehee left the meeting at approximately 8:10 p.m., returning at approximately 8:23 p.m.

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

13.         Budget Items

 

a.            Review the 2016-2035 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Funding Strategies

With the Finance Commission remaining to observe this discussion, Finance Director Miller briefly presented an overview of the 2016 - 2035 CIP, including 2016 recommended funding strategies, 2016 financial impacts, and future funding considerations.  Mr. Miller noted that, as usual the CIP as a starting point, included the community's vision and City Council's aspirations and goals.

 

As referenced during discussions with the Finance Commission, Mayor Roe observed that, absent the significant OVAL expenditures of $2 million in approximately 2020, the CIP was looking decent.

 

Finance Director agreed with the caveat that this and future City Council's continued funding increases as recommended over the CIP time period.

 

Discussion included 2016 geothermal expansion for the Public Works Building as a specific line item and whether that was realistic so soon, requiring refreshing the plan and KFI's review along with prioritizing it with other needs, currently undergoing internal discussions before making a recommendation; and dependent on identifying a funding source with further vetting needed and the ultimate decisions of the City Council as to whether to increase funding for facilities.

 

Additional discussion included Enterprise and Community Development Funds, and clarifying fund balances with overall fund allocations for CIP versus operating funds; and the projected major 2018 CIP expenditure of $1.1 or $1.2 million for a new club house at the golf course skewing that year's funding, and options still under review by the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation.

 

As a general comment, Councilmember Laliberte noted these were the areas the City Council needed to get back on track.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated her bigger concern was in continued growth of the operating budget that really needed discussion to make a firm decision on potential cuts in programs and service to balance this rather than just continue to grow the operating budget at recent rates.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that on some funds (e.g. pathway maintenance) the targeted funding remained the same over many years, and questioned as new pathways are added it needed to be adjusted sooner rather than later to reflect inflation and those new segments over the next 2-5 years, especially with the additions of pathways along County Roads B and B-2, Victoria Street, and other pathways that, while great community assets, needed to realize an increase in maintenance funding.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, when preparing the CIP a decentralized approach was used with current direction to staff to address the cost to maintain existing city assets over the next twenty years in today's dollars, and that estimate as shown.  Mr. Miller advised that unless directed otherwise, each department factored in any additional pathways or other assets coming on line in 2015 by year end, but offered to double check his assumption with Department Heads.

 

Given the health of some vehicle fleet funds as noted on the City Manager's recommended budget, Councilmember Etten suggested continuing review with the possibility of repurposing some of those funds or shifting them for other needs.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that staff looked at that annually as it projected out twenty years, noting that at this time more was being allocated to those funds than necessary, thus the reallocation recommended in the City Manager's budget.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller advised that inflationary adjustments are not made with all allocations and projections made in today's dollars as a reference.  Mr. Miller noted the challenges in attempting to guesstimate those future inflationary rates in any meaningful way using the filter of today's dollars.

 

Mayor Roe opined it would not be a good idea for departments to attempt guessing those inflationary numbers for a particular year in the future without the advantage of actual inflation percentages.  However, Mayor Roe suggested an annual review in actual dollars provided a good picture of the effects of inflation on future needs.

 

Mayor Roe suggested looking seriously at the recommendations of the Finance Commission in setting aside a portion of park dedication dollars or starting a balance for appropriate park and recreation funds.  Mayor Roe noted that consideration should also be given to the potential receipt of significant dollars over the next 5-7 years in the Park CIP fund, which actually made sense from his perspective related to park dedication. If that was possible, Mayor Roe noted those dedication funds had the potential to address three major problem funds from the overall CIP.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the City Council take a serious look at the OVAL, and consider future transfer of funds in the water utility rather than internal loans with interest which seemed unfair to taxpayers.

 

City Manager Trudgeon agreed with the concept of internal transfers versus loans, with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten expressing their agreement also.

 

Mayor Roe provided direction based on that agreement that staff return that recommended policy change to the City Council for formal action at a meeting in the near future.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification on moving PIP funds into the park dedication fund; with Mayor Roe noting allocations within a fund could be determined annually as a starting balance and which portion of that fund was levy-supported without depleting either fund, whether coming through the levy or from development.

 

Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Finance Department and Commission for their great work and presentations.

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.              Fire Department Staffing Program Update and Discussion

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill was present for this update, along with Battalion Chief of EMS Greg Peterson and Battalion Chief of Operations David Brosnahan.  Chief O'Neill provided a review of the phases previously outlined for the public and City Council and as detailed in the RCA and attached presentation materials dated August 17, 2015.  Chief O'Neill expressed his interest in reviewing this information before getting to target dates and based on previous budget presentations and the process in moving from a part-time to full-time department.

 

Chief O'Neill's presentation highlighted recent discussion areas including the negotiations for a full-time firefighter's union included in the 2016 budget in response to anticipated action while keeping it at a budget-neutral capacity; and addressing the potential that the Battalion Chief's job may also move to a position of unionization, which had also been projected and planned for as part of the 2016 budget and reorganization of shift responsibilities whether or not unionized and again part of the 2016 budget or immediately thereafter.

         

Chief O'Neill reiterated other alternatives for organizing the department and short- and long-term ramifications in those approaches as it related to the budget.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill reviewed the Fire Marshal position as it related to this restructure and pending retirement of the current employee, and proposed shift of those duties to the Battalion Chief with the overall goal to have a full-time firefighter with those skills be available on one of the three rotating shifts making a Fire Marshal available 24/7 versus only during daytime office hours.  Chief O'Neill acknowledged that the current employee had been in the industry for over forty years, and therefore there would be a learning curve in filling the position no matter which option was chosen.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill further addressed the intent for the Assistant Chief as well as Battalion Chief levels to provide a succession plan for the department as part of this restructuring plan and cross training of duties of the Fire Chief position to facilitate that future succession and allowing duties interchangeable between positions and by sharing knowledge.

 

Councilmember Laliberte requested a quarterly update from the Department on the number of part time firefighters as shifting continues in phases toward this new model.  Chief O'Neill duly noted this request, and provided a brief overview of shifts from part-time to full-time firefighters since the restructuring began in 2014, and efforts to recognize the schedules of part-time firefighters in lieu of their other careers and family obligations.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill provided a summation of those firefighters still involved in the Relief Association and those in the Police/Fire PERA fund; statutory requirements for those remaining in the Relief Association that were outside the control of the City Council; and past action in 2010 to sunset the Relief Association.  Chief O'Neill addressed the complexities involved, but reported improvements and market adjustments over the last few years taking the Relief Association funding from 68% to 108%, and continued discussions at Relief Association meetings, on which he, Mayor Roe, and City Manager Trudgeon all served on their Board.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill confirmed that they were no longer hiring part-time people or growing that staffing, with the goal toward all full-time firefighters through attrition based on his interpretation of City Council direction, recognizing that depending on circumstances and individual situations, could take up to include years to achieve. 

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council had made that decision as part of their 2015 decision to hire fifteen full-time officers, and subsequent motion to hire six additional full-time firefighters, giving implicit guidance to Chief O'Neill that he was authorized to follow his restructuring plan at that level, as indicated by the City Council's vote.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked Chief O'Neill to forward any proposals for the legislature that they thing the City Council should be aware of or for which they could actively lobby.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his support for the changes being implemented by Chief O'Neill and updated organizational chart; stating his comfort level with the general path being undertaken.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding the status of previous City of Roseville-specific legislative initiatives.

 

b.              Fairview Fire Station Discussion

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed options available for repurposing or removing the Fairview Avenue fire station located at 2501 Fairview Avenue currently used by the City and Roseville Historical Society for storage, as detailed in the RCA dated August 17, 2015.  Mr. Trudgeon reported that the building was quite dilapidated and not functional for much beyond the current use, and therefore ripe for City Council discussion.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the overall parcel size, current building size and usable portion of the parcel of approximately .85 acres.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the City's water tower was located adjacent, and a number of easements further encumbered the parcel, including a complex network of underground infrastructure.

 

City Manager Trudgeon provided four options for consideration and specific ramifications of each.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the attendance at tonight's meeting of representatives of the Historical Society, and publically and remorsefully apologized for the number of times they'd been moved around within the city.  Mr. Trudgeon reported that they were currently housed in the Hagen assessor building scheduled to come down this fall for the Twin Lakes Parkway extension, which was timely due to the inoperable status of mechanical systems in the building.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the current location certainly did nothing to provide the Society with a visible presence or display space.  As part of this discussion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the plan was to relocate them to the Evergreen Park shelter, originally thought to be a great idea until delving deeper into that plan and under state energy codes, it was found a $300,000 investment would be needed to bring that building up to code.  From his personal perspective, Mr. Trudgeon opined the City of Roseville owed it to the community and the Society to provide a viable option for their relocation or co-location into an existing city facility.

 

City Manager Trudgeon asked for Council direction on whether it should market this property, with some unsolicited interest shown in the past, and anticipating a market for a business in that heavy commercial area already. 

 

If the Council's direction is to use the site for a municipal activity, depending on that use, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if the intent was to relocate the License Center there, the existing building would need to be demolished and a new building constructed.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were other issues with that use related to parking and access, even though commercial businesses seemed to function in that immediate area, but opined it would be challenging for access off the site for a busy license center, and would require further research, as well as considerations for convenience, access and parking to facilitate customers.

 

Whatever option the City Council decides on, City Manager Trudgeon noted the immediate need for a solution for storage space, and recommended discussion among the City Council and hearing public comment before moving forward.

 

City Manager Trudgeon identified eight potential properties for permanent centralized storage to fill the space needs of the City and affiliated organizations and their general locations within the community.

 

Vacant Old Highway 8

Size 8.6 acres

Assessed value $1,707,300

Future land use - HDR

Zoning HDR - 1

 

1926 Grand Ave, LLC Properties

Partridge/County Road C-2

Size 4.27 acres

Assessed value $852,800

Future land use - Industrial

Zoning/Industrial

 

Tesoro property -0 County Road C-2

Size 2.60 acres

Assessed Value $449,100

Future land use - Industrial

Zoning/Industrial

 

City-owned pond property - Fairview Avenue/County Road C

Size 4.88 acres

Assessed value $758,700

Future land use - water ponding

Zoning/institutional

 

Roseville Animal Hospital Site, 2630 Snelling Curve

Size 1.49 acres

Assessed value $331,000

Future land use - Office

Zoning - Office/Business Park

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon noted that this rectangle property faced had a stormwater pond, and obtaining additional right-of-way from MnDOT may prove difficult, as well as having elevation changes and a portion of the parcel prone to quickly filling in during rain events

 

Councilmember McGehee reported that her observation of that area was that it was a habitat area with something in the ponds.

 

Former Woof Room , 1430 County Road C

Size 2.07 acres

Assessed value $632,200

Future land use - HDR

Zoning - HDR-1

 

Reiling Property, Dale Street/County Road C

Size 4.50 acres

Assessed value $189,700

Future land use - HDR

Zoning - HDR-1

 

Roseville National Guard Armory site, 211 N McCarron's Blvd.

Size 9.10 acres

Assessed value $5,518,600

Future land use - Institutional

Zoned - Institutional

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed storage needs, currently housed at the fire station, including materials and equipment for the Parks & Recreation Department consisting of larger items swapped out seasonal for the Parks and Public Works Department and also stored in bays or on shelve in the Hagen building.  While there may be marginal room once the leaf collection program is eliminated, Mr. Trudgeon noted the equipment is used for other things as well; and staff performed an annual review of how things fit and if and how it was needed.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that there would be no way to absorb equipment stored in facilities coming off line, creating a real and immediate need to find resolution.

 

Regarding other affiliated uses of benefit for the community, Mr. Trudgeon reported that the Rosetown Playhouse was looking for space that could be accommodated in a larger space, whether the City Council felt it was their obligation to facilitate that or not.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested there may be some minimal revenue that could be realized by co-locating other community organizations, or in providing permanent storage to facilitate some of those user groups, at the discretion of the City Council.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in the opportunities with the Armory without the $5 million price tag.  Councilmember McGehee noted the options available with bays to facilitate equipment as well as display space for the Historical Society and ability to house other groups as well. Councilmember McGehee stated she would vote against the Fairview fire station being used for the License Center, opining it would prove to be a big loss in customers for that enterprise.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would consider the armory as a solution, but wouldn't consider other sides; and while adamant that the License Center should not be located on the fire station site, she could see it used for the Historical Society; and was open to keeping the fire station property or selling it depending on the intended future use.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned staff's estimated sale value of the Fairview parcel and usable acreage, with Mr. Trudgeon advising that Ramsey County assessed the full parcel at $1.7 million for the acre.  Without benefit of an appraisal, and depending on demolition costs, City Manager Trudgeon estimated a possible gross sales price of $300,000 to $500,000; and estimated $100,000 cost for demotion.  At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon noted the major issue with the existing building was lack of ADA compliance, electrical problems, and possibly some if any mold.  Given deferred maintenance at the building, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he was not aware of the status of the existing roof, heating plant and other mechanical systems.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted from previous discussions that the roof didn't leak so there should be no mold problems.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that based on that report, she could not recommend moving someone in there, especially with historical document storage needs; as well as not being the best location for people access or safety in getting to and from the site. While not seeing an estimate, Councilmember Laliberte sought information on the strip mall where the License Center was currently located, and asked staff to get that information, duly noted by Mr. Trudgeon.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with that request, referencing previous discussions during the Park Master Plan process as a potential site for a community center.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that the site was close to campus, had good visibility; but noted cost would obviously be a big factor for her to consider. 

 

Discussion ensued on the frequency of staff's review of storage and accumulations reported to be on an annual basis if not more frequent; comparisons of storage versus money available to provide programs/services; changing of seasonal inventory and equipment throughout the year; and how best to utilize the existing storage.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she'd be in favor of selling the Fairview property if it made sense financially, recognizing that it would be one time money versus the cost of maintenance, repairs and bringing it up to code, which was a cost she would like more detail about.  Councilmember Laliberte further noted that selling the parcel would get it back on the property tax rolls.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed with his need for more information based on the questions presented by Councilmember Laliberte, and a thorough review of other spaces and how efficiently storage capacity was used on the City Hall campus.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in looking at the strip mall property currently housing the License Center; but stated his lack of interest in looking at properties on any corners or across railroad tracks for relocating the License Center that may reduce customers and revenue.  As part of that process, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of selling the Fairview parcel.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, agreeing with looking into selling the Fairview parcel, and in needing additional information based on the questions asked, and digging in beyond the high level scrutiny at the staff level.  Mayor Roe expressed his interest in looking at a permanent home for the Historical Society that provided display and storage space; and suggested considering housing the Fire Relief Association as well as Rosetown Players and any other organizations of that nature that deserve help if the City could provide it.  If storage and those other needs can be worked out, Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to consider selling the Fairview property.  Mayor Roe agreed with the concerns raised on the other properties identified by Mr. Trudgeon, but expressed some interest in the armory property given its size and opportunities.

 

In response to Councilmember Etten's concerns with accessing property by driving across railroad tracks, Councilmember Laliberte noted that may be a viable and fiscally advantageous option for storage only if that could be relocated from the City Hall campus and that space facilitate services/programs.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding the viability of crossing rail lines depending on the use; and impacts to neighbors from increased traffic depending on the actual use.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that staff was not looking to relocate the License Center as part of this focus, considering that an entirely different discussion.  Mr. Trudgeon further clarified, confirmed by the City Council, that he understood his direction to be to explore potential sale of the Fairview parcel provided other solutions can be accommodated before putting it on the market, with the general desire expressed to include the Historical Society at a minimum in any multi-purpose building.

 

Further discussion included the pros and cons of the former Roseville Animal Hospital property and potential cost of additional access and lack of interest in facilitating that with the railroad to help market the property for the current owner; with direction to staff to estimate past and potential traffic generated by the Historical Society when they last had display space available.

 

Mayor Roe stated, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon, that the City needed an interim plan for the Historical Society once the Hagen property was eliminated.

 

Public Comment

Betty Wolfangle, 837 Heinel Drive

Ms. Wolfangle thanked the City Council and staff for recognizing the Historical Society's plight and their repository of 150 years of museum quality items and records.  Ms. Wolfangle noted the value of that material as expressed by the Ramsey County and Minnesota Historical Societies providing the only history of this area, and their interest in the Roseville Historical Society staying in business. 

 

Ms. Wolfangle noted how heartening it was to hear the City Council expressing interest in including them in future plans; and asked that they continue to keep the Society in mind as they moved forward.  Ms. Wolfangle stated that if there was no place for a museum or office space for records, it meant there was no Society.  Ms. Wolfangle opined that it was too important to lose this piece of the community's history.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested to City Manager Trudgeon that staff contact the State Historical Society to determine if there were any legacy funds available to assist with this preservation.

 

c.              Dale Street Development Update

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta provided a brief update on the status and progress of this project, coming before the City Council for formal action at the next meeting, as outlined in detail in the RCA and attachments dated August 17, 2015.

 

d.              Discuss Policy Priority Planning Document

Deferred to a future agenda.

 

16.                         City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

HRA

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her lack of closure from the joint meeting with the HRA and clear distinction of their plans moving forward, asking if her colleagues were left with the same lack of clarify.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned if all members present were in agreement, noting that two HRA Board members were absent and one was noticeably quiet and unresponsive at the meeting, causing her to wonder if they were all in agreement with the new strategic plan.  Also, Councilmember Laliberte noted a lack of discussion on overlap of the existing 2012-2016 HRA Strategic Plan and how and where this new plan picked up and those items if any that carried over into the update. 

 

City Manager Trudgeon sought clarification if Councilmember Laliberte or any Councilmembers anticipated information needs beyond preparation of the HRA's 2016 budget.

 

Mayor Roe concluded that the council directed City Manager Trudgeon to bring response to the concerns expressed by Councilmember Laliberte forward as part of the HRA's preliminary budget and levy discussion.

 

Police Department

Councilmember Laliberte requested discussion at a future meeting on next steps resulting from the statement read by Mayor Roe earlier this evening, and the City Council's response to events across the country with Police Departments beyond equipment and budget discussions.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested policy discussions regarding use of tasers, high speed chases, and other issues officers dealt with on a daily basis.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if the Council meeting was the best place for learning more about various components of the job, even though it would be beneficial for the public to learn as well, but suggested it may be more appropriate as part of a future Roseville University offering.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that use of force and other information related to the Police Department had been scheduled for this last session of Roseville University; however, it had to be postponed due to the equipment borrowed from the City of Columbia Heights' Police Department not working; assuring the City Council and public that it would be offered in future courses.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested a copy of Police Department policies, with City Manager Trudgeon responding that staff is working on providing that public information request already requested by another party.

 

Councilmember Etten noted his attendance  at classroom and driver training on emergency procedures for the Department, and expressed his surprise in how frequently and quickly chases were called off, and how that was determined and who was in charge of making that determination.  When training opportunities are brought to the attention of the City Council by Chief Mathwig, Councilmember Etten encouraged his colleagues to take advantage of those opportunities, opining he had found them invaluable.

 

City Manager Trudgeon also noted the open invitation and urged individual Councilmembers to take part in a ride along, which he had participated in and found of great interest as well gaining a better understanding of operations.  Mr. Trudgeon reminded Councilmembers that this was true for any city department.

 

Mayor Roe noted the challenge with Police Department policies and defining which fell within the authority and role for City Council decision-making and which were of a professional nature relying on police expertise.  Mayor Roe noted the importance of involving the community in opportunities, training, education and other areas as well, including a larger intentional discussion about some of these issues.  As he'd originally noted in 2003, Mayor Roe expressed ongoing interest in appointing a Public Safety Advisory Commission.

 

18.         Adjourn

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:02 p.m.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.