|
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 www.ramsey.lib.mn.us
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.
Corrections:
§
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.
|