City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

September 14, 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 September: Roe; Pust; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing)

City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Items 7.g and 7.h, respectively entitled “Adopt Restated Cafeteria Plan Documents;” and “Approve 2009 Law Enforcement Legal Services Contract Terms.

City Manager Malinen noted removal of two Business/Action Items requesting abatement, as unresolved code violations at both properties had been resolved.  The respective agenda items were: Item 12.a, entitled “Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 2815 Rice Street;” and Item 12.c, entitled, “Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 1350 Ryan.”

Councilmember Roe suggested the addition to the Consent Agenda of the additional agenda item as presented by staff as a bench handout and entitled, “Declare Vacancy and Process to Appoint Member(s) to the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (RHRA).”

By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.

3.         Public Comment

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

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

          Mayor Klausing recognized City of Roseville Communications Specialist Tim Pratt, who was recently awarded a National Award for a video on Roseville’s Parks, profiling the Roseville Park and Recreation department and highlighting the City’s parks system.  Mayor Klausing offered congratulations to Mr. Pratt on behalf of staff and the City Council.  The video can be viewed on the City’s website at www/cityofroseville.com/parks.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

            a.         Proclaim September 15 to October 15, 2009 to be Hispanic Heritage Month

Mayor Klausing read a proclamation designating September 15 – October 15, 2009 as Hispanic Heritage Month in Roseville.

Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of a proclamation designating September 15 – October 15, 2009 as Hispanic Heritage Month in Roseville.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of August 24, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 24, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.

Corrections:

§         Page 3, line 9

§         Page 3, lines 19-20

§         Page 6, line 39

§         Page 10, line 29

§         Page 11, line 19

§         Page 14, line 43

§         Page 20, lines 3 and 4

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Ihlan; Johnson; 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 Payments

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.     

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for the following applicants:

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

c.                  Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

d.                 Set Public Hearing on September 28, 2009 for On-Sale Wine and On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for Szechuan, Inc.

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, establishing a Public Hearing for On-Sale Wine and On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License, for Szechuan, Inc., at 2193 Snelling Avenue N, to be held on September 28, 2009.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

e.                 Accept $600 Donation from Target Corporation

Councilmember Johnson recognized the wonderful job of the Target Corporation in recognizing the needs of the community; and thanked them for this most recent donation to the Roseville Police Department for the translation packet; opining that it was a wonderful use of funds and would serve to improve the community diversity needs noted during the Imagine Roseville 2025 process.

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, acceptance of a donation from Target Corporation to the Roseville Police Department to partially cover the cost of translation the Department’s Crime Victim Information Packet (Betmar Languages) to Spanish and Somali.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

f.                   Receive Quarterly Update of Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long Term Goals

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, receipt of staff’s September 2009 Quarterly Update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long-Term Goals.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

i.                    Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Forest Lake for IT Support

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A to the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009) between the City of Roseville and the City of Forest Lake for the purposes of the City of Roseville’s IT staff to provide information technology support to the City of Forest Lake.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

j.                   Adopt a Resolution Identifying Need for LCDA Grant Funds and Allowing Submission of a Grant Application for the Sienna Green (Har Mar) Apartments – Phase II

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10745 entitled, “Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account Funding and Authorizing an Application for Grant Funds.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

k.                  Approve Extension for Har Mar Apartment Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant and Tax Base Revitalization Account Grant

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of Grant Extension Agreement (Attachment (B to the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009) for Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant funds.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of Grant Extension Agreement (Attachment C to the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009) for Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) grant funds.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

l.                    Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements

          Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10746 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements;” to TMS Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $103,222.40.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

m.               Set Public Hearing on September 29, 2009 for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquors LLC

            Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, a motion to set a public hearing to consider an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquors, LLC, 2727 Lexington Avenue, to be held on September 28, 2009.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Additional Consent Item, presented as a bench handout

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, declaration of a vacancy on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, due to an unexpired term that expires on September 23, 2013 due to the resignation of Commissioner Josh Fuhrman, and authorizing that the vacancy be filled by selecting from the September 10, 2009 pool of applicants.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.                 Adopt Restated Cafeteria Plan Documents (formerly Consent Item 7.g)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item.

City Manager Malinen briefly highlighted the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009; revising the Plan Documents due to changes in laws and regulations, with the document not having been updated since 1994.

Councilmember Ihlan noted receipt of the e-mail documentation before the meeting and that the documentation had not been fully revised; and expressed her preference to defer action until the draft had been completed and could be reviewed by Councilmembers.

Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon apologized for the delay and advised that the finalized form had not been received from the City Attorney, other than a draft in-house; even though it had been anticipated for action at tonight’s meeting.

Mayor Klausing, with Council consensus, requested that staff defer action until the September 21, 2009 City Council agenda.

b.                 Approve 2009 Law Enforcement Legal Services Contract Terms (formerly Consent Item 7.h)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item.

City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009; detailing terms of the 2009 Law Enforcement Legal Services (LELS) Contract.  Mr. Malinen advised that this would basically provide market-level adjustments, in keeping officers at the same level relative to the metropolitan area market place; and would serve as a cost-effective settlement to the City in avoiding the high costs of arbitration.

Discussion included terms of the contract and individual nature of this contract in relationship to other contracts,

Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification of the actual term of the contract and its applicable context.

Ms. Bacon advised that the City now used a comparison of 10 surrounding metropolitan communities of similar population and with similar operations, rather than the former Stanton V Group, to avoid comparisons with larger communities (i.e., Bloomington).  Ms. Bacon further advised that it was the request of the officers for a three percent (3%) rather than 2.9% for 2009 to stay in line with peer communities and not lose ground.

Councilmember Ihlan sought further clarification that this would cost an additional $6,222, but would save arbitration costs to the City of an estimated $25,000; and questioned if any other financial implications would be realized.

Ms. Bacon advised the only other costs would be for Public Employee Retirement Account (PERA) equivalencies, but no additional benefits would increase.

Councilmember Johnson noted, for the benefit of the public, that this would be retroactive for 2009; and would be negotiated again in 2010.

Klausing moved, Pust seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009, for the 2009 collective bargaining agreement with the Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS), directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

11.             Public Hearings

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 2815 Rice Street

As reported by staff, this item was removed from the Agenda, as unresolved code violations had been resolved.

b.                 Approve Issuance of a Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Code Violations at 2433 Simpson

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request directing staff to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation to the owner of 2433 Simpson Street, as detailed in the staff report dated September 14, 2009; providing an historical and a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family detached home.  Mr. Munson noted that the current owners live in the property while it is being remodeled, a process that began with an addition in 2003 with a basement dug and foundation erected that summer, but constructed halted shortly thereafter and subsequent complaints from neighbors.  Mr. Munson advised that the City threatened legal action if the open hole was not backfilled or protected in some manner, and subsequently the property owner erected a fence around the back yard.  Mr. Munson reviewed additional history as further detailed in the report.

Mr. Munson advised that if a Ramsey County Court Citation was issued, and the City was directed to abate the violations, the approximate cost would total $21,500 for purchase of siding/soffit materials and labor for installation, installation of permanent electrical service, and to complete the chimney beyond the roof line.  Mr. Munson clarified that this was for exterior work only, not any interior work. 

Mr. Munson noted that the property owner was attempting to finish the exterior work; however, they had struggled with various issues, compounded by the housing crisis and difficulty in obtaining loans.  Mr. Munson noted, however, that the property had been under construction for six years, and had been without siding for over two years, and the neighbors were frustrated with the lack of completion and deterioration of the neighborhood due to its unfinished status.   Mr. Munson advised that the nuisance was in violation of City Code; but that the property owner was not interested in the City performing any of the work, and anticipated that they would object accordingly; and staff further anticipated that this would be a confrontational abatement process, thus the request for the Ramsey County citation process to provide the City with further protections, and to provide additional incentive to the property owner to resolve the violations.

Councilmember Ihlan, from a policy perspective, requested any City policy or ordinance covering the duration of a reasonable construction period.

Mr. Munson advised that City Code and the Building Code both addressed permit lengths; and usually after one to one and one-half years, the City would intervene and strongly encourage completion of the construction, specific to exterior work.  Mr. Munson advised that staff had been in contact with the property owner, offering options for them to complete the work, and routing them to various resources that could provide assistance in this resolution.

Councilmember Roe clarified the abatement process and the City’s need to obtain a warrant to do the work.

Mr. Munson confirmed the process if the property owner was to object to the City accessing their private property.

Mr. Munson noted that the property owner was not present at tonight’s meeting.

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to abate the City Code and Building Code violations as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009, at 2433 Simpson Street, if the work is not completed by November 1, 2009, by issuing a Ramsey County Court Citation to the owner of 2433 Simpson Street; at an estimated cost of approximately $21,500; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

c.                  Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 1350 Ryan

As reported by staff, this item was removed from the Agenda, as unresolved code violations had been resolved.

d.                 Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2010 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget

Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted staff recommendations for the City Council’s adoption of a preliminary 2010 tax levy and budget, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009.  Mr. Miller advised that staff was recommending that the City Council adopt a preliminary levy based on aggregate City needs, while the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process continued over the next few months, and prior to a final levy and budget adoption in December.

Mr. Miller reviewed categorized priorities within tax-supported funds, and four  staff recommendations, totaling $17,973,195, representing $4,834,335 in non-tax revenues leaving a tax levy needed in the amount of $13,138,860. Priority needs included compliance with Federal or State mandates; compliance with City Code or contractual obligations; and discretionary expenditures.

Mr. Miller provided discussion points, including impacts to the City of lost state aid, loss of market value homestead credits (MVHC) and unallocation of funds by the State of MN; equipment and vehicle replacement cycles; and inflationary impacts over the last several years and the need to stabilize those previously absorbed negative impacts.  Mr. Miller highlighted those projected impacts to an average single-family home with this proposed tax levy; current comparisons of Roseville’s tax levy with peer communities; and proposed fine-tuning of the preliminary budget over the next few months.

Councilmember Roe sought clarification on Staff Recommendation #3 related to monies for vehicles and equipment replacements and whether the total amount  was new or being applied to previous negative balances or projected purchases.

Mr. Miller advised that the maximum recommendation was for $500,000; with the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) identifying a total need of $9 million total over the next 10 years, representing the need for $900,000 annually to fully fund this cost, with the requested $500,000 this year being applied for replacements and some restoration of the fund.

Councilmember Johnson thanked for staff for their realistic recommendation at 14%; seeking clarification on the rationale for the 2009 levy at 3.9% and this requested levy amount.

Mr. Miller reviewed various components of levy limits: base limits and previous year levy limits and inflationary amounts, based on price deflators and unused levies from previous years; along with exemptions beyond levy limits (i.e., new debt services; police and fire officer wages).

Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern in being asked to adopt a preliminary budget, even in the aggregate, when there were no targeted line items to correlate with the requested levy.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned how staff had identified these recommendations without department-specific spreadsheets or financial reports.

Mr. Miller noted the different process this year in arriving at the budget and levy; and advised that there was no recommended line item budget, pending City Council direction on preferred service levels.  Mr. Miller advised that, at an internal staff level, departments had identified on a preliminary basis 2010 needs, which would be predicated on City Council-established services levels; with staff projecting maintenance of services and programs at previous levels and calculating a ceiling as staff identified in the aggregate report.  Mr. Miller further advised that this is the first procedural step in the process, with an understanding that this was not the final budget. 

Mr. Miller clarified that the property tax levy was the only applicable item that could not be increased, only reduced at final adoption; with the budget able to be amended at any time at City Council discretion.

City Manager Malinen advised that, as the City Council proceeded through the BFO process, other revenue concepts may become evident, allowing the City Council to fund over and above their preliminary budget, but that this wouldn’t be known until the BFO process had been completed.

Councilmember Ihlan requested an update from Mr. Miller on current reserve levels.

Mr. Miller advised that, depending on designated funds for a specific purpose, or those available for any use, the City’s General and Park & Recreation Program Funds were funded at approximately 25-30%, or a total of $4 million in those tax-supported funds; but that the City Council’s policy was for funding them at 50% of their reserve level.

Councilmember Pust noted the $50,000 line item for elections, with the City Council having previously (2009 budget) removed this annual amount.

Mr. Miller advised that staff normally spent approximately $80,000 for national elections in even years, and in odd years, the amount needed was closer to $30,000; however, he noted that 2010 was a national election year, and the total amount would be needed.  Mr. Miller noted that, in the past, staff applied an annual amount to this fund to avoid the overall peaks and valleys.

Councilmember Pust noted Staff Recommendation #4 related to inflationary impacts; suggesting that, given the challenges in the current economy with it in a deflationary situation, this inflationary projection may not be needed.

Mr. Miller, noting that retail costs had currently been reduced, advised that the 2009 budget had been significantly reduced based on locking into fuel contracts (ending year-end 2009) and potential increases in negotiated contracts at that time; in addition to addressing inflationary impacts over the last several years, with inflationary impacts to the City addressed negatively and did not keep up with positive inflationary trends.

Further discussion included 2010 and 2011 financial projections and impacts to inflationary trends; and vehicle and equipment replacement rationale.

Mr. Miller noted that there had been no vehicle replacements in 2009, with six  squads already beyond their optimum life, with another six coming in 2010.  Mr. Miller advised that, just to get back on track and move toward sustainability, the proposed funding was necessary; and reminded Councilmembers that this did not begin to address facility and park equipment/structure replacement.

Additional discussion included the status of the City’s rolling stock among departments; assumptions for replacement at the end of their optimal life; whether the fleet expands or is shrunk based on the City Council’s direction for future service levels; and replacement recommendations prior to incurring major repairs and/or part replacement, and further reducing the resale value.  Mr. Miller briefly reviewed historical reference points for recommendations in useful life for the City’s rolling stock, with squads being more frequently replaced due to their use.

Councilmember Johnson advised that he’d been contacted by some constituents about surrounding communities and their levies, and noted that Roseville was unique in that it was not yet set up for depreciation funds; and asked for a historical perspective on when the City Council stopped funding those accounts, and related impacts to the taxpayer.  Councilmember Johnson opined that past City Council’s and their decisions had put the current City Council and their constituents in this position, requiring that a responsible tax accounting system be re-implemented.  Councilmember Johnson further opined that this would not be accomplished in one year, but that if the City continued to regress, expecting that taxpayers would speak at the polls through a referendum whenever building replacement or improvements were needed, further negative impacts would be realized.  Councilmember Johnson expressed his alarm that staff was not coming forward with recommendations to bring other depreciation accounts into compliance; and opined that he was interested in moving forward responsibly in funding these needs without repeated referendums.

Mr. Miller noted that staff had made their recommendations in the 10 year CIP presented earlier in the year at the City Council and staff retreat.  Mr. Miller concurred that the current staff recommendation would not get the City back on track; however, that they would address the most immediate needs.

Councilmember Johnson opined that it was a “band aid” at best.

Mr. Miller concurred that the recommendations would not address the park system infrastructure, but would address immediate rolling stock needs; and that the current Parks Master Planning process would provide priorities for recommendations to address the parks system infrastructure.

Further discussion included peer communities able to have lower levy increases than Roseville due to their planning ahead for depreciation; and the definitive years when the City stopped funding infrastructure replacement and continued deterioration of that infrastructure.

Councilmember Roe clarified that the proposed Staff Recommendation #4 addressed inflationary impacts over several years, not just those anticipated in 2010.

Mr. Miller concurred, noting that it factored in some inflationary impacts for 2010, but mostly represented those from 2008 and 2009; and noted some of the past impacts of reduced service levels (i.e., reduced street lane miles for maintenance and/or reconstruction).

Councilmember Roe noted that, in low inflation years with high capacity growth years, there was an opportunity to recover dollars when the City’s tax base grew fast enough to avoid substantial impacts to taxpayers.

Mr. Miller noted that this was a successful strategy used by many cities; however, advised that it would require discipline annually – in both good and bad times; and further advised that in Roseville’s history over the last 10-12 years, the  City had not taken the opportunity to use this method to reinvest in the community.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of such a method; however, expressed concern in Staff Recommendation #1 in setting the 2010 levy $450,000 higher than needed to balance the budget without specifically applied expenditures.  Councilmember Roe suggested that the City Council and staff identify budget line items for that money to initiate the discipline process for setting aside those types of funds that would be addressing shortfalls and depreciation on account balances, to provide transparency for taxpayers.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of getting back on track with depreciation; however opined that in this economic climate, not big steps, recognizing that while the economy appears to moving ahead, it is not yet apparent to individual taxpayers.  Councilmember Roe further opined that the City Council needed to be aware of what taxpayers were willing and able to pay; while having the discipline down the road to deal with issues more appropriately.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. ___ entitled, “Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2010;” in the amount of $14,841,860.

Mayor Klausing recognized individual Councilmember comments and their discussion points; and spoke in support of the motion, opining that it was a conservative approach at a level where sufficient funds were initiated to meet long-term capital needs, while addressing the more immediate operational needs now.  Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Roe’s rational approach in the BFO process; however, suggested that Councilmember’s also be aware of Roseville taxpayers’ higher than average wages and lower average property tax rates.  Mayor Klausing also asked Councilmembers to be aware of what the taxpayers expected for services; and the need to provide those services, particularly during poor economic times.

Councilmember Johnson  noted that the City Council had the responsibility to set up a framework higher than allowable, and expressed his willingness to discuss Councilmember Roe’s ideas during the BFO process; however, spoke in support of the motion.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg spoke to the City of Roseville’s highest senior population proportionate to other metropolitan-area communities, and proposed zero percent increase in Social Security benefits in 2010; while the MN employment rate had drastically increased.  Mr. Grefenberg referenced staff’s price comparisons in their memo (page 4).  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this economy was not the time  to propose a 14% preliminary levy increase; and provided comparable preliminary levy amounts from surrounding communities and their average single-digit increases; further opining that the City needed to live within a budget the taxpayer could afford.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council use budget discipline in their preliminary levy as had been done in other surrounding communities.

Councilmember Pust noted that the HRA levy was on top of the proposed 14% levy, and would be a separate action, and not constrained by levy limits.  Councilmember Pust sought clarification on commercial property tax capacities and potential challenges in their values, based on current vacancies levels.

Mr. Miller reviewed the history during 2008 and 2009 of residential property market value declines, and anticipated market values fluctuating in commercial properties, with related appeals resulting from that value change.  Mr. Miller reviewed historical shifts in residential to commercial properties and net impacts over a four year period.

Further discussion included challenges to market value and related impacts to the City’s overall projected tax base; projected school district and county tax levies being unknown at this time; accuracy in determining impacts and comparisons over a 10 year period rather than a one-year comparison, with development and redevelopment cycles further impacting those trends and varying from decade to decade, rather than year to year.

Mayor Klausing agreed that staff’s comparison to cable and phone was not reasonable in their memo; however, he advised that, from his perspective and with discretion, a taxpayer needed to consider core services (i.e., police, fire, road maintenance) and how to best prioritize those items in the most cost-effective manner.

Councilmember Johnson concurred with Mayor Klausing’s observations.

Councilmember Roe, in an effort to provide perspective and include Councilmember Pust’s comments; addressed changing and comparison property values for an average single-family home in Roseville and net impacts to those taxpayers.  Councilmember Roe advised that he would be more comfortable with a preliminary levy under 10%; however, he could not support the current motion; and would like the City to be more disciplined in their preliminary levy.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson and Klausing.

Nays: Roe; Pust; and Ihlan.

Motion failed.

Roe moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10747 entitled, “Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2010;” in the amount of $14,300,000; approximately $541,860 less than the staff-recommended Preliminary Budget amount.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; opining that it took into account necessary actions, including unallotment and mandatory spending items, while still allowing additional monies to deal with additional areas, while not as much as would be ideal.  Councilmember Roe opined that the City could not accomplish gaining all the ground in one year, but wanted to move forward in achieving that set aside for projected costs; and encouraged future discipline in catching up.

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of levying back some portion of the lost $450,000 (#1); funding in its entirety staff recommendation #2 to meet all statutory and contractual obligations; and a portion of vehicle replacement and inflationary needs.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion; however, recognized that it was an improvement over the original motion.  Councilmember Ihlan noted her dissolution with the proposed strategy to “tax to the max” in the preliminary levy just in case it was needed for the final budget, when the City Council had yet to have a proposed budget before them that would correspond to that amount and proposed significant tax increase.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern in the lack of evidence that people were able to afford such an increase, even though the Mayor believed they could.  Councilmember Ihlan spoke to testimony heard tonight from Mr. Grefenberg  to the contrary, at least from a senior citizen perspective.  Councilmember Ihlan, given that there was no proposed budget to work with, advised that it was hard for her to come up with an alternative number, and suggested being more in line with surrounding communities, noting that the only community above 9% to-date was Minneapolis, and was based on their substantial loss in state aid and unallotments.

Councilmember Johnson noted that he was attempting to be mindful of levy limits, and was not indicating that he would support a 15% budget increase.  However, he opined that there was wisdom in allowing a larger framework within which to refine the budget process.  Councilmember Johnson, while being more comfortable with a larger framework for this first-time BFO process, spoke in support of Councilmember Roe’s motion.

Councilmember Pust advised that she would have supported staff recommendation #2 at $453,00, as not doing so would indicate that the City was not going to pay their bills; expressed concern that there had yet to be a discussion on employee health care increases and potential staff burdens and potential need for assistance from the City for a potential 15% increase in those costs; and her philosophical concerns in staff recommendation #1 to balance the budget.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Pust and Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Pust moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10748 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2010 Bonded Debt: in the amount of $84,533.56; amended to revise language of the draft resolution, line 224 to read “reduce,” rather than “change,” to more clearly identify Council intent.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10749 entitled, “Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2010 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;” in the amount of $38,213,885, of which approximately $18,458,140 is designated for property tax-supported programs.

Discussion ensued regarding whether to reduce the budget amount accordingly with the levy decrease or to budget for spending.

Mayor Klausing recognized that these numbers were significant and had impacts to City taxpayers.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion to remain consistent with her vote against the proposed levy.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

e.                 Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2010 Preliminary HRA Tax Levy

Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009, related to the 2010 Preliminary HRA Tax Levy and draft resolution included; with an increase of $95,500 from the current levy for a total of $353,500 for 2010 as detailed in the staff report.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10750 entitled, “A Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2010;” in the amount of $353,500.

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Councilmember Pust as the City Council liaison to the HRA briefly reviewed the HRA budget, opining that the request represented a responsible decision-making process.  Councilmember Pust reviewed the code enforcement accomplishments to-date having a positive impact on the community and property values; maintenance of current programs, and those new programs conservatively proposed, based on the their recognition of the current economic climate.

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a bench handout, providing actual and current program costs and new spending for those programs and new expenditures.  Mr. Trudgeon addressed green and energy efficiency programs proposed by the HRA; expansion of the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP); and continued marketing for the community.

Councilmember Pust noted that the overall budget was actually a decrease from the 2009 budget, based on carry over funds, and a clean up of the financial accounting to reflect specific spending, allowing for more transparency for expenditure of public funds. 

Discussion included cost savings in accelerating the NEP program from four to three years; cash carryover at the end of 2009 of approximately $50,000; and final adjustments to be made before final budget adoption in December.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; recognizing that overall spending had been reduced by 1/3 with cash carryover from 2008; and expressed appreciation on the emphasis of the NEP.

Councilmember Johnson echoed Councilmember Roe’s comments; opining that the HRA did a wonderful job and was an important asset to the community, and that this budget was a responsible one.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, for the same reasons discussed with the preliminary levy; noting that this proposed budget spent new money on new programs when they were not warranted, even though the proposed programs were good ones, this was not the time to increase funds.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that she could only support a zero percent levy for the HRA.

Mayor Klausing noted that the proposed budget for an average household only represented an increase of $5 annually; and spoke in support of the motion.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:03 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:12 p.m. 

f.                   Consider Scheduling Additional Meetings to Discuss the 2010 Budget

Finance Director Chris Miller noted the potential budget discussion dates as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated September 14, 2009 and proposed topics for discussion on those specific dates and the rationale for the BFO process.

Discussion included the new methodologies for staff, the City Council, and the community throughout the BFO process; agenda loads over the next meetings; Councilmember Roe’s unavailability for the remainder of the September meetings and his inclusion in those budget discussions; timing of the discussion and ability to accomplish the needed work; work of individual Councilmembers outside a formal meeting format and work as a body; and how best to digest the Springsted report.

Councilmember Roe encouraged Councilmembers to begin their discussions and deliberations prior to his return to keep the process moving forward, with prioritization beginning in October.

Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Roe.

Councilmember Ihlan sought assurances that public input would occur throughout the process and on a regular basis prior to the Truth in Taxation hearing and before November 16, 2009, in order for that public input to be incorporated in the decision-making process.

Councilmember Johnson noted that he would like to think that public comment was invited at any meeting of the City Council.

Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Ihlan that public comment was welcomed and should be part of the prioritization discussions; noting that further opportunities were also available by phone or e-mail to individual Councilmembers or to the body. 

Councilmember Roe suggested that, similar to the public hearing held in August on the budget,  additional public hearings on the prioritization points be encouraged, and formally publicized by staff as public hearings.

Klausing moved, Pust seconded, establishing additional time within regularly scheduled meetings to continue discussing the 2010 Budget, as per report.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Receive Springsted Report on Budget Program Cost Analysis

Finance Director Chris Miller presented the report of Springsted, with staff available for questions or comments.  Mr. Miller advised that the Springsted representative was delayed at the International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) Conference and unable to attend tonight’s meeting, but anticipated being available in person at the September 21 or September 28, 2009 regular Council meeting at the City Council’s request to address inquiries.  Mr. Miller advised that the report was provided at this time to allow the City Council to begin their review of the report and to become familiar with the background methodology and program costs as assigned, specific to those programs partially or fully tax-supported, and excluding those funds that were fee-based or constituted Enterprise Funds.

Mr. Miller advised that the report was based, within parameters, on time-spent profiles and calculations of direct cost, for personnel, equipment and vehicles, with 140 distinct functions and programs represented for a first initial look by the community and City Council.  Mr. Miller advised that this would  provide a 100% BFO process, but would initiate the process; and cautioned that it was meant to be an informational tool, but could not make the decisions for the City Council, staff or community, while representing core programs, their context, and challenges to get back to a sustainable operation.

Councilmember Roe asked that staff provide further clarification and detail on each area’s common categories to provide more definition.

Mr. Miller advised that “organizational management” was a generic category used to identify time spent on internal organizational matters (i.e., personnel issues to develop employee and division work plans; employee evaluations; attending other internal meetings for broader reaching programs) to not give an impression that one staff person spent time on one specific function.

Mr. Miller advised that “customer/citizen service” was not specific to one program, but was a catchall for general inquiries, and could be divided out further if the category appeared too vague.

Councilmember Roe, while appreciating the clarification, opined that it would be helpful for him to have everything on the cost input side by side with the service level side to allow easier tracking of individual items.

Councilmember Pust sought clarification on the apparent lack of consistency among departments on service level standards and benchmarks; and how this was achieved.

Mr. Miller advised that some departments were more evolved and comprehensive than others in tracking levels (i.e., Public Works Department, who has been tracking specifics for decades based on the nature of their job costs), allowing for some disparity, with staff recognizing the need to rectify that in the future to establish service levels allowing comparisons between departments, as well as with other communities, with the need to allow the BFO process to evolve further over time.

Further discussion included service levels and standards; inconsistencies and differentials in performance measures and cost-effectiveness versus preferred measurement of performance outputs and programs; how to achieve an authentic budget prioritization with limited information to-date; need to continue building performance measures for all programs and services city-wide requiring a change in culture and mindset for budget decision-making above and beyond taking last year’s budget and adding an inflationary percentage; and not making assumptions that the current budget is the right budget.

Councilmember Pust expressed frustration in how to make effective use of the BFO process for the 2010 budget.

Mr. Miller noted that staff was open to hearing Council concerns and providing additional information in response to those needs.

Councilmember Pust noted that, specific to the Police Department, she was unable to determine the type of call in correlation to the number of calls in order to address service levels and standards.

Councilmember Johnson sought additional information as to when the Springsted representative would be available to represent themselves and their data.

Mr. Miller advised that their role was to provide the information; and that they had yet to be formally scheduled for meeting attendance, pending the City Council’s initial reactions.

Councilmember Roe opined that hearing from the consultant how they arrived at their numbers and their methodology was critical to the process, in addition to feedback from staff on various questions and to allow educated decision-making on how to allocate resources.  Councilmember Roe further opined that the Council’s ability to ask staff questions on how to assign priorities, before those prioritization meeting(s), was necessary to provide a better understanding, and was essentially more important that any additional information that the consultant could provide at this point.

b.                 Discussion of Planning and Zoning Issues

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a written report as requested on various land use issues; and sought Council direction as to how they preferred to proceed.

Councilmember Pust opined that there was not need for discussion at this point; anticipating that the inconsistencies would be worked out through the zoning code update.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that, those items of confusion or inconsistency, would be part of the overall policy discussion and zoning code update, with the exception of recreational vehicle issues that were unrelated to zoning code issues.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested, if it was the Council’s intent to discuss recreational vehicles, that  more notice be provided to the public for their comment and allowing staff to draft some responses for consideration in that discussion.

Councilmember Pust suggested that, specific to recreational vehicles, Councilmembers prepare a proposal for further discussion.

Councilmember Ihlan commented on impervious surface requirements, opining that she could not support any increases to impervious surfaces above the current 30%, and would be supportive of decreasing that percentage with more creative applications.  Councilmember Ihlan commented on Planned Unit Development (PUD) issues, that consideration be given to the order of approval; and referenced a former Roseville Citizens League study that should be reviewed, and that the application procedures and process be clarified.

Mr. Trudgeon, from staff’s perspective, suggested that approval be done later in the process, noting the automatic triggers in place for comprehensive plan amendment, while cautioning the need to keep the public informed at the General Concept level to allow for full transparency.

Councilmember Roe observed that the various issues would go through the Planning Commission process prior to City Council; with hearings held at that level to glean the Commission’s expertise, and their recommendations.

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming tentative meeting agendas.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

None.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 pm.