City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

November 9, 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 November: Roe; Pust; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing)

City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.

Mayor Klausing advised that Councilmember Pust had been detained at work and would arrive shortly.

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.

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

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

            November 6, 2009  

Mayor Klausing announced that the City of Roseville was advised by the Department of Education and Economic Development (DEED) of the award of a $1,000,000 Redevelopment Grant for the Twin Lakes Phase II project, having been selected from a total of 11 applications.  Mayor Klausing noted DEED’s recognition of and compliments to staff on their preparation of the application.  Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation to City staff on behalf of the City Council and community; for their ongoing work in getting this area redeveloped and back on the tax rolls.

Mayor Klausing noted the success of the recently held “Welcoming Community Forum” on October 27, 2009, hosted by the City’s Human Rights Commission.

Mayor Klausing further noted the first Parks and Recreation Master Plan Community Meeting held last week and sponsored by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission.

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of October 26, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 26, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.

Corrections:

·         Page 13, Lines 1 – 3 (Klausing)

Strike the entire paragraph

·         Page 21 Lines 7 – 16 (Klausing)

Revise language as follows:

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, based on his experience at the Planning Commission level, as well as that on the City Council; opining that this action was supportive of the neighborhood as a whole, both residential and commercial property owners.  Mayor Klausing noted that the property was well kept; and that when single-family homes are located near or on busy streets, they experience some negative impacts when in mixed use areas or adjacent to commercial properties.  [Mayor Klausing noted that single-family homes fronting busy streets, particularly when adjacent to commercial properties, may be less desirable for residential use; and that the result is that such residential properties often are not well-maintained and can negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods.  Mayor Klausing further noted that on the other hand, such locations are very desirable as commercial properties and rezoning to commercial allows for new construction that can actually benefit surrounding neighborhoods.]  Mayor Klausing opined that B-3 zoning designation seemed more consistent with that area; and further opined that redevelopment of commercial businesses in that area would prove to be an asset to the community, as well as the neighborhood, as long as the City properly addressed traffic issues and concerns.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

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

Councilmember Pust arrived at this time, at approximately 6:20 p.m.

a.                 Approve Payments

Councilmember Ihlan questioned legal services on Page 5, for legal services in the amount of $9,248.84 from the Recreation Fund.

City Manager Malinen advised that this was arbitration on entryway construction at the Skating Center, beyond the City Attorney contract retainer provisions.

Councilmember Roe noted that a significant portion of the total prepaids was a payment of over $440,000 to the contractor of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements.

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

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

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

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

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

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

City Manager Malinen noted that Item #1 was redundant, as the City Council had previously approved the Master Plan Update contract; and was inadvertently included for approvals again.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

d.                 Approve a One-Day Gambling Permit for the Hand in Hand Montessori Raffle on November 29, 2009 at 2131 Fairview Avenue N

          Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request for a One-Day Gambling Permit for the Hand in Hand Christian Montessori Raffle to be held on November 29, 2009 at 2131 Fairview Avenue N.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

e.                 Approve a One-Day Gambling Permit for Como Area Hockey Association on November 21, 2009 at B-Dale Club at 2100 Dale Street

            Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request for a One-Day Gambling Permit for Como Area Hockey Association on November 21, 2009 at B-Dale Club at 2100 Dale Street.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

f.                   Adopt a Resolution authorizing City Manager to apply for SCORE Funding Grant

Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10760 entitled, “Resolution Requesting 2010 Score Funding Grant for Use in Roseville’s Residential Recycling Program, authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to Ramsey County for 2010 SCORE grant funds in the amount of $70,207.00           

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

g.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Medical Direction Agreement between Allina Health Systems and East Metro SWAT

Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10761 entitled, “Medical Direction Agreement – East Metro SWAT and Allina Health Systems, approving a medical direction agreement relating to a combined tactical team with the Cities of St. Anthony, New Brighton, North St. Paul and the University of Minnesota, which is known as the East Metro SWAT Team and authorizing the Chief of Police to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Roseville;” approving the Medial Direction Agreement, effective January 1, 2010 between Allina Health Systems and the East Metro SWAT.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

h.                 Receive an Update Regarding a Request by RECO Real Estate, LLC to approve a Conditional Use to Permit Outdoor Storage at Boater’s Outlet, 1705 County Road C

          Roe moved, Pust seconded, accepting the update of the Community Development Department related to the application for a Conditional use at 1705 County Road C.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

i.                    Adopt a Resolution approving the Request by the City of Roseville for the Vacation of a strip of Public Road Right-of-Way in the Vicinity of Sienna Green

Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10762 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Certain Public Roadway Easement (PF09-029).”

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

j.                   Approve Public Improvement Contract for Sienna Green (PF07-068)

          Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the Public Improvement Contract between the City of Roseville and Snelling Avenue, LLC (developer).

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

a.                 2010 Budget Prioritization Process

1.         Receive 2010 City Manager Recommended Budget

City Manager provided a larger working copy of the spreadsheets provided in the Council packets.  Mr. Malinen noted that the spreadsheet in tonight’s packet provided additional development of the previously-presented spreadsheet, with the addition of a City Manager Recommended Budget, attached in two forms: first a summary by major operating divisions; and the second providing program by program listing in the same format used throughout the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.  Mr. Malinen advised that this spreadsheet reflected a composite of Councilmember and senior management staff rankings and composites; and used as a base the 2009 adjusted budget as referenced in the Springsted Report and profiles, with that budget having been reduced mid-year by approximately $400,000 to reflect the loss of Market Value Homestead Credits (MVHC) to the City.  Mr. Malinen defined the color-coded areas, with the yellow line indicating where the City Council rankings arrived at the last City Council meeting; blue representing new additions to the budget; and orange representing a reduction from the initial amount for the 2010 City Manager Recommended Budget. 

Mr. Malinen noted that the recommended budget was based on the total amount allocated for the Preliminary Levy adopted in September of 2009.  Mr. Malinen advised that adjustments had been made for those items that may not have been ranked as a high priority, but were obligatory expenditures (i.e., Suburban Rate Authority Membership with a written agreement for a one year opt out notice); and further noted that a number of previously-identified 2010 inflationary items had not received a high priority, and had been allocated as appropriate by staff.

City Manager Malinen expressed optimism that most of the higher priority items had remained funded, even though some may have been somewhat reduced; but that there were no apparent major reductions in staffing indicated as a result of the proposed budget; and that it appeared reasonable at this point, with further refinement based on ongoing discussions and direction of the City Council.

Councilmember Pust sought clarification as to the calculation of the staff composite, whether that represented an average of all Department Heads ranking every line item, or Department Heads specifically ranking their individual Departments.

City Manager Malinen clarified that it represented an average of all directors, but did not include his rankings, but was a composite of Department Head averages.

Councilmember Pust sought additional information as to how that breakdown was ranked.

City Manager Malinen advised that it was his understanding that something had been provided to Councilmembers, showing how individual Department Heads ranked their items.

Councilmembers Pust and Johnson concurred that they were not aware of having received this information to-date.

Councilmember Johnson opined that he was awaiting an electronic file of what the City Council had worked on at their October 26, 2009 meeting that would include that information.

Councilmember Roe noted that the information  may have been included on the overall matrix with lines, but that information may have been hidden.

Finance Director Chris Miller advised that he was not sure if the information had been provided to Councilmembers, but he would follow-up and provide the information.

          Councilmember Johnson questioned if it was typical to use a combination of staff and City Council composites in the ranking process.

          City Manager Malinen advised that staff had performed their rankings in tandem with the City Council, and that including their composite rankings was up to the City Council.  Mr. Malinen suggested that it may be helpful to have that information during City Council deliberations to observe any different and/or divergent rankings and their respective perspectives. 

          Councilmember Ihlan noted that, when the BFO process was first proposed, rankings were to come from the public, as a community-based process.  However, Councilmember Ihlan noted that, as a result of the poorly attended community meetings, and limited input from the public at those meetings, this proposed budget ended up being a staff and City Council-ranked budget, not one prioritized by the public.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that there was no way to match the proposed budget with how the members of the public wanted their tax monies spent.

          Councilmember Ihlan further noted the complete elimination in the Park Maintenance Fund of outdoor ice rinks and questioned the intent of this elimination.

          City Manager Malinen confirmed that the proposed 2010 Budget did not include any outdoor neighborhood ice rink preparation and/or maintenance, representing rankings, and the cost to the City to do so.

          Councilmember Ihlan noted, based on comments over the past several years and public interest and importance of these free, neighborhood-based ice rinks to the community; and even with minimal maintenance during that time, the rinks were still funded; and opined that, if public input had been received, the item would still be included in the 2010 budget. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the composite ranking had been 3.0, and still had been eliminated, when items receiving lower rankings remained funded.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this should serve as a red flag to the public of the importance of their input in the ranking process.

          City Manager Malinen noted the priorities provided by those attending the community meetings, when asked to rank City services, with Parks and Recreation and Streets indicated as the lowest priorities of those in attendance, providing some rationale in his decision-making in the recommended 2010 budget.  Mr. Malinen advised that he had worked from the bottom up to determine if some items could be totally eliminated; recognizing that the process was challenging; and addressing the “other” categories that needed to be reallocated according to day-to-day operations.

          Discussion ensued related to how the neighborhood ice rinks were maintained, with City staff rather than hiring temporary staff; intent, pending further review by staff, in reallocating staff time rather than eliminating a position; and addressing some items showing disparate rankings between the City Council and staff. 

          Councilmember Pust cautioned use of input from the community meetings, given the limited number attending and the heavily-weighted age group represented who were not younger families; and questioned whether that input adequately reflected community input.

          City Manager Malinen advised that he was cognizant of that throughout the process; and encouraged Councilmembers not to take this one item used for illustration and to reinforce the BFO process as more relevant than those items remaining below the line and currently unfunded that need to be reinstated, creating the need for reallocation of other line items.

          Councilmember Roe concurred with City Manager Malinen’s comments related to where the line was drawn below City Council priorities with a ranking below 2.2 or 2.0.  Councilmember Roe recognized Councilmember Ihlan’s comments related to neighborhood ice rinks, that this was an opportunity for citizens to provide input at the November 16, 2009 meeting; expressing his hope that the meeting was being well-advertised and would be well-attended; seeking public comment on how well the City Council ranked their priorities.  Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council had ranked the ice rinks highly, trying to reflect the views of citizens as their representatives; and suggested that it may make more sense to look at Parks and Recreation Marketing as a possible way to restore funding for ice rinks, or at least a portion of them. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of restoring funding for all neighborhood ice rinks.

          Along those lines, Councilmember Ihlan noted, on the last page of the budget below the yellow line, noted the “other” category ranked as a 1 by the City Council, with staff ranking it high and its appearance in the adjusted budget; and suggested there may be some room for adjustment in order to preserve outdoor ice rinks.

          City Manager Malinen reiterated the purpose of content of the “other” categories, with staff having left that item as identified in the Springsted Report, and representing numerous items that were inherent to each department’s day-to-day operations.  However, Mr. Malinen suggested that in the future staff would need to be more methodical in defining the “other” category, rather than the current accounting/rounding system.  Mr. Malinen advised that, in this first go around, the skating rinks were a large number, with large revenue off-set. 

          Councilmember Johnson, in reviewing the Police Department Administration category, noted 2008 and 2009 final budget figures; but noted the lack of any substantive figures for 2009, while still budgeting for 2010 and the apparent $141,000 discrepancy.

          Mr. Miller advised that the 2009 final numbers reflected the loss of State Aid, and represented the amended budget in the spring of 2009; with the Police Department budget an example of reallocating annually where certain personnel were assigned. Mr. Miller advised that there was a change during that 2009 for one FTE from police patrol to police administration.  Mr. Miller noted that personnel costs increased by 3% in 2008; however, advised that the increase would have been larger if the allocation had not been switched from patrol to administration.

          Councilmember Johnson sought comparison information for the Police Department between 2008 and 2009; and whether this represented a contingency account and how staff allocated such a contingency.

          Mr. Miller advised that the City only kept a generic contingency account, which was not earmarked for any one department, but available throughout the year as needs indicated.

          Councilmember Johnson requested a copy of the 2008 actual and proposed budgets.

          Mr. Miller duly noted the request; however, advised that in the Comprehensive Annual Reports, the actual budget for each major function was provided; in addition to the detailed information provided to the City Council from staff through their quarterly financial updates, providing the actual budget figures.

          Councilmember Johnson asked and City Manager Malinen confirmed, that this budget had been prepared from information from the public, staff and City Council and his recommendation for what was in the best interest of the City; however, he had not gone to staff for their preferred numbers for a proposed budget.

          Councilmember Johnson opined that his perception was that while operations were down overall by certain percentages; it appeared that the Parks Improvement Program (PIP) funds were taking the brunt of reductions.  Councilmember Johnson further opined that the Parks and Recreation Department had taken a substantial hit with the previous loss of state aid, and suggested that there was a need to keep the level of service in this area and at a level that citizens expected.  Councilmember Johnson noted that it appeared that the department was facing an additional reduction of two FTE from their staff, and he didn’t observe that in other departments, and questioned that imbalance.

          City Manager Malinen noted that, while it appeared to be the most significant, the PIP was at the level as the 2009 adjusted budget.

          Councilmember Johnson noted that, when PIP funds were used to create the Diseased Tree Fund, this had precipitated his concern; opining that the actual PIP budget should be $215,000, not the reduced $165,000.

          Mayor Klausing recognized City Council concerns, as expressed, noting that this illustrates the overall budget problem in addressing state restrictions and setting a maximum levy amount, with desires exceeding funding to achieve them.  Mayor Klausing noted that this was what made the decision-making challenging in what should or should not be funded, or how to find additional revenue sources to fund those higher priority items. 

          Mayor Klausing reviewed his rationale in his ranking higher those items that would provide greater and more long-term ramifications to the City and its citizens if they were unfunded or deferred, and the need to protect the public by not falling further behind (i.e., infrastructure maintenance and replacement), even though those decisions may not be politically popular, but representing honesty for Councilmembers and the public, and what leadership indicated.  Mayor Klausing noted that a citizen may not recognize if fewer patrol cars were in their neighborhood; but that they would notice it if they experienced an emergency.  However, Mayor Klausing noted that citizens would immediately recognize if there were no outdoor ice rinks, and the question was whether the community could handle that lack for a few years to provide funding elsewhere.  Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmembers and the public that the pie was only so big and the discussion was based on shifting within a limited number of resources.

          Councilmember Roe noted that Exhibit A was a work in progress; and that there were a number of items identified as 2010 items under the Council/Administration area that needed to be allocated from there to specific departments; and that reallocation would continue throughout the process.  Councilmember Roe further noted that percentage impacts by department varied as to the dollar impact.  Councilmember Roe sought input from the public as to whether the City Council was ranking funding levels and priorities as desired by citizens before the tough decision-making was completed with ultimate and final 2010  budget adoption.

          Further discussion included City Manager Malinen’s rationale in the proposed adjustments and consistency in that analysis on an individual basis or overall; and reflected 2009 budget adjustments in creating the 2010 budget.

          Councilmember Pust noted on the last page, line 33 under Police “Other” at 3% and apparent discrepancies between the 2009 and 2010 budgets, and similar categories in the Parks and Recreation Department.

          Mr. Miller advised that he would review the data in more detail and provide a response to the City Council.

          Acting Police  Chief Rick Mathwig addressed the “other” category questioned by Councilmember Pust; clarifying that the 2009 adjusted budget cut two Community Service Officers, representing a large portion of that number; with one position vacant and another currently on staff funded by grant funds, but scheduled for elimination once those funds have expired.

          Councilmember Ihlan noted that, in addition to needing public input on the  ranking process; another confusing issue in working through this budget is that the ranking chart only reflects a small part of the City’s overall budget, with many programs and expenditures not represented at this time, and only primarily those funded through property taxes.  Councilmember Ihlan noted City Council spending in other areas, using as an example the Council majority vote to spend $1 million for property acquisition; and advised that had she been sick and unable to attend the meeting, if present she would have voted against the expenditure, further opining that the land was not needed.  Councilmember Ihlan further noted that, even though residents consistently request additional pathway construction, there was no item allotting such funding, even though the City spent money on roads that may not be used.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that all government functions needed to be on the table, so trade-offs could be made over all funds, not just those funded primarily by property taxes.

          Councilmember Roe, in response to Councilmember Ihlan’s comments, noted that the action to acquire property was using tax increment financing (TIF) funds that were restricted in their use; and couldn’t be applied to other areas of expense in the City.  Councilmember Roe further clarified, referencing Attachment A in tonight’s budget materials, the inclusion of all funds, including Enterprise Funds, even though priorities have not been broken down among those funds in this BFO process to-date.  Councilmember Roe noted, as an example from those identified funds, that the Community Development Fund is basically funded from fees paid for Building Permits and Land Use applications, those fees based on the actual cost of providing the service and funded accordingly.  Councilmember Roe, using the Water Utility Enterprise Fund as another example noted that a substantial amount of the $5.9 million budgeted was for payment to the City of St. Paul for providing water to Roseville citizens.  Councilmember Roe noted that suggesting that there could be a trade-off in those funds was not realistic.

          Mayor Klausing concurred, further noting that in relationship to the TIF funds used for property acquisition, State Statute prohibited the City from using those funds for other purposes, such as rink maintenance; as well as charging fees in excess of the services provided for Building Permits, and related inspection costs.

          City Manager Malinen noted that, as previously discussed and agreed upon by the City Council majority, since the tax-supported funds is the area representing the most significant structural imbalances, that was the first area on which the BFO process was focused, with the intent to add other funds to the process as it evolved over subsequent years, and to continue to improve the BFO approach to budgeting.  City Manager Malinen recognized that this was a learning and informative process for all, and subject to refinement as the process proceeded.  With respect to the pathway comment of Councilmember Ihlan, Mr. Malinen noted that he and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz had discussed and included funding for pathway and boulevard maintenance, as part of asset maintenance and replacement, and also in street maintenance material funding.  Mr. Malinen advised that those material costs were adjusted for inflation, including facility supplies and small repairs in an effort to institutionalize funding in annual budgets to preserve the City’s assets, a failure in past budgets.

          Councilmember Ihlan  further addressed the funding for TIF that would otherwise go toward a tax-supported budget; and taking funds from School District and County operating budgets as well.

          Further discussion ensued related to perceptions and limitations for TIF funding allotments; government transparencies and how composite rankings were determined.

          Councilmember Pust, using as an example, page 3, line 97, Parks Maintenance snow plowing and apparently disparate composite rankings between the City Council (4.2) and staff (2.8).

          City Manager Malinen advised that, part of the benefit of the BFO process, was better identifying particular costs in providing a service or program; and comparing it to other programs and costs.  City Manager Malinen suggested that staff may have felt that less maintenance of paths in wintertime was less of a priority than other services and/or programs.

          Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke noted the need to define what the ranking numbers actually meant.  Mr. Brokke advised that when he ranked the categories, if it was something currently being done, he applied a “3;” if a mandatory item, he ranked it a “5;” and if it provided a revenue stream to off-set costs, he ranked it a “4.”  Mr. Brokke noted that Mayor Klausing had ranked the items based on different criteria; and opined that those perspectives made a difference in the composite process.

          Councilmember Pust advised that she had ranked pathway maintenance in the winter as a “5” based on potential liability issues.

          Mr. Brokke advised that he had ranked it as a “3” since the maintenance was currently being done.  Mr. Brokke noted that it also depending on the ranking of Springsted’s analysis of full-time staffing, and included items such as ice technicians, mowers, and misc. consumables such as fuel.

          Mayor Klausing suggested, as the City Council and staff went through the BFO process for the 2011 budget, that a meaningful discussion was on what each of the categories meant; noting that Councilmember Roe’s ranking was based on what we wanted the City to excel at, and his rankings were based on even different criteria. 

          Councilmember Roe noted under the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Ethics Commission, the recommended budget provided a significant reduction in both of those budgets, and questioned whether this was based on potential grant funding for either to replace the tax-supported funding or actual costs.  Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council had recently changed the HRC role and added some things to their slate, and indicated that he wanted to make sure they were fully funded to accomplish those tasks.

          Councilmember Pust questioned the $2,250 allotted for the HRC and Ethics Commission; and the larger $10,000 allotment for the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) Commission. 

          City Manager Malinen advised that, in reviewing the PWET, the amount indicated the amount of time spent by staff in supporting a specific commission; with staff time not included in the Ethics Commission or HRC at this point.  Mr. Malinen advised that the City Council line item for staff support included staff time for the City Council and all advisory commissions; noting that in the next iteration of the process, they would be more clearly defined.

          City Manager Malinen advised that staff had noted tonight’s comments of individual Councilmembers; and would further refine the next presentation accordingly; with that presentation providing for “decision packages” to be inserted (i.e., wage and benefit packages; capital funding; inflationary funding; fuel costs) in the equation. 

          Discussion included which items were included in the process and those that were not.

          Councilmember Pust requested that all budget impact and City Manager-recommended items be included in the proposed 2010 budget for City Council and public consideration prior to the next meeting. 

          Councilmember Ihlan noted in Attachment A, Budget Expenditure Summary, in past years supplemental background information had been provided by staff on those line items; and requested that staff provide to the City Council and public before the next meeting, that information as it related to expenses and revenue.

Public Comment

          Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

          Mr. Grefenberg opined that, while the rankings and BFO process were good, what should the outcomes be?  Mr. Grefenberg suggested that this was what the public deserved as a sense of what the outcomes will be generated by the rankings.  Mr. Grefenberg noted the attendance at the community meetings held in August of 2009, with only fifty (50) people in attendance and City staff defining the answer based on programmed questions when given alternatives of cutting which area, specifically Parks, Fire, Police or Streets; and not given an option for ranking Administration, Finance or Economic Development.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that it would be more important to look at the larger community representation in the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process and reinforced in the Comprehensive Plan Update process, which both provided more civic engagement, and identified neighborhood involvement as a high priority, creating the new charge to the HRC to facilitate that involvement.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that the previous process included pathways, which were given significant reference in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Grefenberg offered to work with the City Council and staff for the next budget cycle to discuss motivation versus outcome.

          Councilmember Johnson reiterated his request to staff to send him the Excel file from the October 26, 2009 meeting for his preparation in debating the preferred level of services.

          City Manager Malinen encouraged Councilmembers to initiate that discussion at tonight’s meeting as a preface to more refined decision-making.  City Manager Malinen advised that staff would continue to define the BFO process so outcomes become more measurable as the process evolved.

          Councilmember Johnson addressed service levels for Program line #86, page 3 of Attachment B-1 (Parks and Recreation “other;” and “marketing”).  As an example, Councilmember Johnson suggested some semblance to get the marketing component and a level of maintenance for outdoor ice rinks reallocated.  Councilmember Johnson sought information from staff on repercussions; and whether volunteers could be tapped to work on the neighborhood skate rinks, given their passion for continuing this service and providing an opportunity for them to assist. 

          Councilmember Pust opined that this would be a critical way to show neighborhood involvement.  Councilmember Pust further noted, in line 87 under Council Salaries that the amount was almost identical to the number needed to keep the outdoor rinks open and maintained and suggested an even trade-off.

          Councilmember Roe noted the Statutory prohibitions for any 2010 budget actions and until after the next City election.

          Councilmember Pust noted that the City Council could collectively agree that they would not take a salary and put that money into the General Fund.

          Councilmember Roe noted his preference to get input from the community on the proposed budget; and areas that are not funded, areas for adjustment; to adequately reflect the needs of the public and all priorities, rather than replacing one program or service with another.

          Councilmember Johnson advised that he didn’t want to micro-manage everything, but that there were different levels and expectations for service levels (i.e., snow blowing; ice control) based on community input. 

           Councilmember Johnson noted that if he applied his salary to reinstate the neighborhood outdoor ice rinks, he’d have nothing left to bargain with for other services and/or programs.

          Councilmember Pust noted that there were 160 items to consider for allocation and/or reallocation.

          Mr. Miller, as noted in past meetings, reiterated the one driving factor in staff pitching the BFO process was the sense of urgency on staff’s part in eliminating the unsustainable practice utilized by the City in maintaining its resources.  Mr. Miller encouraged Councilmembers to decide whether their decisions were sustainable practices or not; otherwise they were only deferring for another year how to right the ship.

          Councilmember Roe, in addressing levels of service and outcomes, noted the prioritization method he’d used.  When he recognized something he thought the community had directed as something they wanted to excel at, such as Parks and Recreation programs, he’d ranked them very high; while some other Parks and Recreation activities had been ranked lower.  Councilmember Roe noted the direction provided by the public in the Imagine Roseville 2025 process, to keep the City’s infrastructure and financial house in order (i.e., upkeep and maintenance), with him taking that charge and ranking those items high, which hopefully reflected the BFO process tied to outcomes.  Councilmember Roe opined that the City could do better in defining performance and the standard of measurement (i.e., such as community relations or service at the reception desk) through qualitative measures, ranked higher with a high standard of performance expected; the ultimate outcomes and how that outcome has improved or evolved to reach that expected level.

          Councilmember Pust questioned whether that process of measuring outcomes could be accomplished through this BFO process, when the existing budget took 160 line items without taking into consideration performance measurement from one year to the next. Councilmember Pust suggested that next year, the numbers be set aside and Department Heads and the City Council worked to determine outcomes they provide to citizens, and how the base line established this year has been improved upon and how to achieve those improvements, then put that in numbers to support the expectations.

          Councilmember Johnson committed to looking over the various categories between now and the next meeting; confer with staff; and return with some compromises other than giving up Councilmember salaries.

          Councilmember Roe, responding to Councilmember Pust’s comments, opined that everything the City did was tied to an ultimate outcome; that it needed to be defined for measurement. 

          Councilmember Roe, in discussing levy impacts on taxpayers, suggested that future discussion be given for each Request for Council Action and related to financial impacts, to define the impact to an average property.

2.                 Discussion on Alternative Revenue Sources

Finance Director Miller highlighted the Request for Council Action for discussion on alternative revenue sources as part of the 2010 budget discussion.  Mr. Miller provided various sources currently being employed by other peer metropolitan communities, suggesting that in the BFO context, it may be purposeful to discuss as an option to eliminating or reducing services or programs.  Mr. Miller identified two (2) potential sources: that of a street light utility fee and a gas and/or electric franchise fee.

Discussion included potential costs of a street light fee estimated at $4/quarter per household with commercial properties calculated at a different rate; a 1% franchise fee for gas and electric customers, with minimal impacts.

Mayor Klausing indicated interest in discussing a majority of the options further; noting past interest at a City Council level.

Councilmember Roe questioned the student enrollment fee option.

Mr. Miller advised that some communities, while not a popular option but noting their local impact on service requirements and exempt tax status, entertain a fee for higher education institutions.

Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to that option.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of further discussion related to any of the proposed options, if the fee could be tied to the City’s actual cost (i.e., street light capital installation and ongoing maintenance costs to the City), since fees should cover costs; and opined that it may be more appropriate for a fee versus a property tax. 

Councilmember Pust noted a continual complaint she heard was a lack of street lighting and if this fee could be used for additional lights; as well as applied to requests by the public for sidewalk installation. 

Mr. Miller responded affirmatively, allowing for an increased presence of street lighting on certain streets or system-wide.  Mr. Miller noted that the City of St. Paul charges fees for sidewalk installation as requested by the public, and that it could be researched further. 

Councilmember Pust sought additional information on how the public would benefit (i.e., commercial police patrol) and fiscal implications.  Councilmember Pust sought how much anticipated income would be realized from fees for any of the options.

Mr. Miller advised that additional staff time could be allotted to provide additional information depending on the direction of the City Council and their interest in pursuing these options.   Mr. Miller estimated potential fees at between $25,000 - $50,000 annually for any of the options.

Discussion included potential and specific areas that may be interested in a higher level of service; previous discussion for a street light fee; limitations on use of revenues specific to those items identified and depreciation costs, but providing relief to the General Fund.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed interest in looking at the Commercial police patrol fee, opining that a large amount of the Police budget was expended in the commercial area; and could potentially provide significant help to the Police Department budget.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that the City missed an opportunity in applying a student enrollment fee when Northwestern College applied for the expansion of their college campus, and a brief discussion was held related to Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), without any resolution.  Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition of a student enrollment fee falling on students; however, spoke in support of the City leveraging fees from a college, given the amount of City services they utilized.

Councilmember Roe noted that the City did look into PILOT; and suggested that additional information be provided by staff, similar to that of the Commercial patrol fee, on tying real costs to the fees, rather than making presumptions that most of the Police Department costs are related to commercial activities.  Councilmember Roe opined that, while such presumptions may be valid, they needed to be substantiated by actual costs.

Further discussion included the business model used by Information Technology (IT) services and a formula for annual adjustments based on direct and indirect costs, continually evolving.

11.             Public Hearings

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.     Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 177 South Owasso Boulevard

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated November 9, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this vacant, single-family home.  Mr. Munson advised that the current owner is Ms. Felicia Hodge, who is currently residing in California.

Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of tires and garbage bags, and junk/debris in the yard, at a cost estimated at $300.00.

Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations at 177 South Owasso Blvd.

Klausing moved, Pust seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at 177 South Owasso Boulevard  by hiring a general contractor to remove and dispose of old tires and garbage bags, and junk/debris in the yard, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated November 9, 2009, at an estimated cost of approximately $300.00; 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; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2026 Asbury Street

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated November 9, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this owner-occupied, single-family home.  Mr. Munson advised that the current owner is Ms. Grace Mwassa, who is currently residing in the home.  Mr. Munson noted that similar violations occurred in 2003; as well as long grass violations in 2004 and 2009.

Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of extensive junk and household furnishings, removal, storage and eventual disposal of household furnishings stored outside, at a cost originally estimated at $2,850.00.  Mr. Munson advised that staff had finally been able to meet with the property owner earlier today; and was therefore revising the Request for Council Action based on that discussion.  Mr. Munson advised that the original complaint had been from a neighbor; with the property owner admitting that most of the junk and debris in the yard was from her emptying her garage, and had minimal value.  Therefore, Mr. Munson suggested that the items were not proposed for storage; and that the property owner was amenable to and intended to dispose of the material, but could not afford a dumpster at this time, nor would she commit to a date for the work to be completed.  Mr. Munson advised that the property owner had paid someone to bring in a dumpster, but that had failed to do so and she had lost the money she paid them to do so.  Mr. Munson asked the property owner if she planned to attend tonight’s meeting, to which she responded negatively. 

Mr. Munson suggested a simplified and less costly process, to hire a contractor and place the items in the dumpster, eliminating the need for storage and reducing the total estimated cost to approximately $1,000.  Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations at 2026 Asbury Street.

Discussion included determining that the property owner had no apparent physical or mental disability preventing them from accomplishing this clean up; verification that the property owner was not a senior citizen;  staff recommending area agencies (Northwest Youth and Family Services) that could assist the property owner with the work; and the potential for financial assistance in providing the dumpster.

Mr. Munson advised that the property owner seemed willing to dispose of the material, and staff was intending to place a dumpster on the property, allowing her the first opportunity to perform the work before hiring a contractor, which would further reduce costs; and would allow the property owner a year to reimburse the cost of the dumpster before being assessed to property taxes.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at 2026 Asbury Street; by hiring a general contractor to remove and dispose of junk and debris, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated November 9, 2009, at an estimated total cost of approximately $1,000.00; 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; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Additional discussion related in general to code violations included how staff identified their list of contractors, depending on the timing, their availability, and their costs, as well as weather related considerations; and staff follow-up on locating rain barrels in front yards, based on ordinance provisions, and based on the number of rain barrels determined to constitute a public nuisance.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 pm.