City
Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Johnson; and
Klausing). City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
Mayor Klausing announced that
Councilmember Johnson would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting.
2.
Approve Agenda
Mayor Klausing noted removal by
staff of Business (Action) Items 12.a and b respectively entitled, “Consider
Request for City Abatement for unresolved Violations of City Code at 885 County
Road C-2;” and “Consider Resolution Receiving Assessment Roll and Setting Assessment
Hearing Date for the Roselawn Avenue reconstruction Project to be Assessed in
2010.”
By consensus, the agenda was approved
as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to
speak at this time.
4.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Klausing announced the
upcoming fall semester of Roseville University, providing a behind-the-scenes
view of municipal government, programs and services; and encouraged attendance
by citizens at these educational opportunities to understand where their tax dollars
were used for day-to-day operations of the City. Mayor Klausing noted that the
registration deadline was August 23 for this seven week course beginning on September
7, 2010 from 2:00 – 4:30 pm at the City Hall Campus, with additional information
and/or registration forms available at www.cityofroseville.com/ru, or by phone
at 792-7001.
Mayor Klausing expressed sympathy
to the family of and announced the date and time of the Memorial Service for
former Roseville Mayor and Councilmember Donn Wiski and expressed his personal
appreciation for Mr. Wiski’s friendship and mentoring to him as an elected official.
Councilmember Roe announced that
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had extended the public comment
period until September 10, 2010 regarding the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) on the proposed asphalt plant in western Roseville; and noted
that links were available on the City’s website.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of August 9, 2010 Regular Meeting
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded,
approval of the minutes of the August 9, 2010 Regular meeting as amended.
Corrections:
§
Page 1, Line 26 and further references (Ihlan): Correct spelling
of speaker’s name to “Dziedzic”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; 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.
a.
Approve Payments
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$508,320.96
|
|
59395-59456
|
631,490.63
|
|
Total
|
$1,139,811.59
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
Rolls
While understanding the intent,
Mayor Klausing questioned the rationale for certifying nominal amounts when
under a certain dollar amount (e.g. $10) and questioned whether the cost generated
by pursuing the delinquent amounts was viable.
City Manager Malinen advised that
he and Finance Director Miller had discussed the matter and would return to the
City Council at a later date with a recommendation as to a minimal amount that
may preclude processing. City Manager Malinen noted that the amounts would not
be certified until the end of the calendar year, with many of the delinquent
amounts paid prior to certification.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
City Council had recently authorized changing from an annual to quarterly
certification, and recalled discussion at that time related to nominal amounts
and rationale in treating all parties equally.
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10833 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County
Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2011 or
Beyond.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by McAdam Majors for a
1,008 square foot Accessory Structure as a CONDITIONAL USE as 1863 Chatsworth
Street
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded,
adoption of Resolution No.10834 entitled, “A Resolution Approving a 1,008
Square-Foot Accessory Structure at 1863 Chatsworth Street as a Conditional Use
in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1014.01 (PF10-016).”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Accept Target Foundation Donation of McGruff Costume
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, acceptance
of the donation from Target Foundation of grant funds to cover the cost of a
new McGruff (the crime dog) head.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for adoption
10.
Presentations
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider Request for City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of
City Code at 885 County Road C-2
As previously noted, this item was
removed as it was in the process of resolution.
b.
Consider Resolution Receiving Assessment Roll and Setting Assessment
Hearing Date for the Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project to be Assessed in
2010
As previously noted, this item was
removed for rescheduling at a later date.
c.
Consider Resolution Approving Request of Minnesota Irrigation Distribution
Center for Outdoor Storage of Irrigation Equipment and Supplies at 1450 County
Road C as an INTERIM USE (PF10-014)
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the request of Minnesota Irrigation Distribution
Center (MIDC) seeking approval of outdoor storage of irrigation system supplies
at 1450 County Road C, as an INTERIM USE, pursuant to City Code, Section
1013.09, in order to account for the existing nonconforming use, as detailed in
the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 16, 2010, as well as the
conditions for approval.
Mr. Trudgeon provided, as a bench
handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, a revised draft
resolution incorporating minor revisions as follows: reduction in the number of
trees at 1447 Rose Place (from 5 to 2) based on the homeowner’s request,
thereby changing the screening plan and graphic to accommodate this change; the
screening plan now prohibits the use of herbicides by Mr. Albrecht to maintain
his twenty-foot buffer zone; and the screening plan now requiring Mr. Albrecht
to contact Gopher State One prior to installation for utility locations.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed past code
violations and impacts on the site itself, property use, and proposed INTERIM
USE. Staff recommended approval of the request, as conditioned, following
numerous meetings with the neighbors and applicant to create a
mutually-agreeable screening plan.
Public Comment
Molly Redman/Steve Ring, 1450
Rose Place (whose total residential property boundaries against the industrial
property)
Ms. Redman opined that there were
several corrections needed on the proposed revised resolution:
Item F: Correcting that a fifteen
foot (15’) rather than a twenty foot (20’) buffer zone, which corresponded with
the City’s originally-mandated Evergreen screening of that width. Ms. Redman
further opined that the revised screening plan, as presented tonight by Mr.
Trudgeon, did not have a timeline or mention when the trees would be planted or
when the fence extension would be installed, and suggested that there should be
specific legal language rather than intent assumed.
Item G: Ms. Redman questioned when
approval of outdoor storage would expire, and that while it may be implied in
other places, there was not mention that any violation(s) would rescind the
Interim Use permit.
Ms. Redman expressed her
appreciation in working with current City staff on this issue; and questioned
whether it was prudent to note somewhere in the document that the reason for
this screening requirement was based on the topography of adjacent residential
properties creating special circumstances beyond City Code provisions.
Mr. Ring opined that a good
solution among residential property owners and Mr. Albrecht had been achieved,
and expressed his appreciation for the City becoming engaged in finding a resolution
for all parties. Mr. Ring expressed his hope that the City would continue to
monitor the situation and take immediate action if conditions of the Interim
Use were not met.
Ms. Redman reiterated her
appreciation and attention of staff in pursuit of working through this process.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included Mr. Trudgeon and City Attorney Bartholdi concurring
that City Code addressed the zoning, noncompliance, permit and screening requirements
and mention of screening due to special circumstances such as topography was
not necessary; staff’s assurance that they would research the correct height of
the screening, whether 15’ or 20’ with the existing privacy fence setback at
15’; and clarification by staff that a timeline was included in the revised
resolution (formerly Attachment J to the RCA, and noted that there was a built
in process in City Code for any noncompliance with conditions, but that they
were not usually included in the resolution itself.
Mr. Albrecht was present in the
audience, but expressed no comments.
Further discussion included
November 1, 2010 as the deadline for planting trees as well as completing the
fence height extension consisting of the lattice work on top of the existing
eight foot (8’) fence in place since this summer; and additional language
revisions as indicated in the following motion.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
adoption of Revised Resolution No. 10835 entitled, “A Resolution
Approving Outdoor Storage of Irrigation Equipment and Materials at 1450 County
Road C as an Interim Use in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section
1013.09 (PF10-014);” modified and corrected as follows:
§
Condition f: delete reference to “20-foot” buffer zone and
revise as “…within the existing buffer zone…”
§
Condition g: correct date in second sentence to read
“…August 17, 2015…” rather than May 31, 2015.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Repeat Nuisance Calls Ordinance
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon provided a summary of the draft ordinance proposed
cooperatively by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and its Community
Development and Police Departments, as detailed in Attachment A of the RCA
dated August 16, 2010.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while
this was not an overall solution, it would be an additional tool to address and
enforce some problem areas in the community. Mr. Trudgeon sought feedback from
the City Council on the draft language, noting that the ordinance would be
brought forward for consideration and potential action at a future date.
Police Chief Rick Mathwig was
present and concurred with Mr. Trudgeon’s summary and the need to address underlying
issues.
Community Relations Coordinator
Sarah Mahmud and Administrative Analyst Karen Rubey were also present.
City Attorney Bartholdi provided
several additional comments related to staff’s introductory materials related
to clarifying fees assessed to both owner(s) and occupant(s) – Section 511.02;
and his recommendation for additional language on Line 60 to clearly state that
fees could be imposed for [“both”]; and suggested that, should
that circumstance arise, the City Council consider whether to cap maximum
amounts or per person maximums, stipulating that the full fee be assessed for
the owner and occupant as well. City Attorney Bartholdi further suggested
additional language for references to City Code, Section 314.052 (City Fee
Schedule Table addition after line 164), that the third column indicate: “$250
plus the cost of enforcement response (which shall be determined by multiplying
the staff hourly rate times 1.9 times the number of hours expended in making
the call, for all employees involved in responding to the violation), the total
of which fee shall not exceed $2,000 per call” indicate that this include
[“all individuals involved in processing the fine through the city,]
not just officers responding to the call.
Mr. Trudgeon and Chief Mathwig
concurred with City Attorney Bartholdi’s recommended language revisions.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested
another possible exception to consider in addition to domestic calls, would be
other harassment situations at a property where residents needed to repeatedly
call police, such as hate-based crimes, third party or neighbor disputes, or
situations where the caller felt endangered.
Chief Mathwig noted the State’s
Domestic Assault laws that may cover those concerns; and Mr. Trudgeon noted
that the ordinance was not intended to impact victims.
Mayor Klausing noted the need, in
difficult budget cycles, to limit expenses and shift costs directly to those
responsible, with some costs the overall City’s responsibility from taxpayer
funds. However, Mayor Klausing recognized the concerns raised by Councilmember
Ihlan in seeking to make a clear distinction in protecting and not penalizing
victims.
Chief Mathwig clarified that calls
would be defined by location not necessarily the origination of the call.
City Attorney Bartholdi suggested
to staff that language could be included indicating “victim of harassment
by a third party.”
Councilmember Pust suggested
numerous technical and/or grammar revisions on Attachment A for clarification
and to avoid potential legal problems when domestic calls become disorderly
conduct charges as follows, and for staff’s consideration and revision as
determined:
§
Line 86
Clarification that the ten percent
(10%) penalty is consistent with other fines imposed by the City and with other
City Policies
§
Line 113
Revise language to address the hearing
request received by mail or hand-delivered
§
Line 128
Define the consequences
§
Lines 147 and 156
Clarify “owner” and/or
“occupant” related to who pays the violation as per lease terms, with
clarification in the language in Line 149 indicating “tenant” or
‘tenants responsible”
§
Lines 49 - 56
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers, initiated by Councilmember Pust, included considering the
circumstances to waive fees against the occupant, with Ms. Mahmud revising
actual practice of a police officer defining what qualifies as a nuisance and
their determination of who is the victim at that time, with the determination
made on the scene and/or when making the report after the fact.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
staff and the City Attorney discuss the actual practice and determine who has
that discretion.
Councilmember Roe noted that Line
51 provided a broad statement of what constitutes nuisance conduct, and questioned
whether Items 1, 3 and 4 provided sufficient definition of conduct without
potentially applying violations of City Code not intended to be addressed under
this ordinance; or whether references to other City Code sections needed to be
more specific.
Staff noted the intent, but the
need for further consideration in being clear with the language provisions.
Related to the Right to Appeal,
Councilmember Roe requested that staff make that appeal process parallel with
City Code and State Statute language already in place.
Councilmember Roe also suggested
language revision as to who was “liable” for fees imposed.
Additional changes reviewed with
Council concurrence included:
§
Lines 44-47, revise to read:
“For purposes of this Chapter, the
term “nuisance conduct” means any activity, conduct or condition occurring
within the City that unreasonably annoys, injures or
endangers the [reasonable] safety, health, morals, comfort of repose
of any member of the public, or will tend to alarm, anger or disturb others.
Nuisance conduct includes but is not limited to a response
to the following:”
§
Lines 49 – 56
Item 1 – change “deemed” to
“defined”
Item 4 – change “stated” to
“defined”
§
Lines 79-80, Item 4: Add sentence to read: “Service is complete
upon mailing.”
§
Line 86: correct “persons” to “person’s”
§
Line 102-104: delete redundancies of “(or his or her designee)”
§
Line 108, include mailing of billing statement [by
certified mail]
§
Line 146: consistently define who “City officials” are; refer
back to “Enforcement Officials”
§
Line 147: correct to read: “…may be waived against [a]
property owner who has:…”
§
Line 156: clarify fees waived against a property owner or
occupant
Staff expressed appreciation for
Council comments and advised those comments and further clarifications would be
reviewed for incorporation in the next ordinance draft.
b.
Discuss Holiday Inn Express Violations of City Code, Chapter 312:
Local Lodging Taxes
Finance Director Chris Miller summarized
the requested action as detailed in RCA dated August 16, 2010, following
repeated and ongoing violations and repeated phone and written communication
efforts of staff with the Holiday Inn Express hotel management. Mr. Miller
opined that staff had exhausted diplomatic efforts, and upon discussion with
the City Attorney, authorization was sought to proceed through the legal system
to achieve compliance with City Code.
Mr. Miller reviewed subsequent conversations
with Julie Larson, Executive Director of the Roseville Visitor’s Association
(RVA) and her review with peer organizations in their recourse to withhold
future marketing efforts by the RVA on behalf of that business.
Discussion included potential
reimbursement by the RVA to the City for legal expense reimbursement since the
tax directly benefits the hotel and RVA, with Mr. Miller clarifying that this
was a City tax; need to recognize this as a City tax and options for assessing
the delinquent tax against the property, with City Attorney Bartholdi advising
that current Statute does not allow sanctions through Chapter 429.101
assessments, only through criminal sanctions or civil recourse.
Further discussion included the
need for options to enforce payment and lack of interest in setting a precedent
for any resident disgruntled with a tax to take action to avoid payment;
potential legislation requested of the City’s legislative delegation to allow
liens being applied in this type of situation, similar to property and utility
bill delinquencies; preference not to penalize other RVA participants who
comply and pay their lodging taxes by suggesting they accommodate a business
not paying; and options to shift the costs to the responsible person causing
the expenditure (e.g. legal costs).
Additional discussion included
application by staff of interest and late fee penalties; partial payment
recently received of back lodging taxes by the business, with a substantial
remaining balance, with all payments consistently received after the deadline;
need to continue compounding interest and late fees; and whether the business
is otherwise stressed with property taxes and other items delinquent.
Councilmember Roe expressed an
interest in additional information from staff on the current total due,
including interest accruing.
As a body, Councilmembers were not
supportive of making a determination for pursuing the RVA suggestion to back
off on referrals to that hotel; with Councilmember Pust noted that such a decision
would be up to the RVA Board, not the City Council.
Mr. Miller concurred; however,
suggested that the RVA Board would welcome the City Council’s endorsement of
such action if deemed appropriate by the City Council.
City Manager Malinen asked for City
Council authorization for staff to proceed with enforcement action, through
initiation of civil action. From his perspective, Mr. Malinen clarified that this
was an imposed City tax and the City should enforce collection, even though a
percentage of the funds were remitted to the RVA for their operations.
Mayor Klausing opined that it
would serve as a bad precedent to initiate an “opt out” program for taxes; and
suggested that legal resource for collection action be taken unless it was a
nominal amount.
City Attorney Bartholdi noted that
the ordinance allowed the City to obtain and audit records from the motel to
determine the accuracy of the actual tax owed based on those records.
Further discussion included the
total delinquent amount and payments made to-date; whether it was more prudent,
depending on determination of the actual amount due from that audit, to pursue
remedy in small claims court.
Councilmember Ihlan requested a
future policy discussion related to collection of such delinquent fees and/or
taxes and who was responsible for legal costs to avoid premature collection attempts
and legal costs.
Councilmember Roe requested, as
part of future policy discussions, to make a determination whether current
penalties and interest are adequate for enforcement and assignment of legal
costs for collection of delinquent amounts.
City Attorney Bartholdi clarified
that, under these circumstances, the Holiday Inn Express would not be
responsible for legal costs, as there was no contractual agreement in place.
However, Mr. Bartholdi advised that the existing City Code, Chapter 312, could
be revised to include such a provision.
Councilmember Roe opined that it
seemed prudent to revise Chapter 312 accordingly to add that provision.
Councilmember Roe noted that currently policy indicated the businesses had
until the 25th of the following month to remit payment, at which
time the amount became delinquent and fines and penalties accrued; but
cautioned that if the code stated a specific time for collections, everyone
would wait until then to pay.
Councilmember Roe requested
additional information from staff as previously noted and related to the actual
dollars owed; and if the amount was found to be significant, legal action for
collection should be pursued.
Councilmember Pust concurred, that
additional document be pursued from the business for auditing the actual amount
due, at which time the matter could be pursued in Small Claims Court.
City Manager Malinen clarified
City Council directive, by consensus, for staff and the City Attorney to
proceed with an audit of the Holiday Inn Express Hotel’s actual lodging tax due
through pursuit of their books and applicable records, under provisions as
outlined by City Code, Chapter 312.
City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that there would be no additional fees for
his firm’s legal services, as this would be included as part of their retainer;
and suggested that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to perform the
audit first, then give staff direction on how to proceed for collection.
By consensus, the City Attorney
and staff were so directed, and asked to report the results back to the City
Council.
c.
Continue Discussion on the 2011 Priority-Based Budgeting Process
Finance Director Chris Miller
summarized additional information provided and detailed by staff in the RCA
dated August 16, 2010, specifically funding for Community Development
Department activities; list of employee position vacancies for 2011; and a revised
list of proposed capital equipment purchases.
With respect to Community
Development funding, Mr. Miller noted staff’s rationale, following the
completed “time spent profiles” by staff, in shifting code enforcement
activities as a function of the General Fund rather than through Community Development
permit fees. However, Mr. Miller noted that even with that shift, given lower
anticipated permit fees for 2011, previous depletion of designated reserves
for the department, and continued economic challenges, there remained a structural
deficiency in how the Community Development Department was funded that needed
to be addressed immediately.
Mr. Miller noted that, even though
the City Council had requested, and staff had provided, additional information
for the larger picture on programs/services not funded by property taxes
(Attachment B), there remained urgency in finalizing adoption of a preliminary,
not-to-exceed budget and tax levy for the General Fund by September 15, 2010.
Discussion included clarification
of current vacancies for employee positions, their history and projection;
$130,000 in salary savings clarified in relation to the specific department
budget(s); definition of the $43,000 needed for the Skating Center, with Parks
and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke clarifying that these general maintenance
items were not part of the bonding bill, since that was stipulated for specific
projects only, not general maintenance.
Further discussion included segregation
of vehicles and capital equipment needs projected for 2011 and reductions made
by staff to-date for programmed needs and realistic replacements and
maintenance of the City’s vehicle fleet and everyday equipment needs.
At the request of Councilmember
Roe, Mr. Miller volunteered to provide additional information to the City Council
on capital investments over a ten (10) year average.
Councilmember Roe opined that if
the City Council was looking to cut other areas in the Community Development
area that are fee-funded, but remain unfunded at this time, even with the shift
in code enforcement to the General Fund, it was prudent to prioritize those
remaining items to determine if the budget could be realistically reduced or
savings found. Councilmember Roe further opined that such prioritization by
the City Council would provide guidance to staff in making decisions and/or
recommendations. Councilmember Roe further noted that fees for City functions
listed in Attachment B were impacted and that some areas may not be able to
achieve savings (e.g. water and other enterprise funds) that would provide
additional levy funds for other functions in tax-supported funds. Councilmember
Roe suggested that, if the proposal was to save money in the Community
Development Department by keeping code enforcement out of the tax-supported
side of the ledger, the City Council should provide rankings to see if those
savings could be achieved.
Mayor Klausing questioned
Councilmember Roe, if his interpretation was that by moving fee-supported items
to the General Fund supported revenue due to a lack of funds, if only those
funds were ranked, they would be ranked against each other as part of the
overall budget ranking.
Councilmember Roe responded
affirmatively; clarifying that when ranking anything, you provided it with a
numerical rank related to that of tax supported functions, no matter its
funding source; and that this option was taking something – code enforcement –
currently supported by fees rather than General Fund tax-levy supported; and
that further determination would be based on whether it was totally or
proportionately fee supported; recognizing that Community Development
activities were funded by fees, and that if code enforcement remains under that
fee-supported system, another area of the department may need to be reduced or
ranked lower to provide sufficient funds for code enforcement.
City Manager Malinen also noted
that fees were specific to the service provided, and that if the service was a
mandatory classification, such as Electrical Inspections, the City still had to
make that inspection and could not reduce that level of service.
Councilmember Ihlan noted the
breakdown of the Community Development budget and percentage assigned to
planning, and economic development and/or redevelopment based on building
permit review and improvements. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if those
activities were down, the first thing to scale back on was those categories.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed her willingness to pursue the ranking process,
but further opined that it was simply common sense that if there wasn’t much development
occurring, high budget amounts were being expended for those functions that
were not currently being utilized, and should be considered for scaling back.
City Manager Malinen noted the
“time spent profiles” indicated a considerable amount of staff time for code
enforcement efforts benefitting all, and not specifically related to permits or
fees, thus staff’s proposal to shift $165,000 to the General Fund rather than
borne solely by the Community Development’s fee-based budget.
Councilmember Pust observed that
the same argument could be applied to Planning activities and their benefit to
the overall community. However, Councilmember Pust observed that she didn’t
support reducing planning staff when their expertise would be required once
development activities once again became more active as the economy improved.
City Manager Malinen agreed to
some extent, but significant fees were generated by those activities and were
more of a function of the department than code enforcement.
Councilmember Roe sought
clarification on the figures for 2010 and 2011 on planning and building code
review and permits.
Mr. Miller advised that the
figures were based on staffing and related costs to perform those functions;
and based on projected building permits for 2011 trending lower than current
expenses; and the need to address structural concerns of the budget beyond the
proposed $165,000 transfer to the General Fund for code enforcement expenses.
Additional discussion ensued
related to matching and carrying forward expenses/revenues for 2011; and the
need for a much more substantial effort in reducing operational costs of the
Community Development department if the City Council does not support the
recommendation of staff to transfer the $165,000 in code enforcement costs to
the General Fund.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to raising taxes or transferring code enforcement from fee-based to
tax-supported funds to accommodate reduced fees unable to pay for Community
Development staff. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated that, while a tough
decision, the reality was that if activities were down and fees weren’t being
generated, the obvious place to scale back was in those areas. Councilmember
Ihlan questioned the need to fully staff those areas not currently active.
Further discussion included the
clarification of twelve (12) full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the
Community Development Department.
In response to Councilmember
Ihlan, Councilmember Roe observed that it wasn’t automatic that the levy would
increase by $165,000 due to taking the code enforcement function under levy
support; but that it made sense to look at other levy-supported items to offset
that increase; and advised that he had considered nuisance code enforcement costs
as more in line as a levy-supported activity than just with this year’s
discussion, since it made sense that the community at large benefited from that
activity. However, Councilmember Roe noted that, if there were not a lot of
code inspections, it didn’t make sense to have staff to support it, and that it
needed further review.
Mayor Klausing observed that the
other functions supported code enforcement and questioned whether it was
prudent to peel off a popular piece of the picture to save other functions; but
did note the community’s general support for improved code enforcement, and the
need to alleviate that burden from the Community Development Department budget
and allocation of staff time and resources for their other functions, with each
function requiring additional review to determine additional savings. Mayor
Klausing opined that it made sense to support code enforcement functions by the
community at large, more in line with who benefits, and reducing the burden on
a department experiencing other challenges beyond code enforcement.
Councilmember Pust sought
clarification from staff on Attachment B (department totals – middle column)
and corresponding income column for comparison and projections shown at the bottom;
with Mr. Miller responding that they were available for comparison, with the
exception of the Community Development Department, assuming that the City
Council adopted the proposed 2011 fee schedule dictated by the proposed
revenue, with those discussions, such as water/sewer rate increases to support
those functions, to be brought forward in November for City Council
consideration for 2011 revenues.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller advised that the only enterprise fund generating additional
profits for allocation elsewhere was the License Center, with other funds
restricted to their specific use and fund.
Relating to Community Development
operations, Mr. Miller observed that much of their planning and economic
development efforts may not come to fruition for years, while staff was still
required to incur their time and related costs in assisting proposed
development; noting the cycle type nature of that function that had
historically been accounted for and sustained. Mr. Miller clarified that staff
was not just sitting and waiting for something to happen, but were actively
engaged in providing a service to the general public and interested developers.
Mr. Miller requested City Council consideration of shifting code enforcement
activities to the General Fund as proposed by staff, to allow fee-generated
monies to be set aside for planning and economic development as a necessary
function of the City; opining that it would be a challenge to the City’s
operations if those functions were not in place.
Councilmember Roe asked Mr. Miller
to clarify if it was fair to say that over the last few years, the City had
been using Community Development budget reserves to accommodate market
downturns; and now there were no longer significant reserves to continue doing
so; with the need to cut costs of shift how those functions are funded.
Mr. Miller concurred with
Councilmember Roe’s interpretation of the situation.
Councilmember Ihlan requested
staff follow-up to provide a list of any new positions filled in the comparable
time period of the reduction of nine (9) FTE’s; position that didn’t’ exist
before, not replacements of existing positions.
City Manager Malinen requested
direction from Councilmembers if staff was still on the right track with their
projected preliminary levy increase, or whether the City Council had a
different direction or reduced levy they preferred, in anticipation of the
upcoming September 15, 2010 deadline for the Preliminary, not-to-exceed budget
and levy.
Mr. Miller noted that there was
only one more meeting before the September 13, 2010 meeting at which time the
City Council would set that Preliminary Levy, and that the August 23 meeting
was significantly filled with land use items; with staff not intending to come
back before the City Council on budget-related items before September 13, 2010.
Councilmember Roe questioned if
staff had received enough feedback from the City Council to-date to bring forth
an action item.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff had considered and incorporated Council comments to-date; however,
reiterated that if the City Council had any preference to adjust the
staff-proposed levy from its current level, and based on the limitations or
constraints on the dollar amount available, staff requested that input now
before proceeding further at the proposed preliminary levy recommendations.
Councilmember Roe encouraged
individual Councilmembers to provide guidance to staff.
Mayor Klausing opined that he was
comfortable with the proposed preliminary recommendation by staff.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
preliminary, not-to-exceed levy had been indicated by staff; and asked that, if
individual Councilmembers preferred another number, that they provide staff
with options to achieve that lower number.
There was no comment individually
or corporately from Councilmembers on any different recommendations to staff at
this time.
14.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen distributed
upcoming agenda items.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 8:04 pm.