City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

November 16, 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 Jay Squires was also present.

2.                 Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.

3.         Public Comment

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

a.         Dean Maschka, Friends of the OVAL Foundation

Mr. Maschka presented the City with a check from the Friends of the OVAL Foundation in the amount of $22,348; announcing the Foundation’s anticipation that this would become an annual event.  Mr. Maschka advised that the Foundation’s first goal is to increase the Endowment Fund to $1 million.  Mr. Maschka further advised that at the last Foundation meeting, they had approved a check in the amount of $45,000 for repair of the expansion joints. 

Mr. Maschka announced the upcoming Chill event scheduled for Saturday, November 21, 2009 at the OVAL and encouraged the public to attend, and extended a personal invitation to City Councilmembers.

On behalf of the community, City Council and staff, Mayor Klausing thanked the Foundation for their generosity.

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

a.                 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Quarterly Update

Community Development Director and HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon; HRA Chair Dean Maschka; and Housing Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey presented the HRA’s quarterly review for the public and City Council.

Two bench handouts were distributed and respectively entitled, “Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Agency 2009 Work Plan;” and “Conclusions and Recommendation Summary” of the City’s Housing Study recently completed by Maxfield Research, Inc. 

Mr. Trudgeon summarized the HRA Work Plan, noting those items that had been accomplished; those in process; and those remaining to be addressed.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the HRA’s next quarterly presentation would provide a final year-end report on the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP), as well as a code enforcement update.

Ms. Kelsey provided a brief summary of the housing study, noting that the entire document was a 100-page comprehensive report, and was available on the HRA website, or could be provided to the public and City Council on DVD or via hard copy at their request.  Ms. Kelsey noted the favorable results provided by Maxfield in the depth of their report, beyond what was requested or anticipated; and reviewed some of the highlights of the report. 

Ms. Kelsey noted that the report concluded that existing senior housing in Roseville is more than sufficient at this time, and into the future; and there were no recommendations for additional assisted or memory care senior housing units before 2013; and that there was no future need for any additional congregate care in the community.  Ms. Kelsey noted that the report did address a lack of affordable senior housing in the community, with none currently available for rental housing based on income or limited income based on median area incomes.  Ms. Kelsey advised that the community only had two existing Section 8 facilities at this time, both having a two year waiting list; but that other affordable housing, with smaller units, was currently being met.  Ms. Kelsey further advised that the available upper-scale rental housing facilities, built in the 1950’s to 1970’s, lacked amenities to those expecting more at that price range; and suggested that the housing study did support another project similar to the Lexington, which had also been built over 20 years ago. 

Ms. Kelsey summarized housing needs in Roseville as being the need for more affordable family housing (2-3 bedroom units), with only The Coventry and Calibre Ridge available at this time, with limited 3 bedroom units; and another need for an upper-end senior housing facility with expected amenities. 

Ms. Kelsey advised that the full report included a survey of all rental buildings in Roseville and their rent ranges; and vacancies of those current buildings.  Ms. Kelsey noted that it was the hope of the HRA that the housing study could be updated every five years.

Discussion between HRA representatives and Councilmembers included what the HRA anticipated as their next step or focus for recommendation to the City Council, with the HRA anticipating using the information from the study to determine how developers are meeting a niche in Roseville housing as a tool in decision-making for land use decisions and requests for financial participation.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned why the HRA was not included as part of the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.

Mr. Trudgeon responded that the HRA followed traditional annual budgeting processes for public vetting of priorities, as there had been no other directive to consider a different method; and that this traditional method had been represented to the City Council in the HRA’s Preliminary Budget and Levy requests in September.

Further discussion included use of the housing study by the City to verify those market studies presented by developers during land use discussions, holding it up for Planned Unit Development (PUD) decision-making processes.

HRA Chair Dean Maschka noted that many Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT’s) were addressing a niche market for your professionals, which could be located in select areas of Roseville, in addition to high-end senior housing.  Chair Maschka further noted that many HRA’s across the state are getting involved in owning or managing affordable senior housing projects, that they seemed to work well, and would be an option that the Roseville HRA would research.

In conclusion, Mr. Trudgeon and Ms. Kelsey announced preliminary planning for the 2010 Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair, celebrating its 14^th year, and rebranded as “Living Smarter.” The 2010 Fair is scheduled on February 20, 2010 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Discussion of the Fair included the re-energized and additional educational opportunities and venues offered in 2009 garnering favorable comments from those attending, as well as sponsors and exhibitors; diminished sponsors and exhibitors due to the current economic market conditions; individual solicitations of staff and members of the HRA Board for sponsors and exhibitors; and staff’s methods to interest new exhibitors via one-to-one personal invitations.

Mr. Trudgeon provided an updated map of foreclosures in Roseville, with little increase between 2009 (58 foreclosures in 2009 and 59 in 2010); staff’s continual monitoring of their location and where any clusters may be developing causing concern (James Addition); staff‘s cooperative efforts with utility companies for disconnects or lack of payment, and Sheriff’s Sale data; and staff’s visual monitoring with drive-bys.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that while it was unfortunate that there were too many foreclosures, the City of Roseville didn’t have enough to qualify for Neighborhood Stabilization Funds.

Mayor Klausing noted that in recent appraisal information in Roseville there was some stabilization being realized, and some increase in value, which was an encouraging sign.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of November 9, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the November 9, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.

Corrections: (Roe)

                        Page 1, line 37

Page 7, line 22

Page 11, line 41

Page 7, line 9

Page 7, line 10

Page 11, line 7

Page 11, line 28

Page 16, line 8

Page 17, line 14

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; 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 the item being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.                 Approve Payments

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

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

a.                 Adopt an Ordinance Approving the 2010 Fee Schedule

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the annual Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009, detailing staff-recommended adjustments to the Fee Schedule establishing fees and charges for services of the City’s regulatory functions, following staff’s comprehensive review of those fees.  Mr. Miller advised that staff was only recommending establishment of two new fees to offset costs currently funded by non-program revenues, including pathway patching fees and engineering-related fees for plan review and permits.

Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included recommended increase of $5 in the leaf pick-up program for 2010 to more completely cover the program costs through fees to reduce taxpayers subsidizing the program.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that, since the City would pick up leaves regardless to keep them out of the storm sewer, this increase seemed to set the residential service up to fail based on ever-increasing fees, making it less and less affordable and unavailable for those needing the services.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that she would prefer to see this program made available to all, with costs for the program spread across the community via sewer fees.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that this program was unique to Roseville and appreciated by program participants.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned the basis for the recommended $5 fee increase.

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised that the recommended increase was to off-set the subsidy portion; with the assumption that the City receives a benefit from the program after the $45,000 program costs to clean gutters and streets, with this fee an attempt to pick up the remainder from participants of the program.  Mr. Schwartz advised that program participants remained steady, with approximately 12 – 1300 residents using the program; and further noted increased costs of running the program due to inflation, equipment and staff costs.

Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Ihlan made some good points; however noted the extensive discussions held by previous City Councils, as well as the current body, in addition to review by one or more advisory commissions; with the current program balancing interests of program participants and that of the entire community.  Mayor Klausing opined that continuing the program was a wonderful asset to the community, helped in making it a welcoming community, and remained of value.  However, Mayor Klausing further opined that there was a need to ensure that costs came closer to those benefiting most directly; and clarified that the City picked up leaves in the storm gutter, but this allowed participants to place their leaves on the boulevard for pickup by the City.

Councilmember Roe noted comments last year from a resident stating that the City and his waste hauler were very competitive in providing this service.  Councilmember Roe opined that the City fee didn’t appear to be driving participants away from the program; and that the fee was not out of line from that perspective.

Councilmember Ihlan, on page 2 of the Fee Schedule (Attachment A) questioned the DVD/VHS copying fee charge of $15; opining that this fee seemed excessive.

Mr. Miller advised that this was an attempt to recoup costs for individual requests for copies of various meetings, noting that the City incurred costs in making the copies (equipment, supplies and staff time) for this value-added service.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed that the new fee proposed for pathway patching fees after underground utility service work for a property owner may fall more heavily on some homeowners, depending on whether it was a concrete panel or bituminous patch, and suggested that the cost should be borne across the entire community.

Councilmember Roe, on pages 10 and 11 of the Schedule related to commercial construction permit fees for sewer and water connections, as well as fence permit fees, noted that the proposed fee was based on calculation of a formula related to project valuation; and suggested that an appendix be included referencing how that formula was calculated, similar to that used for building permits and plan review.

Mr. Miller advised that there was not currently an appendix, but that staff could address that.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was a sliding scale, based on a state formula and valuation of the improvement on a percentage basis.

Councilmember Roe advised that he still had an issue in not defining how the calculation was achieved, referencing Building Permit fees on page 6 as an example, showing ranges of values.

Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the existing fee schedule for those items be followed, with staff doing further research and bringing it forward as an amendment to the 2010 Fee Schedule as a later date.

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Attorney Jay Squires suggested that it would be a better practice for the City to provide a calculation for such valuation.

Mayor Klausing concurred with Mr. Trudgeon’s suggestion to keep the fees as current for these areas, and come back later with an amendment to the Fee Schedule.

Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, enactment of an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Adopting the 2010 Fee Schedule (Attachment A),” as presented and detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009 (Attachment B); amended to defer to 2009 fees for commercial sewer fees.

Councilmember Roe concurred that the DVD/VHS fee was too high at $15; but suggested that the Fee Schedule could be amended at any time.

Mayor Klausing expressed concern in the City Council micro-managing staff efforts to cover costs; noting that there was a budget shortfall yet to be addressed.  However, Mayor Klausing expressed his willingness to accept the motion as it stands.

Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, amending the DVD/VHS fee from the proposed $15 to $5.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: Johnson.

Motion carried.

Ihlan moved to remove the sidewalk and pathway patching fee.

The Chair declared the motion failed for lack of a second.

Mayor Klausing clarified the original motion as amended: including Engineering-related fees for Plan Review and Permits remaining as recommended by staff at $268; and Attachment B amended to defer to 2009 fees for commercial, water, sewer and fence connection fees and reducing the DVD/VHS copy fees from the staff-recommended $15 to $5.

Original Motion (as amended)

Roe restated the original motion and moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1387 entitled, “An Ordinance Adopting the 2010 Fee Schedule (Attachment A),” as presented and detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009 (Attachment B); amended to defer to 2009 fees for commercial connection fees for water, sewer and fences at 2009 fees.

Councilmember Roe and Mr. Miller clarified, that currently the cost of sidewalk and/or pathway patching was the responsibility of individual homeowners in its entirety.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

10.             Presentations

a.                 Budget Discussion – Finalize 2010 Tax Levy and Budget

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009, detailing ongoing discussion on the 2010 recommended budget; with City Council and staff rankings now segregated for the benefit of citizens. 

Mr. Miller advised that the public had been invited to tonight’s meeting to provide their feedback on priority rankings and the proposed City Manager-recommended budget to-date.  Mr. Miller provided a brief history of the rationale in changing from the traditional and unsustainable traditional budget methodology to this Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) approach; attempting to correct structural issues over several budget cycles, and to provide transparency for the public and a greater breakdown of various programs and services, and the level of services expected by local taxpayers. 

Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers and the public that, in addition to anticipated 2010 expenses that were being held at 2009 adjusted budget levels, the City would be experiencing a $450,000 loss in state aid for both 2009 and 2010, which had been incorporated into the proposed 2010 budget.  Mr. Miller briefly reviewed 2010 impacts and lack of funding related to capital replacement needs (i.e., vehicle replacement); and pressures on all programs and services.

Councilmember Roe requested that staff provide clarification and a breakdown for 2010 by individual department on Attachment A under the City Council/Administration category those impacts that are spread throughout the various departments (i.e., healthcare benefit increase; vehicle replacement across departments); and asked if this was available or still in progress.

Mr. Miller advised that those items in the 2010 City Council/Administration category on Attachment A were not shown by division yet, but would be done once final discussions had been completed.

Councilmember Ihlan reiterated previous requests at past meetings for a line item budget corresponding with the City Manager-recommended budget and expenditure summaries in Attachments A and B; and asked when that would be available to the public and Councilmembers.

City Manager Malinen advised that Attachment B had been staff’s response to Councilmember Ihlan’s request for inclusion and categorization of all other funds providing that additional detail in each category (i.e., personnel, supplies).

Councilmember Ihlan opined that Attachment A had helped, but that she was looking for similar breakdowns as provided in previous budget years, with line items supporting total numbers on expense summaries for specific programs, typically consisting of 20-25 pages breaking down expenditures. 

Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmember Ihlan and the public that, as previously noted by staff, staff has not yet prepared a line item budget, since a different process is underway for this 2010 budget cycle; with the 160 programs identified from the 2009 budget along with the Springsted Report and analysis; with the 2009 budget document available for reference and showing line items as being requested. 

Councilmember Ihlan noted that she wanted to see a breakdown of non-property tax programs as well as property-tax supported programs as soon as possible in order to facilitate further discussion.  Councilmember Ihlan further questioned if the current assumptions were based on the full 2010 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget request to-date; and if that number included the proposed 2010 HRA Levy.  Councilmember Ihlan requested the total amount if the City and HRA Levies were combined; and whether this assumed any use of reserves, or was completely tax and fee based.

Mr. Miller advised that, as it currently stood, the 2010 City Manager-recommended budget reflected the Preliminary Levy and Budget assumptions; and was only based on the City portion of the Preliminary Levy, not the HRA Preliminary Levy.  Mr. Miller further advised that the City Levy currently stood at an approximate 8.8% increase, and the addition of the HRA Levy would be approximately 9 or 9.1%; and that it assumed no use of reserves at this time.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned how the level of services were reflected in the actual budget; if the BFO process was actually meant to prioritize what was funded and the level of service funded; and how the public could determine impacts of alternative levels of service.

Mr. Miller advised that this would be the next step in future budget cycles, following further City Council deliberation and direction to staff; since staff has only been able to define a portion of services, but not on a city-wide basis.

Councilmember Roe suggested to staff that, in addition to Attachment B, the Springsted report identifying personnel services, and supplies (4 categories total) as an additional page for Attachment B would suffice and provide the requested information.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that she wanted something more detailed than that; and was attempting to find comparable information on the website beyond just those four categories per department, since some are more specific than others; and addressed how money was spent within specific departments, and the applicable funding sources.

Councilmember Johnson questioned if regulating overtime more stringently could impact the level of service; and how much that impact would be.

Mr. Miller responded affirmatively, noting that department by department, cutting staffing resources would create service impacts.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council could look at the current overtime policies as they moved into next year’s process to determine which performance measures should be developed.  Mr. Miller advised that the 2009 budget document line items included overtime by division, but had not been carried over into 2010.

Councilmember Johnson requested that staff provide the policies to him and fellow Councilmembers to allow them to discern what type of controls were pertinent and those that were not.

Councilmember Johnson addressed the final page of Attachment B-1 (line item #58 – parks and recreation marketing); clarifying that this included the periodic and seasonal community booklets on programming.  Councilmember Johnson further noted that the current budget represented no funding for outdoor skating rinks, and a reduction in the Park Improvement Program (PIP).

City Manager Malinen clarified that, relative to the PIP, the 2009 program originally allotted $215,000, with no funding for diseased trees; however, the PIP was reduced by $50,000 to address diseased trees; recommended to remain status quo for 2010 to the adjusted 2009 budget at $165,000, with two (2) separate line items.

Councilmember Johnson expressed his concern with that, opining that the PIP should never be funded below $200,000; with the common misconception that this is a capital account, when actually it was a maintenance account.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the Parks Department struggled to maintain equipment and facilities with that amount, let alone any further reduction; as well as his concern that the Emerald Ash Borer problem may need to be addressed sooner than anticipated, with only $50,000 currently allotted for diseased trees.  Councilmember Johnson opined that healthy trees were part of a healthy, vibrant and welcoming community, not just related to one specific department.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that, in her research of the City’s website, she had found the line item budget for 2009, under “Budget Work Papers” entitled #1 and #2, that included the details that she had in mind and consistent with past years.

Councilmember Roe clarified, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that the 2010 listing for Vehicle and Equipment Replacement at $450,000 represented $340,000 just to get back to 2008 levels, with the additional $110,000 to move toward adequate funding; and opined that this was not a lot if looking to offset costs and would do so at the expense of the Equipment Fund, moving it back toward zero again, with the exception of $110,000.

Councilmember Roe concurred with the line item reflecting loss of state aid for 2010 in the amount of $450,000, which was in addition to expenses, since the state would take that amount back once they gave property owners their MVHS credits, 40% over last years increase, with the state forcing the City to include that amount if they wanted to provide full funding for their regular programs at current service levels.  Councilmember Roe sought to clarify for the public that while it may appear to taxpayers that the City was requesting an additional $450,000, they needed to be aware that the State was taking it back and it didn’t really represent a credit; causing municipalities to increase their levy and budget by an additional $450,000.

b.                 Receive Public Comment on 2010 Budget

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed 2010 Budget.

Public Comment

For the record, City Manager Malinen noted receipt of written e-mailed comment for tonight’s meeting from Garry F. Andersen, 1711 Skillman Avenue W; and Jason Etten, 2054 Cohansey Boulevard

Garry F. Andersen, 1711 Skillman Avenue W

Mr. Andersen noted that he had provided his comments in writing via e-mail, most related to City reserves; and acknowledged Councilmember Roe’s response to his e-mail, allowing him to better understand designated and non-designated reserve funds. 

Mr. Andersen sought additional information on which funds were and were not designated, and suggested a worksheet be provided for public consumption and detailing which is based on City ordinance and which related to State regulations to provide more transparency.

Mr. Andersen opined that it appeared that the City was continuing to fall short of funds for street repair, based on his interpretation of PMP funds; questioned reserve fund availability based on investment policies and maturity dates.  Mr. Andersen also questioned the status of TIF Funds scheduled for reimbursement by developers, given the current economic climate and many of those developers going out of business, questioning risk impacts to the City’s investment program as well as TIF funds.

Mr. Andersen also requested information on the status of contract re-negotiations; future allotment of funds as a policy discussion and in more detail to better define designated funds.  Mr. Andersen suggested that if the City was going to tax citizens to replenish specific funds, then user fees should be reduced (i.e., water, sewer) to provide more cash flow for citizens.  Mr. Andersen opined that, compared to other communities, it appeared that the City of Roseville was hoarding money.

Mr. Andersen thanked Councilmembers for their time and efforts on behalf of the community.

Councilmember Roe directed the public to the City’s Finance Department webpage, and the ten-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) demonstrating anticipated needs and expenditures for that period.

John Abler, SW corner of RV, 21 year resident

Mr. Abler opined that recently, property taxes were out of line, with the country in the middle of a recession and that the City needed to do more with less, similar to all citizens.  Mr. Abler cited several northern suburbs (Anoka and Ramsey?) that had actually kept their levies at zero percent; and neighboring Falcon Heights proposing a minimal 1.25% levy increase.  Mr. Abler encouraged Councilmembers to keep the 2010 Levy close to or at zero percent; and addressed senior citizens looking at a zero percent cost-of-living increase in 2010; and were not in a position to pay increased property taxes with no additional income to do so. 

Mr. Abler noted that, while Mr. Miller addressed past budgets as going down an unsustainable path, as a taxpayer, he couldn’t continue to pay double-digit increases.  Mr. Abler expressed his dissatisfaction specifically with the City’s police department and services; and expressed frustration in where the money went.  Mr. Abler suggested that the City Manager be more creative in budgeting; and advised that he would try to remain optimistic, but hoped that he wouldn’t read in the local newspaper of the final budget and levy at a 9% increase.

Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Mr. Neprash, speaking on behalf of the Board of the Roseville Citizens League (RCL), advised that they had developed no position on specific line items or priorities, but would like to convey several opinions regarding aspects of the BFO budgeting process.  The RCL commended City staff, with City Council support, for the various programs and components designed to increase public understanding of the budget process and to involved citizens, an effort not seen in past years. 

Mr. Neprash highlighted some of those efforts, including four public meetings scheduled over the summer months; the instant survey process for participants at those meetings; availability of budget materials on the City’s website; and the Roseville University program; materials for budget process on website.  Mr. Neprash noted that it was unfortunate that attendance at the community meetings was too low to provide a lot of weight on the instant survey results; however, opined that the materials presented were instructive, while limiting the results of the instant survey process, while remaining interesting.  As a Citizen organization, Mr. Neprash advised that the RCL was disappointed in the participation, but more important were pleased that the opportunity was made available, an opportunity at which many RCL members were able to participate.  Mr. Neprash advised that RCL members also had participated in Roseville University, and to a person, were very impressed with the information provided and the commitment to the program by staff; and the RCL strongly recommended that the City continue that program, and recommended attendance of any Roseville resident seeking to know how their City operated.  Mr. Neprash, on behalf of the RCL, opined that they were impressed with the budget materials included on the City website, with the information detailed and well-organized, and helpful in understanding the decision-making for a budget process in an understandable manner for residents.

In recent conversations with RCL members, Mr. Neprash advised that residents have a high level of confidence in staff and City Councilmembers, and recognized how they had successfully addressed serious issues in the past and expressed confident that they would be able to address them now.  Mr. Neprash suggested that this may be why it seemed that so relatively few people have become more involved in the budget process this year.

In conclusion, Mr. Neprash advised that the RCL commends the City for increasing its offerings in programs to inform citizens, and urged staff and Councilmembers to continue to build on those programs in the future.

Bob Willmus

Mr. Willmus expressed his desire that citizens could come before the City Council tonight with detailed recommendations on where to spend money, opining that last year when he served on the City Council, it was majority opinion that the budget process was opaque and lacking in transparency, thus the change in methodology to the BFO process.  However, Mr. Willmus opined that this was not a BFO process and still lacked transparency in providing the outcomes within the budget summaries.  Mr. Willmus confessed that he was at a loss on what to comment on; and expressed his hope that more detailed budget information (i.e., line items) would be forthcoming and prove helpful.

Mr. Willmus advised that, when looking at summaries to-date, it was his perception that this proposed budget would have a devastating effect on the City’s Park and Recreation Department budget, programs and services. Mr. Willmus noted that there were still shortcomings in staff funding; no funding for outdoor rinks; and expressed his efforts to balance this proposed budget and weigh it against other years.  Mr. Willmus noted that between 2003 and 2009, the department’s full-time equivalent (FTE) employees had been reduced from approximately 27 to 23; and asked that the City Council balance that with other increases since 2009, using as an example the City’s public safety services administration budgets (Fire and Police) and operations increasing by close to 60%.  Mr. Willmus questioned this increase with the current demographic and population levels in Roseville.  Mr. Willmus noted that the budget was largely driven and consumed by personnel costs, and suggested that each department be reviewed to see where they had scaled back.  Mr. Willmus further addressed the City’s recycling program and reduction in revenue sharing to-date in 2009; and asked if Eureka Recycling has approached the City to renegotiate their contract based on the lack of market demand for certain recyclable quantities as addressed Section 5.2 of their contract.

City Manager Malinen advised that Eureka had not yet formally approached the City.

Dick Houck, Roseville

Mr. Houck advised that he took a simplistic approach to the budget: when the economy is up, people spend extra money on extra services; and when the economy was down, the City needed to do the same thing citizens were required to do: to live within your income.  Mr. Houck opined that there could not be spending on anything other than essentials; and further opined that no one in the audience would ask for an increase in their income when money was short.

Mr. Houck opined that fees are nothing more than taxes; and that even when applied to commercial or retail businesses, those increases trickled down to individual citizens.  Mr. Houck opined that the City Council had a moral obligation to keep the budget at close to zero.

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg expressed his pleasure in seeing so many residents from southwest Roseville at tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Grefenberg agreed with Councilmember Ihlan on the need for line items, and opined that this budget process wasn’t very transparent.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that overtime was the easiest way to cut budgets, and asked specifically for additional information on overtime costs for all departments.  Mr. Grefenberg questioned why the Police Department Administration budget had gone up 46.1% and a commensurate reduction been realized in the Police Department Patrol budget, with property crimes increasing, while violent crimes had been reduced; and sought justification for cops spending time behind desks rather than in squads or on patrol.  Mr. Grefenberg, when asked at the community meetings to rank services, advised that he had ranked the Police Department first, but asked for more detail to justify such a large increase.

Mr. Grefenberg asked when salary discussions, union contract re-negotiations, and freezes on discretionary increases would be addressed, even while recognizing that employees are the City’s most valuable asset, and was not condoning firing employees; but just seeking additional information to indicate how serious the City was in comparison with other municipalities and their attempts to cut back.

Mr. Grefenberg opined that this is the year for being frugal and supported alternative budget processes, while understanding that the process is not perfect, but needing better measurements unless 1% was cut across the board from all budgets allowing for those impacts to be identified for public information.  Mr. Grefenberg spoke in support of taking a small percentage from the City’s reserve funds; spoke in support of leaving some City services intact (i.e., libraries, parks and recreation) for the benefit of citizens forced to cut other essential services and expenditures.

Mr. Grefenberg commended the City in their valiant attempts to involve the community, but opined that this proposed levy was still too high for those on fixed incomes.

Bruce Branigan, 2082 Cohansey Boulevard (adjacent to Villa Park)

Mr. Branigan spoke in support of community programs, specifically the excellent Police Department and its dedicated and concerned personnel in the community with superb response time.  Mr. Branigan also spoke, from a neighborhood perspective, in support of the City’s park system, opining it was one of the best in the country and nationally recognized, and Mr. Brokke’s dedication to participation of neighborhoods in the park system.  Mr. Branigan noted that his neighborhood was very organized and believed in volunteering and self-help and were active in park clean up, security, neighborhood watch programs, and in preserving other neighborhood amenities.  Mr. Branigan opined that the parks were part of a healthy community, while not always evidenced as such; and encouraged involvement of talented volunteers as an additional source of strength for the community and government. 

Mr. Branigan thanked the City Council for their dedication to often thankless tasks; expressed his appreciation and the support of his neighborhood.

Jason Etten, 2054 Cohansey Boulevard (written e-mail)

Mr. Etten noted that he had provided his comments by e-mail, but reiterated them in person.  Mr. Etten spoke in support of preserving the Parks and Recreation programs; dedication of the Police and Fire Departments; continued review of inflationary expenses (i.e., road striping); and expressed his confusion in Attachments A and C, apparently representing two different forms of the budget and providing different numbers. Mr. Etten opined that he found some of the information overwhelming and sought clarification.

Mr. Etten expressed interest in the future of the Police and Fire Chief positions and budget impacts.

Mayor Klausing advised that the City Manager was responsible for hiring and firing City employees, and would make recommendation on those positions to the City Council at a later date.

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m.; and thanked citizens for their interest in the budget and for their time and input.

Discussion among City Councilmembers and staff included responding to those questioned raised by the public during comment; including clarifying the 2009 adjusted budget and the 2010 City Manager-recommended budget and total expenditures and revenues that factored in program revenues; with staff tasked with clarifying those items representing apparent discrepancies (i.e., program net costs versus levy).

Further discussion included rationale for listing some program revenues, but not others, based on dedicated programs and/or functions, or those spread over the entire budget (i.e., interest earnings); explanation of internal accounting fund charge backs (i.e., water/sewer funds) for individual employees and City Councilmember allotments performing functions for more than one department; and clarification that the City’s General Fund held approximately $3.2 million in reserves, which would cover approximately 3-4 months of operating revenue, as common practice, but not at the 50% policy level guided by City Council policy; with no restrictions on those funds, but earmarked for the General Fund and discretionary.

At the request of Councilmembers, City Manager Malinen reviewed salaries and employee contract negotiations, with the 2010 City Manager-recommended budget assuming zero percent increase in COLA for staff; 1 contract renegotiated to that effect, with the others in process; and assuming step adjustments for those employees not having reached their highest step adjustment in their respective job classifications. 

City Manager Malinen further clarified that budget discussions to-date assume that the City is on track to fund the full Preliminary General Fund and HRA Levies, as detailed in Attachment B, including some of those programs not property tax or completely property-tax supported; with previous priority discussions noting that only a portion of the global city-wide priorities being addressed in this first BFO process; and with no discussion to-date on relying on reserves to diminish the impact of the tax increase, or staff review of a potential 1-2% cut across the board and related impacts.

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Miller clarified the City Council-adopted policy related to operating reserves, based on receipt of tax settlements from Ramsey County twice per year and to facilitate the City’s cash flow; and the City policy stating that reserve levels should be at a level of six months, or 50% of the annual budget, with the current practice not adhering to that policy, but underfunded.  Mr. Miller advised that some years, the City has come close to expending all of those reserves, and even some years have run negative and borrowed internally from other funds, while awaiting replenishment of funds from Ramsey County tax collections for operational costs.

Further discussion included the status of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) set up as an endowment fund with the City basing annual maintenance and reconstruction on the interest earnings, as it was set up to do in the 1980’s by previous City Councils, with contributions diminished or eliminated at some point and in an effort to avoid issuing bonds for repairs and replacements, a common practice in many municipalities, with the fund currently at approximately $13.6.

Councilmember Roe noted that while it may be legal to use reserves, the City was only deferring future capital improvements by transferring that money for operational costs and not meeting short and long-term capital needs.

City Manager Malinen, in response to public comments about the BFO process, admitted that it was not a pure BFO process at this time, but had been used as an initial step in identifying and prioritizing those things that were important to the community, recognizing that the current budget process was no longer sustainable.  Mr. Malinen noted that the 2009 budget had essentially no increases from that of 2008 other than personnel cost increases; and that the 2010 budget did essentially the same thing, freezing adjusted 2009 spending, other than newly-mandated items.  Mr. Malinen advised that the City was doing what the public speakers suggested, working off numbers and budgets several years old, in addition to the 2009 cut of $450,000 when the MVHS was “unallotted.”  Mr. Malinen noted the $900,000 in obligatory funding to pay back the State of MN for 2009 and 2010 tax credits; with limited remaining funds being directed toward capital improvements (i.e., vehicle replacement); while attempting to deal with the ongoing structural issues from past budgets.  Mr. Malinen sought the public’s patience in improving the BFO process for the next budget cycle, with staff keeping notes on how to achieve that improvement.  Mr. Malinen thanked the public for their comments and their attendance; and encouraged them to ask questions of the staff whenever.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned what the next iteration of the budget would look like, noting that the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing was coming up soon, and line items should be available.

Mayor Klausing advised that the Council and staff would continue moving toward a final budget; and suggested that if Councilmember Ihlan was supporting a zero percent levy, she provide staff and fellow Councilmembers with her specific proposals to accomplish that, expressing his interest in seeing those recommendations.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that a zero percent levy was not coming from one person, and if the Mayor was looking for someone to step forward with alternatives, she could not do so, but could come back with ideas, if she had line item detail.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that it would be a team, not individual, effort; and suggested that alternatives be provided to allow something concrete for decision-making; and spoke in support of carefully taping reserves to avoid putting the even a smaller levy increase on taxpayers.

Mayor Klausing advised that he was not aware of what individual Councilmembers would suggest; however, advised that he would review staff and public input to further refine the budget from his perspective, while not anticipating any dramatic changes since there appeared to be little room for movement in consideration of what needed funding and the City’s contractual obligations.  Mayor Klausing encouraged individual Councilmembers to get their proposals to staff as soon as possible to allow their analysis and feedbacks on impacts from those proposals.

Councilmember Roe advised that he would be preparing his recommendations between now and the next meeting for discussion; and would be contacting staff in all departments to determine impacts of his recommendations; and anticipated coming to the next meeting with suggestions that would work for productive discussion among the entire City Council.

11.             Public Hearings

a.                 Conduct a Public Hearing for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack

Finance Director Miller advised that Joe’s Crab Shack had been a former license holder until the business had closed for a period of time, and now that hey were making improvements and reopening, were interested in reactivating their license.  Mr. Miller advised that all necessary paperwork was in order and recommended approval.

Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack; with no one appearing for or against.

Applicant representative Tim Melton, with Joe’s Crab Shack, was present.

Councilmember Roe asked Mr. Melton if he was aware of the optional server and manager training program provided by the City.

Mr. Melton responded affirmatively, having previously served as the DO Manager and utilizing the same process.

Mr. Melton advised that the establishment was scheduled for opening November 30, 2009.

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Approve an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Crab Addison, Inc., d/b/a Joe’s Crab Shack, located at 2704 Snelling Avenue N.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Richard Martin, 2970 Mildred Drive for a 10008 square foot accessory structure as a Conditional Use

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request of Richard Martin for approval of a 1,008 square foot garage as a CONDITIONAL USE, and a VARIANCE to more affordably accommodate an 11 foot tall overhead garage door.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff, with concurrence by the Planning Commission, was recommending approval of the Conditional Use and DENIAL of the Variance, based on a lack of hardship.

Discussion included impervious surface mitigation and code provisions in place and based on final design; and rationale for the requested variance to accommodate more convenient interior storage of a recreational vehicle based on location of the door on the structure.  

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10763  entitled, “A Resolution Approving a 1,008 Square Foot Accessory Structure as a Conditional Use, for Richard Martin, 2970 Mildred Drive, in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Sections 1004.01, 1014.01, and 1017.21 (PF09-033).”

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Adopt a Resolution Denying the Request by Richard Martin, 2970 Mildred Drive for a Variance to Section 1004 of Roseville City Code

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10764 entitled, “A Resolution DENYING a Variance to Roseville City Code, Section 1004.01A10, for Richard Martin, 2970 Mildred Drive (PF09-033).”

 Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

c.                  Approve the Request by Clearwire, LLC for approval of a Conditional Use for a 150 foot telecommunication tower at City Hall Campus (PF09-031)

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the request of Clearwire for erection of a 150’ tall telecommunication tower on the City Hall Campus as a CONDITIONAL USE, with staff recommending approval, with concurrence of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this was a land use issue before the City Council at this time, along with the City serving in their role as property owner.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff’s recommendation for approval was based on whether it met code, Conditional Use criteria, and was predicated on staff’s analysis as detailed in Section 7 of the report dated November 16, 2009.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if approved, future discussion by the City Council on lease terms and other items would then be forthcoming.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that a representative of Clearwire was present at tonight’s meeting.

Discussion included lack of public comment at the Planning Commission Public Hearing related to this request, and focused on the proposed tower at Acorn Park.

Councilmember Pust expressed concern on the proposed location of the tower on the campus and visual aesthetics; opining that there must be another location on campus that would accommodate the tower and be less visible; while speaking in support of the commercial enterprise.  Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to this proposed location, opining that it would be an eyesore and that she didn’t want that presentation to the community.

Mr. Trudgeon reviewed four other locations on campus that were considered by several staff members, with this being the recommended location.

Mayor Klausing recognized Councilmember Pust’s concerns, and the original requirement that the towers be located on public land to allow greater control and discretion as to their locations.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that they were not required to be located on public land, but as a Conditional Use on industrial, business or commercial properties as well.

Mayor Klausing noted that the City would lose revenue if the tower were located on land other than public land; however, noted that that this didn’t factor into the land use analysis and understood the aesthetic issues, while recognizing the viability of them as a utility and needing accommodation.  Mayor Klausing questioned whether the balance in additional revenue served as a trade-off for aesthetics, in addition to providing a public service.

Councilmember Johnson opined that, while supporting the tower on campus, aesthetically this was the worst possible location and suggested consideration be given to placing the tower within the Public Works yard.

Tony Vavoulis, Clearwire Representative

Mr. Vavoulis summarized the review of four other sites on campus, with all, including the proposed location, driven by staff review and recommendation.  Mr. Vavoulis noted that the existing tower had been determined to be at capacity structurally; and reviewed the needs in locating the firm’s internet antenna evenly throughout the community, and their preference to co-locate on existing towers rather than constructing new towers.

Discussion among staff, Mr. Vavoulis and Councilmembers included various schematics of the tower in consideration of aesthetics; inability to increase the structural capacity of the existing tower based on engineering specifications; consideration of frequencies and potential conflicts; additional companies seeking to co-locate and applicable provisions; citizen needs to have a nice-looking City Hall campus versus commercial needs of Clearwire; and various perspectives of individual Councilmembers as to the aesthetics of the tower location.

Councilmembers concurred that they were supportive of working with Clearwire to find a space on campus to make it work, but not necessarily that location.

Pust suggested denial of this Conditional Use request.

Mr. Trudgeon suggested that, rather than denying the request, they table action to allow additional work between staff and the application for an alternate location; recognizing that as a land owner, the City Council would make the final decision.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING consideration of a Conditional Use for locating a 150’ telecommunication tower facility for Clearwire, LLC, for further staff discussion with the applicant on alternate locations on the City Hall campus.

Mayor Klausing encouraged individual Councilmembers to physically review the site and visual impacts of the proposed location from the street.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

d.                 Approve Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Policy

Community Development Director Trudgeon presented the Roseville HRA’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Policy, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the highlights of the policy, as listed in the report.

Housing Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey advised that the HRA voted unanimously to recommend the policy to the City Council; with Councilmember Pust, as City Council liaison and member of the HRA concurred.

Councilmember Ihlan noted Section 5.03 provided for a division of costs for improvements that was narrower than State Statute, specifically as it related to the “shall” language, questioning whether it was in potential conflict with State Statutes.

Councilmember Pust provided her perspective that this was an alternative determined by the City Council, and was based on what was learned during the Westwood Village process and public testimony about giving due deference to decisions of the Association Board representing the association.

Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA’s legal counsel had reviewed the policy, specific to this section in particular, and made corrections where it did not follow State Statute and based on the new legislation.

Councilmember Pust referenced portions of the 2009 legislative amendments provided by Councilmember Ihlan.

Further discussion included potential liability issues if association documents addressed one division, and then it was different without a finding of fact required; whether guidelines were needed for prioritization if numerous applications for HIA’s were received, currently not addressed in the policy, but determined by staff to not be necessary given a survey completed by staff of all associations in Roseville and any interest in seeking assistance from the City or indicating that their reserve funds were inadequate for future improvement needs; review of financials for any associations; and in hindsight, how Westwood Village may have chosen a different path based on the financial burden the HIA had placed on their association.

Councilmember Pust, in consultation with City Attorney Squires, concurred that the language of Section 503 needed further clarification, and proceeded to coordinate drafting that revised language.

Additional discussion included State law related to how associations were incorporated and development of their bylaws; and whether it was prudent to address catastrophic hazards as they related to HIA’s and whether adequate insurance was in place to address such a catastrophe, with staff recommending that the policy address adequate rather than extraordinary insurance coverage provisions; and other provisions related to pledged assets to be addressed in development agreements on an individual basis.

By consensus, the following revised language was approved, as drafted by City Attorney Squires and Councilmember Pust for Section 503 of the HIA Policy:

“The division of the costs for the proposed improvements (i.e., how the fee is spread to unit owners), shall be imposed on the basis of tax capacity of the housing unit, or the total amount of square footage of the housing unit, or an alternative method than utilized in the association’s bylaws and declarations. If imposed on an alternative method as specified in the association’s bylaws or declarations, the City Council must make a finding that the alternative method is more fair and reasonable than either tax capacity or square footage.”

Councilmember Roe noted a numbering discrepancy on page 4 of Attachment A.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of The City of Roseville Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Policy, as presented OR as amended; and as drafted and recommended by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); identified as Attachment A to the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009; with language of Section 503 amended as follows:

“The division of the costs for the proposed improvements (i.e., how the fee is spread to unit owners), shall be imposed on the basis of tax capacity of the housing unit, or the total amount of square footage of the housing unit, or an alternative method than utilized in the association’s bylaws and declarations. If imposed on an alternative method as specified in the association’s bylaws or declarations, the City Council must make a finding that the alternative method is more fair and reasonable than either tax capacity or square footage”; and numbering correction of Section “5.0 Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority” on page 4 of Attachment A changed to “6.0…”

Councilmember Ihlan opined that there should be priorities included in the HIA policy in case there were numerous applicants coming before the City; and spoke in support of City Manager Malinen’s observation related to ensuring adequate insurance was in place in case of catastrophic property damage.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

e.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2010 Utility Rate Adjustments

Finance Director Miller summarized staff’s recommendations for 2010 Utility Rate Adjustments following analysis of the City’s water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage and solid waste recycling operations, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009.

Mr. Miller also reviewed information to-date on the Conservation-Based Rate Structure for water users, suggesting that it did not appear to have resulted in significant consumer behavior changes from the limited data available; and suggested that an additional year of data may prove more meaningful for further discussion.

Discussion included base fees and usage fees and staff recommendations based on base fees remaining stagnant in 2010, and increases based on increases for water from the City of St. Paul and sewer charged from the Metropolitan Council; loss of revenue sharing for the residential curbside recycling program and whether changes were anticipated in the marketability of recyclables or if it could be remedied through renegotiation of the contract with Eureka that didn’t expire until the end of 2010, with them being the only service provider offering revenue sharing at the time of last bid; and whether economic incentives were in place for water usage rates.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10765 entitled, “Resolution Establishing the 2010 Utility Rates, incorporating Schedule A,” as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 16, 2009.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

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

Councilmember Roe advised that at recent North Suburban Cable Commission (NCSS) and Access meetings, information had been shared regarding new federal legislation anticipated to help preserve or protect community access programming, despite state franchising legislation, actions of providers, or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to eliminate community access programming.  Councilmember Roe noted that communities had been asked to support that federal legislation through their association with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) or City Manager associations; and advised that he would be bringing forward a resolution of support of that legislation for Council consideration, most likely on the Consent Agenda at the next City Council meeting.

Councilmember Pust asked that Councilmember Roe alert area School Districts of this requested support to allow them to participate as well.

Mayor Klausing requested that Councilmember Roe include background information with the proposed resolution of support.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:42 pm.