View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

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, 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.



§     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







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.