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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

August 24, 2009


1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.


(Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe; and Klausing)


City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.


2.         Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.


3.         Public Comment

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


Councilmember Ihlan, speaking on behalf of several residents who had contacted her, sought information from staff regarding several of the vacant buildings along County Road C in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that apparently continued in an insecure status, without doors or windows.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that residents had expressed concern that the buildings were a public danger, and asked that the City secure the buildings, or require that the owner do so.


City Manager Malinen advised that he would seek additional information from and follow-up with Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon on the buildings, but suspected that several of those buildings may actually be in pre-demolition stage.


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

            Councilmember Pust announced that the Ramsey County Library was offering free, live homework assistance from trained educators; with additional information on their website at under the “Homework Rescue” icon and by entering the patron’s library card number.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.                 Approve Minutes of August 17, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 17, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.



§         Page 7, Line 25

§         Page 9, Lines 22 – 23

§         Page 13, Lines 19 – 32

§         Page 16, Lines 13 - 32


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.


7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.                 Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the Centennial Fire District

Councilmember Roe noted several instances, for example page 3 in the “Indemnification” section where the standard language referenced “city” rather than “district” and suggested further review and revision of the document as applicable.


Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A to the Request for Council Action dated August 24, 2009) between the City of Roseville and Centennial Fire District for the purposes of the City of Roseville’s IT staff to provide information technology support to Centennial Fire District; amended as to “district” rather than “city” references as applicable.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


b.                 Adopt a Resolution Receiving Assessment Rolls and Setting Assessment Hearing Date for Projects to be Assessed in 2009

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10744 entitled, “Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P-07-02 Neighborhood 10 Reconstruction Project and Providing for Hearings;” scheduling the assessment hearing date for September 21, 2009 for City Project 07-02.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption


10.             Presentations


b.                 Presentation of Pandemic Influenza Outbreak Emergency Plan and Adoption of Related Resolutions

Acting Fire Chief Tim O’Neill introduced the City of Roseville’s Emergency Management Plan to address a Pandemic Influenza Outbreak; and he, along with Roseville Fire Department Commander Dave Brosnahan, provided a summary of the plan and its seven phases. Acting Chief O’Neill noted that, while the plan had been in existence for some time and initiated during the spring of 2009 for the H1N1 flu epidemic, it had since been improved upon and was presented for City Council awareness and comment.  Acting Chief O’Neill noted that there remained many unknowns at this time.


Commander Brosnahan reviewed past and various pandemic strains that had occurred since 1900; actual confirmed cases and related deaths from this most recent strain with typical occurrences in the spring and fall; Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommended safety procedures, allowing schools to perform self-regulated preparations; and response plans for phases I – VII based on levels and triggering events, overall City response, and federal and world responses.  Commander Brosnahan noted that the City’s responses coincided with the State of MN plan.


Acting Chief O’Neill reviewed the information included in the Request for Council Action dated August 24, 2009, including a set of resolutions should the need arise, and following consultation with the City Attorney’s office, for implementation quickly in an emergency situation and to provide a documentation process for reimbursement from other agencies of government levels.  Those resolutions included: Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency, effective for three days and implementing the Emergency Operations Plan; Resolution to Extend the Period of Local Emergency, adopted by the full City Council after the Mayor’s initial action expired; Resolution to Make Expenditures During a Local Emergency (for emergency purchase of supplies); Resolution Declaring a Special Emergency, initially adopted by the full City Council, without sunset or limit to duration time and suspending normal bidding and/or purchasing requirements during that time; and a Resolution to Make an Expenditure During a Special Emergency.


Acting Chief O’Neill noted that the Emergency Managers would continue to keep City Manager Malinen up-to-date on continual changes as they were monitored from the CDC.


Discussion included timing for inoculation of City staff and emergency personnel; the triage list established by the CDC for pregnant women first, then public safety officials second in line; and involvement of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and their role in assisting to administer distribution of the vaccine.


Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the City of Roseville’s Emergency Pandemic Plan (Attachment A), outlining Phases I – VII, and including sample resolutions as to form and content, and respectively entitled, “Resolution Declaring a Special Emergency (Attachment B);” “Resolution to Extend Period of Local Emergency (Attachment C);” Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency (Attachment D);” “Resolution to Make an Expenditure During a Special Emergency (Attachment E);” and “Resolution to Make Expenditures During a Local Emergency (Attachment F);” as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated August 24, 2009, as outlined in the matrix designed to address actions to be undertaken by the City that would be triggered by the State of Minnesota’s Department of Health assessment should such an event occur.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the community, thanked staff for their work in making the City prepared for such an emergency.


a.                 Joint Meeting with the Police Civil Service Commission

Acting Chair Mary Jean Turinia Anderson, newly-appointed member Jim Campbell, and Ms. Terry Bailey, in her second year, were present from the Police Civil Service Commission (PCSC).


Acting Chair Turinia Anderson noted that the PCSC was unique in that it was not as proscribed as other commissions in having regular meetings and a plan of action, with no specific program goals, but rather some broad functions and responsibilities as it related to staffing of the City’s Police Department.


Acting Chair Turinia Anderson provided a brief history of when the PCSC was established by the City in 1956 by City Code, Chapter 202, and adopting MN State Statute, Chapter 419.  Ms. Turinia Anderson advised that the PCSC usually met in February annually, and then as needed for hiring or promotions within the department, or for other employee-related issues.  Ms. Turinia Anderson noted that the PCSC was currently reading through State Statute and City Code, and at their next meeting, would make sure they were functioning as prescribed by City Code and State Statute; and doing what the City of Roseville expected the Commission to do.  Acting Chair Turinia Anderson invited input from the City Council throughout that process, and their attendance at meetings of the PCSC.


Commissioner Bailey noted that City Attorney Anderson had noted his office’s Wednesday morning meetings at City Hall, and advised that Commissioners would like to attend those to review the Commission’s description and how that purpose matched and functioned over the last year. 


Discussion among Councilmembers and Commissioners included appreciation of the Commission’s review of their charge and diligence in reviewing those materials; statutory requirements for cities with Police Departments and requirements for a PCSC; and a standing invitation for the Commission to return to the City Council following their review if further discussion or clarification was needed for follow-up.


Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers thanked the PCSC for their service and review of their role.


Commissioner Campbell, who had served on the City of New Hope’s PCSC prior to moving to Roseville, noted that the Commission was looking for informal discussions with other communities to determine how their PCSC’s functioned.  Commissioner Campbell noted the Commission’s pride in the City of Roseville and its Police Department, and sought to do the right thing.


c.                  Presentation of Budgeting for Outcomes

Finance Director Chris Miller noted the purpose of the public hearing to receive community input in the 2010 Budget process.  Mr. Miller noted staff’s disappointment that the City’s independent financial consultant, Springsted, would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting, as originally anticipated, to present their report on the City’s program analysis to-date.  Mr. Miller advised that the firm was not yet at the point that they were comfortable in providing their formal report; and instead, staff provided a snapshot of the process to-date.


Mr. Miller noted the timeline for the City Council’s adoption of a Preliminary Levy by September 15, 2009 for submission to Ramsey County for Truth-in-Taxation public notices, and recommended that the City Council focus primarily on the preliminary levy, and then allow the next few months to allocate resources and prioritize desired outcomes.  Mr. Miller reviewed the 200 distinct functions and programs of the City supported by property taxes in full or in part, and projected expenditures throughout 2009.  Mr. Miller noted the decisions and impacts on those programs as Councilmembers individually and corporately ranked them; providing a greater transparency for them and the public and the four steps needed in the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.  Mr. Miller recognized that undertaking the BFO process would be especially challenging this first year; however, encouraged Councilmembers to have confidence, as does staff, that the results will be successful.  Mr. Miller advised that the Springsted supporting documentation and rationale would provide a clearer picture beyond staff’s general information.


Councilmember Roe noted the various breakdown categories for each program (i.e., personal services, supplies and materials, and other services/charges), and sought additional information on whether it made sense to look at professional services, capital investment plan, and debt service in more detail.


Mr. Miller responded that staff had categorized those items to target a broad audience and noted that each Councilmember had difference information processing needs.  However, Mr. Miller cautioned that care should be taken in how far down each line item was dissected at this stage, since the whole idea in BFO was at a higher level.  Mr. Miller offered, to the extent requested, that staff would provide that information to allow for informed decision-making.


Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for the summary information; however, he requested revenue amount and source information for each program; and their status as to whether fee-based or not.


Mr. Miller responded that staff could provide that information; however, noted that while many Park and Recreation programs had a revenue component, most General Fund (i.e., Police, Fire and Street Maintenance) programs did not; and determining how to assign revenues to property tax-supported programs became rather subjective.


Councilmember Roe noted, as an example, the Arden Hills project under Public Works, which he assumed was completely funded by intergovernmental funds; and noted the need for that type of information to be included in staff’s report.


Councilmember Pust requested information on when the Springsted report could be expected; and how the City Council could perform their analysis without that full information before them, particularly at the upcoming Special Council meetings specific to that purpose, when this report was simply a snapshot of the 2009 expenditures to-date and those projected by year-end. 


Mr. Miller responded that he anticipated the report by September 14, 2009; and noted that staff’s summary report was designed to provide the City Council with a context for setting the 2010 levy and budget; but would not provide a decision-tree model or equate to goals and priorities they may wish to set for 2010, but only served as a demonstration of how programs are currently supported.  Mr. Miller advised that, on a more aggregate level, factoring in all new obligations and needs for 2010, and looking at how the community and City Council wanted Roseville to look long-term, the current process could no longer be sustained; and encouraged the City Council to reach consensus on where the levy should be. 

Mr. Miller noted that the Springsted contract had been included in tonight’s packet information and the work to be performed under Option 1 (i.e., data gathering, calculating of individual program costs) and would not go beyond that Option 1 as outlined, and that it would be up to the City Council to determine how to use this information.  Mr. Miller further noted that the 2009 Budget Spending Plan, as provided by staff, did not suggest that current service levels are set, and that the City Council would need to make that determination following back and forth dialogue, without requiring final decisions at this point, that would be arrived at by December when their final spending decisions were set.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified that the information presented by staff consisted of an analysis of the 2009 budget; and that a proposed 2010 Budget or City Manager-recommended budget for 2010 was not available.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned what the public attending tonight’s meeting were to comment on without a proposed budget, and what the City Council could discuss without it as well.


Mr. Miller concurred, noting that the information provided by staff was to serve as a launching pad and provide a context for discussions on where current dollars were allocated, and which programs should be funded in 2010.  Mr. Miller advised that additional discussion tonight may address how to proceed in first establishing community needs over the next year; recognizing large block obligations coming on line in 2010; and reiterated the need for everyone to acclimate to this new BFO process in keeping discussion on an aggregate, rather than line item, level; and allow the process time to evolve.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern in being asked to make a decision on a Preliminary Levy without a proposed budget before her for analysis; and further expressed her qualms in the BFO process without that documentation in place. 


Councilmember Roe clarified that, on September 14, 2009, the City Council needed to pass a Preliminary, not-to-exceed 2010 Levy that was connected to the 2010 Budget.


Mr. Miller noted that, historically, the City has set the Preliminary Levy and Budget on the same day for context, but that it was not a requirement; and that the final Budget was not needed for adoption until December.  Mr. Miller noted the need to consider, define, and maximize additional non-tax revenue sources (i.e., gas franchise, street light utility) as part of that discussion, and to think of the property tax levy as the last piece.


Councilmember Roe noted that water, sewer, and permit fees were areas of spending and budget not even talked about in the 200 listed programs and activities; and that in a true BFO process, part of the overall picture should include setting fees to cover expenses, and this should be part of the discussion as well.


Mayor Klausing expressed his understanding that fees must show a direct correlation between that being charged and actual cost for providing the service, and not allowing for flexibility such as found in the General Levy; and that it made sense to have those fees off to the side.


Mr. Miller noted the rationale of both Councilmember Roe’s and Mayor Klausing’s observations, advising that there was so much emphasis placed on levy-supported programs due to statutory requirements, and no such provision for permits/fees, and until there was more of a comfort level with the BFO process, it may be prudent to break down the various items.


Councilmember Pust expressed her confusion, while attempting to remain open-minded, in how to use the information provided by staff in ranking programs and services, without additional expertise provided by various departments in those programs that are vital and/or inter-related.


Mayor Klausing shared Councilmember Pust’s confusion, noting that the City Council was floundering as to how to best proceed; without the historical context and tradition of a City Manager-recommended budget and the City Council’s reaction to that recommendation and subsequent adjustments.  Mayor Klausing noted the difficulty in the natural process previously used for a part-time City Council and citizen perspective, and reliance on the City’s professional staff and priority needs.


City Manager Malinen noted that the BFO process was challenging for all involved, and would take several months to process all expenses, even that portion identified as tax-supported.  Mr. Malinen opined that it was unfortunate that the Springsted report was not available tonight; however, noted that the City Council could continue the process without that documentation at this time as they set their not-to-exceed Preliminary Levy; and that the process would come after the Springsted presentation.  Mr. Malinen noted the need to address new obligations in 2010 that will require additional funding via additional tax levy, or reduction or elimination of other programs, with varying impacts and ramifications, to balance the budget.  However, Mr. Malinen noted that, even without the Springsted presentation, there was a certain amount of base budgeting that could be determined based on 2009 levels, including additional specific information to be provided later in tonight’s meeting by staff that will affect the budget.  Mr. Malinen noted staff’s request that Councilmembers provide staff with information on where they were most comfortable with a Preliminary, not Final, 2010 Levy percentage.


Councilmember Pust interpreted City Manager Malinen’s comments to mean that the City Council set the highest levy possible, without sufficient information or the promise of that information at a later date, and many unknowns (i.e., employee health costs, and fuel costs).


Councilmember Roe opined that it was possible to set a Preliminary Levy, based on principles of BFO, not on actual levels of services, but what the city taxpayers were willing to pay for their property tax for city services; and based on the City Council’s best judgment of the value and level of those services, and where priorities fell.  Councilmember Roe further opined that the key piece of information was at what level or standard the service or program is currently, and how those items varied, which items were obligations without discretion, and which were discretionary.


Mr. Miller noted that staff had prepared some performance data, but that it was not inclusive, due to some programs or services not having a good standard measurement, and based on quality versus quantity, with those specific areas always providing a challenge when quantitative data was not available or applicable.  Mr. Miller advised that the information was available from Department Heads, if not in black and white, at least verbally.


Councilmember Johnson questioned whether staff would take the City Council through Option 2.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the City Council was reluctant to make the grand leap with the current information available; and further opined that he was not against levying higher than actual need as a preliminary step.


Mr. Miller advised that staff would provide some qualitative and quantitative measures, but that peer comparisons had not been done to-date.


City Manager Malinen advised that if the entire BFO process was creating angst, it was a good thing, as the BFO process was designed to move outside comfort zones and historical processes; and reminded Councilmembers that staff was alerting taxpayers and the City Council that the past year’s budget processes had not provided fiscal sustainability; and that this process would allow for greater transparency to get the City back on track.


Councilmember Pust admitted her frustration, not based on her understanding of the BFO process or lack of philosophical desire for that approach, but based on a lack of line items for her and the public to react to.  Councilmember Pust opined that the City needed to contract earlier or establish timeframes within the contract with Springsted to get the information in a more timely fashion.  Councilmember Pust again asked staff if they anticipated the contractual obligation as detailed for Option 1 by Springsted to be completed by September 14, 2009, if not before.


Mr. Miller advised that this was their proposal as contractually dictated, and for which the City was paying Springsted $15,100; noting that was his expectation.


11.             Public Hearings


a.                 Public Hearing Regarding the 2010 City Budget

City Manager Malinen provided brief purpose statement for tonight’s public hearing.


Councilmember Roe opined that it would be helpful for the public to advise Councilmembers of what would be an acceptable change – up or down – to provide current, improved, or reduced service levels.


Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. to receive public comment on the 2010 City Budget.


Public Comment

                   Bob Willmus, Hamline Ave.

Mr. Willmus opined, when looking at past budget processes over the last few years, and this new direction, some of his comments would echo those heard from Councilmembers tonight.  Mr. Willmus opined that it was too late in the process to realistically establish the BFO process for the 2010 Budget, and should be considered for 2011 instead.  Mr. Willmus further opined that the BFO needed to reflect what the community wants, not individual Councilmembers or city staff, and that since much of the consultant materials were to be provided through community meetings, and since those were so poorly attended and didn’t provide a good response, the City Council was back to relying on staff-generated outcomes.  Mr. Willmus suggested a practice BFO, but use a traditional approach in 2010, while actively pursuing BFO for 2011.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg opined that he didn’t envy Councilmembers their jobs; and that with an 8.1% unemployment rate in MN, now was not the time to add new programs or significantly increase the scope of existing programs.  Mr. Grefenberg, in his review of the Capital Investment Plan (CIP), noted the suggestion for adding additional patrol officers.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that, from his attendance at most of the community meetings, the thing that most impressed him was the high level of satisfaction for City services, which he shared, and that may serve to allow the City Council some flexibility.  Mr. Grefenberg suggested that, since service levels indicated high satisfaction from those responding, the City could reduce service levels.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that he would be open to a small increase in taxes not exceeding a 5-6% increase; however, he opined that it was not crucial to reach reserve levels this year.  Mr. Grefenberg further opined that, if the City was to increase the levy, he wanted to know specifically what it was for.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that taxpayers and City employees share the sacrifices at this time.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that, his suggested outcome be considered, to maintain and enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods, especially with increased economic distress, foreclosures, and additional rental rather than owner-occupied homes, to maintain the quality of life in neighborhoods.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that it would take time for commercial business to respond to the national economy, but it was much harder to resurrect neighborhoods if they were allowed to deteriorate.  Mr. Grefenberg also spoke in support of continuing tree preservation efforts, and that area should not be one considered for immediate cuts.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed his trust in the City Council, but noted that it would be hard to experience an additional 5% increase on a limited income; and asked that those less fortunate neighbors may not be able to handle that much of an increase.  Mr. Grefenberg reminded Councilmembers that he wished to have specific information on how any increase was allotted.


Cynthia White, 2489 Churchill St.

Ms. White advised that she had met with Mr. Miller for a better understanding of the historical budgeting process, as a new resident to MN and Roseville.  Ms. White noted her satisfaction in living in Roseville and being able to recognize where her tax dollars were being spent; and expressing her pleasure in living in Roseville.  Ms. White opined, from her observations, that the City of Roseville had been overly frugal over the last 15 years, creating the current challenges for a community with aging infrastructure, and aging populace, and normal inflationary aspects.  Ms. White, from her corporate business background, opined that it was difficult from a public relations standpoint, to provide increases to employees when other organizations were freezing wages.  Ms. White further opined that it was maybe sufficient for the City of Roseville to be “good enough,” rather than always seeking to be “world class.”  Ms. White noted the City’s difficult position in needing to possibly reduce services while raising taxes, and the need for it to be presented to the public with a good communication plan.  Ms. White noted that taxpayers were expecting tough decisions, but transparency about the details of that decision-making was important.  Ms. White noted that she was amazed when first moving to Roseville that her sidewalks were plowed before the streets, and wondered if that was prudent.  Ms. White also noted that she would like to see new technologies and innovations being taken advantage of (i.e., existing asphalt being replaced with rain permeable asphalt).  Ms. White spoke in support of a tax increase; however, asked that the increase needed to represent important things with vision wrapped around them.  Ms. White opined that, given the current situation, anyone who didn’t think there was a need for increased taxes didn’t understand the overall picture.


Steve Gjerdingen, PWET Commissioner

Mr. Gjerdingen opined that people needed to know more about where their taxes were going by learning about different budget targets and user fees.  Mr. Gjerdingen noted that some things were more obvious than others (i.e., street lights).


Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. and thanked citizens for their comments, and encouraged the public to continue to observe and provide input throughout the process.


b.                 Public Hearing Regarding the OSAKA Roseville, Inc. Application for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License

Finance Director Miller summarized the request of OSAKA Roseville, Inc. for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at 1675 West County Road C (Byerly’s Strip Mall).  Mr. Miller noted that the applicant had been invited, but was not present.


Councilmember Roe confirmed with Mr. Miller that the applicant had been provided with information on the City’s optional server training.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. to receive public comment, with no one appearing to speak.


c.                  Public Hearing Regarding Request to Extend Working Hours for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project

City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the request of Eureka Construction, Inc., performing road and utility construction work east of Cleveland, north of County Road C and south of County Road C-2 for the City of Roseville for construction of Mount Ridge Road from Twin Lakes Parkway to County Road C-2 and construction of Twin Lakes Parkway from Cleveland Avenue to Mount Ridge Road.


The contractor requests a variance to Roseville City Code, Section 405.03 (Hourly Restrictions of Certain Operations), should it be necessary based on weather-related circumstances, which would permit construction activities to begin at 7:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays from August 29 – November 21, 2009, due to a construction project completion deadline of December 31, 2009.


Ms. Bloom confirmed that staff had exceeded the proscribed notice area, providing notice to properties bounded by County Road D, Fairview Avenue, County Road C and Cleveland Avenue to make sure all impacted residents received notice.  Ms. Bloom noted that, while the project deadline was stated as December 31, 2009, realistically based on weather constraints, work was anticipated to be completed by Thanksgiving of 2009.


Discussion included location of the current construction site to the nearest residential property, estimated at 1/8 mile distance on the other side of Langton Lake; types of noise impacts (diesel engines, tailgate banging as trucks were emptied, and back-up alarms) and mitigation for curb, sodding and landscape installations.


Ms. Bloom confirmed that staff had received no phone or e-mail responses to the mailed notices; and that no complaints have been received to-date on the project, but had instead been receptive to working with staff in completion of the project.


Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s code clearly stated that no work could begin before 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and that without this variance the project could experience substantial delays, as evidenced with recent rainfall events.


Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. to receive public comment, with no one appearing to speak.


12.             Business Items (Action Items)


a.                 Approve Request to Extend Working Hours for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of a variance to Roseville City Code, Section 405.03 (Hourly Restrictions of Certain Operations), allowing construction activities to begin at 7:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays from August 29 – November 21, 2009, due to a construction project completion deadline of December 31, 2009.


Mayor Klausing expressed his desire that contractors be sensitive to neighbors, while understanding the importance of the project deadlines; hoping for early completion of the project to minimize impacts.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


b.                 Approve the OSAKA Roseville, Inc. Application for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License

Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for OSAKA Roseville, Inc., located at 1675 West County Road C.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


c.                  Authorize the Issuance of a Request for Proposals to Qualified Firms for the Zoning Code Update

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the authorization request for staff to proceed with Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) for consulting assistance for updating the City’s Zoning Code.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Metropolitan Council as a body would be considering the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update on Wednesday of this week; and he anticipated having the plan back before the City Council for their final adoption in the near future.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the statutory requirements for the guiding documents of the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Zoning Code to be consistent, and to be brought into compliance within nine months. 


Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was the intent to have a thorough review of the Zoning Code as a whole, since some sections had been in place since 1959, and to implement previous documents, with $35,000 budgeted from permit and application fees in the Community Development Department budget.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he anticipated staff’s participation throughout the process, allowing the budget to be met, with rationale being to use the consultant for technical issues (i.e., environmental law and regulations); and to provide deeper innovations and people hours to comply with the timeframe.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to 29 firms, with five of those firms determined to be qualified for further consideration, with the proposed RFP seeking more specific information as detailed in the draft attached to this request, and based on input from the City’s Planning Commissioners. Mr. Trudgeon noted that how the firm proposed to handle public participation throughout the process was a crucial element


Mr. Trudgeon advised that monthly updates to the Planning Commission and City Council were anticipated; along with periodic presentation of work product to both bodies on a regular basis as it was developed.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he anticipated that the Code would be broken into components for input during the process to allow better understanding, clarity, consistency, and applicable input from the Commission, City Council and the public.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the anticipated timeframe was for eight months, allowing for one month of flexibility from the required nine months.


Klausing moved, Pust seconded, authorizing staff to request full proposals to the following qualified firms: Bonestroo, Cunningham Group, HKGi, S.E.H. and SWB; with each firm experienced in the development of zoning codes and urban design, critical to the successful implementation of the City’s Zoning Code Update.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


d.                 Approve Semper Development, Ltd. Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Consolidate and Recombine the Properties addressed 2595 – 2635 Rice Street and 160 County Road C (PF09-023)

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Semper Development, Ltd. For CONSOLIDATION AND RECOMBINATION of subject properties addressed as 2595 – 2635 Rice Street and 160 County Road C (PF09-023) for redevelopment of the Walgreens store on the property and creation of a small adjacent parcel for additional, future development.  Mr. Paschke advised that this would combine five parcels into two, with conditions for approval detailed in the report, and the illustration showing the property with location of the new property lines and additional right-of-way dedication requirements.


Staff recommended APPROVAL of the requested MINOR SUBDIVISION, as detailed.


Discussion included residual addressing assigned to the properties; application of such requests directly to the City Council after staff review and without Planning Commission review, and not requiring a public hearing process or public notice.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that adjacent property owners may be unaware of the request and unable to provide public comment; and suggested that the City Council consider deferring approval to allow surrounding property owners to be sufficiently noticed.


City Attorney Anderson advised that the proposed use was a permitted use in the area, and that permits were issued by staff, providing the applicant met current Code requirements, and was simply a re-identification of property lines.


Councilmember Pust asked that this process be included in the overall review of the Zoning Code, whether the policy should remain as it stands, or if it should go through the Planning Commission and public hearing process.


Councilmember Roe concurred that the Planning Commission should review this policy as part of the Zoning Code redraft.


Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her request that action be deferred until public notice was provided.


Mayor Klausing questioned what purpose the notice would serve, since the question before the City Council was a recombination of lots, and how the public would address that.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her desire to know specific setbacks, height restrictions, or potential traffic to be generated, prior to her vote on the request, all things typically reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 


Councilmember Roe clarified with Mr. Paschke, the setbacks from the front, rear and sides; with the current hardware store out of compliance; noting that the new structure would be further away from property lines than current structures, providing a better situation for adjacent property owners.


Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the proposed CONSOLIDATION AND RECOMBINATION of parcels at 2595 – 2635 Rice Street and 160 County Road C, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 and 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the Request for Council Action dated August 24, 2009.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, without additional notice to the neighborhood.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: Ihlan.

                   Motion carried.


e.                 Select City Councilmember to aid in the Civil Attorney Professional Services Request for Qualifications Process

City Manager Bill Malinen reviewed the recently-adopted process for best overall value approach for professional service contracts.


Mayor Klausing volunteered to serve if no other Councilmembers were interested.


Roe moved, Johnson seconded, appointment of Mayor Klausing to help determine the evaluation criteria and interview candidate firms for Civil Attorney services for the City of Roseville.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.


Councilmember Roe, as the originator of this clause in the policy, requested a report back to the full City Council from Mayor Klausing, on the application of that portion of the policy.


f.                   Approve Federal Representation Services Agreement Extension

City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the Request for Council Action; and the funding and legislative process to-date in working with Representative McCollum; his action in engaging the firm on a one month retainer, and the request for a one month extension.. 


City Manager Malinen introduced Mr. Andrew Burmeister, present in the audience, and a representative of the firm in Washington D.C.


Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a one month extension of the Federal Representation Service Agreement between Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. and the City of Roseville, to facilitate inclusion of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Areas in the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (TTHUD) Appropriations Bill, currently in conference committee.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that $10,000 in public dollars shouldn’t be used for lobbying costs; and that she trusted Representative McCollum and her staff to shepherd the request through the Conference Committee. 


Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, opining that, while generally agreeing with Councilmember Ihlan’s comments on use of public funds, the uniqueness of spending on this area for environmental clean up and remediation was essential and money well-spent.


Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmember Ihlan and Mayor Klausing, expressing his qualms for such spending, commonly referred to as earmarks; however, opined that the proof was that all politics was local.  Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to get assistance on this funding request, since the project had not originally been on the federal radar due to the small size of the project; and for this specific purpose, he would support the motion.


Councilmember Roe questioned if this was a reimbursable legal or infrastructure expense.


Mayor Klausing asked staff to research that response and follow-up with the Council.  Mayor Klausing shared comments concerning earmarks as well.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

                        Nays: Ihlan.  

                   Abstained: Pust

                   Motion carried.


13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.                 Continue Discussion on the City’s 2010 Budget and Property Tax Levy

Finance Director Chris Miller and City Manager Bill Malinen noted the staff report highlighting obligations over and above the 2009 levy, as detailed in the report.  Categories highlighted for ease of discussion included: New Legal or Contractual Obligations ($453,000); Re-establishing Funding for Vehicle Replacements ($900,000); Replacing Lost State Aid for 2008 and 2009 on a one-time basis ($622,000); and Addressing Inflationary Impacts ($300,000).


Discussion included noting that the City didn’t use all of it’s potential levy capacity last year; ongoing negotiations for the Fire Relief Fund based on unfunded differences and actual actuarials and some assumptions; and  identifying those numbers that are hard and those retaining some flexibility.


City Manager Malinen expressed his need to better identify the current methodology and statutorial requirements for the Fire Relief Fund, and how the annual volatility can be addressed.


Further discussion in the Fire Relief Fund included incremental increases over that budgeted for 2009, due to poor investment returns in the pension fund due to market conditions; alternatives for the City Council to levy to meet the need or make appropriate cuts elsewhere to meet the obligation.


Discussion related to janitorial, legal and audit contracts confirmed that inflationary components were already built into those contracts; ongoing software application maintenance agreement support for the Police, Fire and Finance proprietary software; employee health care or increased staff costs not included in the $300,000 inflationary impacts figure as health care costs are still pending, and anticipating that employees may have to take a larger share of health care costs unless claims use improves from current trends; and state legislative uncertainties for 2010 allotments to local governments.


Additional discussion included clarification on debt service for the Arena and annual paybacks with $100,000 remaining in the construction budget that was applied to this year’s debt service payment, but unavailable in future years; previous year’s set-aside for vehicle purchases and the annual amount needed to maintain and keep the existing fleet and achieve sustainability; and funding eliminated and all vehicle purchases suspended as a cost-saving measure for 2009, even though previously funded.


Further discussion included how to identify and quantify any increased maintenance costs for not replacing fleet vehicles; elimination of the budgeted fire vehicle based on other considerations for need and fire station location; anticipated and historical annual maintenance data for review and comparison; insufficiency of current set-aside amount to sustain vehicle replacement; safety concerns in extending use of public safety vehicles due to their above-average wear and tear; maintenance of assets, including supplies, materials and vehicle repairs; parts and supplies frozen at this point; and recognition that patrol vehicles cannot be compared to personal use vehicles and replacement timeframes based on safety issues.


Discussion ensued regarding using money identified for vehicle replacement instead for infrastructure improvements (i.e., establishing a sidewalk/pathway fund) based on public request for that infrastructure; options for reducing the City’s fleet, or replacing vehicles with hybrid or more efficient models, while purchasing under State contract and ongoing improvements to those vehicles available on such a contract, and still allowing the City to save on overall fleet costs by buying under a cooperative contract.  


Mr. Miller expressed the urgency highlighted by staff in replacing patrol vehicles to consider the safety of officers; with historical evidence on optimal time for patrol vehicles to remain in operation versus personal vehicles, due their need to perform at a higher level than a normal consumer vehicle; and the caution needed in not taking chances with certain fleet vehicles.


Mr. Miller advised that staff is always seeking cost-saving and more efficient equipment and operations; and noted the formation of the REACT employee group; the limited options available at this time, under state contract, for hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles; State of MN revisions to their contracting provisions and the need to allow time before significant changes occur to the City’s vehicle fleet; and noted that the need or purpose of the vehicle drove their efficiencies, but that this consideration to be as efficient and cost-effective as prudent was always paramount.


Further discussion included clarification of base levies in addition to those items outside established levy limits (i.e., debt service); shifting of the tax burden from the State to cities and property tax payers rather than income tax based support; and confirmation by staff that there is no built-in COLA or salary increases included in the 2010 budget to-date.

Additional discussion included factoring in the impact of decreasing property values and impacts to the City’s budget and levy needs; local tax rates on individual property taxes, depending on value changes; review of several scenarios provided by staff on a typical single-family property; trends and census information for unemployment and wages for state and national levels, but not readily available for Roseville; and election expenses for 2010 that was not accrued in previous budgets as had been the past practice.


Further discussion included unalloted funds, timing for temporary measures, and those items needing long-term cuts; impacts in the State’s actions with homestead credits and perceptions of local government being the instigator rather than the state; original purpose of market value homestead credits; and the need for the City Council to set their levy at more than needed for current operational costs to ensure sufficient funds from the portion to be received.


Discussion ensued regarding the HRA levy, separate and based on their work plan and strategic plan, with final decisions by the HRA anticipated at their upcoming meeting on August 31, 2009, and recognizing the challenges while anticipating programming needs; and the HRA levy limits based on a percentage of the City’s tax base, but well below that limit to-date.


Councilmembers and staff discussed the intent of the upcoming Special Council meetings based on available information and additional information that could be provided by staff between tonight’s meeting and then, recognizing the limited time to prepare any additional information.


Mr. Miller advised that the first priority of the City Council would be to establish their priorities and thresholds; what they’d expect the community to pay for services and programs that they’ve become accustomed to, followed by staff’s recommendations to the City Council; with senior staff available to answer questions of the Council specific to their departments; followed by City Council deliberations and a consensus on that threshold.  Mr. Miller noted that the process this year is somewhat disjointed; however, asked that this was hindered by individual approaches and information processes, and lack of input from the Council to staff.


Additional discussion included additional opportunities for meeting beyond additionally this week; lack of information from the financial consultant; and recognizing that meeting later would allow for more to be accomplished and with additional information available. 


Councilmember Ihlan concurred with Mr. Willmus’ comments that the regular budget process be used this year, and the BFO anticipated for 2011, to allow full application and justice to the BFO process.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed her need for a proposed budget.


Councilmember Johnson expressed his support of setting a larger preliminary levy, anticipating that it would be reduced during the budget process; and questioned whether setting a smaller preliminary levy was fiscally responsible of the City Council; and questioned how changing the budget process now would make any difference in the time constraints before the Council, and opined that changing strategy at this late date was not in the best interest of the community or the City Council.


Mayor Klausing noted his preference in having a City Manager-recommended budget with staff providing their recommended percentage and Council reacting to that; however, admitted that he was under the impression that the rest of the Council was more comfortable in establishing their preferred levy percentage increase, decrease or status quo, and negotiating from that point. 


Councilmember Pust noted that, at that point in the discussion, more information had been available to Councilmembers than currently is available, allowing for more of a framework for analysis and actual costs.  Councilmember Pust again expressed her frustration in the limited information available for the choices to be made.


Mr. Miller reviewed page 3 of the staff report and available levy increases based on the information provided to-date; and opined that levy limits should not be deterrent, since the City was far enough those limits last year for most services, and providing additional flexibility.


Additional discussion included timing to process the information to-date and time constraints in setting the preliminary levy; rationale for discussions now or after the preliminary levy was set at the highest point available; and statutory requirements to establish the preliminary levy, even though traditionally, the City has set the budget at that time as well. 


Councilmember Roe outlined actions to be taken by September 15, 2009; and the ten (10) meetings between then and the end of the year when a final levy was adopted; and anticipating more public interest if the levy was actually set at the maximum amount, providing for reactions and allowing further information.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that, while she may not vote for it, if it was the consensus to set the preliminary levy at its highest possible level that may be the best option.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with setting the preliminary levy as high as possible.


Mayor Klausing encouraged staff to advocate delivery of the Springsted report as soon as possible.


Mayor Klausing summarized the intent that at the September 14, 2009 meeting, the City Council talk about the preliminary levy; noting that this would disengage the budget process more than traditionally.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her willingness to take it up as a formal action if necessary; however, asked that staff provide a budget summary for September 14, 2009, as recommended by staff and the City Manager, without going into significant line item detail, but broken down by department and some programs, as a framework for those discussions.


City Manager Malinen noted that staff hasn’t expended effort to-date for a line item budget, having been involved in the BFO process; however, he offered to put some numbers together that could reflect this initial report and discussions from tonight’s meeting on a broad level.


Mayor Klausing requested that staff do so.


Klausing moved, Pust seconded, CANCELLING the previously-scheduled Special Council meetings for Budget discussions on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 and Wednesday, August 26, 2009.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing.

Nays: None.


14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming tentative meeting agendas.


Councilmember Roe clarified discussion versus action items on future agendas.


15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:38 pm.