City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 15, 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 November: Pust; Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing).  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi 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.            Sara Barsel, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Ms. Barsel sought assurance that the City Council packet would be distributed and posted prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday and before the scheduled special Council meeting of Monday, November 29, 2010, called for the purpose of making a determination on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for outdoor storage by Bituminous Roadways, Inc.  Ms. Barsel attempted to poll individual Councilmembers of their commitment to attend to ensure a definitive vote.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she had advised staff and fellow Councilmembers of her inability to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment.

 

Ms. Barsel addressed the concerns of many Roseville citizens that this matter had been delayed long enough, and needed to be decided as soon as possible.

 

Mayor Klausing noted, for Ms. Barsel’s benefit, the rationale in scheduling the special meeting on the date chosen to meet other scheduling conflicts and additional items of business coming before the City Council, while achieving a sufficient quorum present, and allowing the City to meet the land use review period for this application, ending on December 28, 2010.

 

Ms. Barsel sought clarification from the City Attorney on what ramifications may occur if the City Council was unable to make a definitive action on November 29, 2010.

 

City Manager Malinen responded to Ms. Barsel that if further deliberations were required, the matter could be carried over to subsequent meetings.

Mayor Klausing opined that his expectation was that the matter would be resolved on November 29, 2010.

 

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to Mayor Klausing using the term “we” in advising on a decision to hold a special meeting on November 29, 2010, clarifying that the full City Council had not made that decision.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that significant discussion was held at the last regular City Council meeting, and that the special meeting had been called unexpectedly and without public or full City Council discussion at the last regular meeting, and resulting in not all five members of the City Council being available on November 29, 2010.

 

Mayor Klausing apologized to Councilmember Ihlan for any miscommunication and clarified that he and City Manager Malinen had chosen the date of November 29, 2010 following a review of City and individual Councilmember schedules to ensure a quorum.  Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Ihlan had raised the same issues in her e-mail to him, and he had thought he had provided the decision-making rationale, and expressed surprise to hear them brought forward again.  Mayor Klausing advised that at the last regular meeting, the City had yet to hear from Bituminous Roadways, Inc. as to whether they would withdraw their application, and that their written confirmation advising the City that they would not be voluntarily withdrawing their application had been received the following date.  Knowing citizens and Councilmembers continued to express strong interest in resolving this issue as soon as possible, Mayor Klausing advised that at that time, he and City Manager Malinen had then alerted Councilmembers to schedule a special meeting date, taking into account sufficient time for public mailed and published notice to occur.  Mayor Klausing noted that the City Council had the prerogative to change the date if they so desired to discuss that option at tonight’s meeting, reminding all that notices had already been processed for the November 29, 2010 meeting.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred with Mayor Klausing’s recollection of when written notice had been received from Bituminous Roadways, Inc.; and further noted that Councilmember Pust had indicated that she would be unable to attend the November 22, 2010 meeting as well.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that Mayor Klausing had alerted her to the scheduling issues in addition to other business to come before the City Council before year-end, and she agreed that the date chosen seemed to be the only option; and it was her understanding that the date was chosen for no other reason that those explained by Mayor Klausing and City Manager Malinen.  Councilmember Pust noted that, should the City Council determine to delay their decision, she would understand; however, she advised that she would be submitting her comments in writing for the record, and was confident in those City Councilmembers available for the November 29, 2010 meeting to make the best decision on behalf of the City and its residents.

 

Mayor Klausing expressed concern that there appeared to be an undercurrent within the community, and perhaps on the City Council, that he or someone was trying to “pull something;” and expressed his personal resentment to those attempting to present that interpretation.  Mayor Klausing expressed his sincere hope that citizens were cognizant of his attempts for fairness and ethics during his tenure on the City Council and as Mayor, and opined that he had no problem if constituents questioned his judgment, but expressed concern if they questioned his integrity.  Mayor Klausing assured everyone that he had always attempted to share his rationale for decision-making above board, and had no ulterior motives as were being inferred.  Mayor Klausing noted that the date chosen appeared to be the best option available, as determined by he and City Manager Malinen, but advised that he was open to other suggestions.

 

Ms. Barsel opined that she would like to see this issue settled without contentious behavior on anyone’s part; noting that it was of great economic and emotional concern to those residents and businesses in the immediate area of the proposed facility.

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

 

Mayor Klausing noted the recent incident with one of Roseville Police Department’s K-9 units responding to an assist in the City of Maplewood, where K-9 Officer Major was viciously attacked and seriously injured.  Mayor Klausing advised that Major was being treated at the University of Minnesota Veterinary Center and was making guarded improvements.  Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the community and City Council, expressed support for Major’s complete and speedy recovery, as well as thoughts for his handler and partner, Officer Jorgenson.  Mayor Klausing advised that staff was providing periodic updates on Major’s condition on the City’s website.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

 

a.            Approve Minutes of November 8, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the November 8, 2010 Regular meeting as submitted.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda, as detailed in each Request for Council Action (RCA).

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments	$516,071.12
60545-60600	75,126.94
Total	$591,198.06

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Authorize Joint Fuel Purchase for City Fleet

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of participating in joint purchase of fleet fuel for 2011 as part of the State of Minnesota contract.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.         General Ordinances for adoption

 

a.            Consider Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title Five, Section 506.03 User Fees regarding False Alarms

Police Chief Rick Mathwig and Patrol Lieutenant Lorne Rosand briefly summarized the RCA dated November 15, 2010, detailing the request for enactment of an ordinance amending Title Five, Section 506.03 User Fees regarding false alarm fees; and provided a bench handout consisting of a revised “Attachment A,” attached hereto and made a part thereof. Chief Mathwig advised that the revisions had been made to clarify the Section following input from Mayor Klausing and City Manager Malinen clarifying the number of false alarms per property (line 33).  Chief Mathwig advised that he had conferred with Fire Chief Tim O’Neill on the proposed changes, and he concurred with them.  Chief Mathwig advised that this fee would be included in the full 2011 Fee Schedule scheduled to come before the City Council on November 22, 2010.

 

Discussion included Mayor Klausing’s rationale for requesting the revised language to avoid any ambiguities; cause of the extremely high incidence level in false alarms, with Chief Mathwig reviewing most causes of false alarms; inability with the Department’s current record management system to break out residential and commercial calls; and whether fees should be higher to recoup the City’s actual cost for frequent and repeated call outs to those addresses due to false alarms.

 

Chief Mathwig advised that staff continued to reduce false alarm calls by making people more alert and encouraging them to use more care.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that fees should be increased enough to provide financial incentives to improve habits and discourage wasting officer time, particularly when government is so strapped for resources.  Councilmember Pust suggested that generating money for preventable things should be a higher figure, and not below average, allowing fees to be high enough for larger businesses to take false alarms seriously and not just write those fees off as a cost of doing business.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that staff would review the fees as part of the proposed 2011 Fee Schedule and adjust them accordingly.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned if there was historical data available on false alarms to determine any patterns for repeat calls.

 

Chief Mathwig advised that the last review of that data was in 2006, with some larger businesses having a large number of false alarms.

 

Lt. Rosand advised that when he performed a survey of false alarms completed as recently as 30 days ago, he found 72 businesses and residents having three false alarms or more.  Lt. Rosand noted that the department attempted to educate residents and business owners when they install their alarms, and advised that many really tried, but that larger businesses considered it a cost of doing business, with invoices forwarded to their corporate offices. Lt. Rosand reiterated that staff was unable to provide a breakdown of the calls between residential and businesses at this time without substantial staff time in reviewing over 1,200 alarm calls annually.

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Chief Mathwig clarified that the time period for alarms was based on a calendar year.  Councilmember Roe requested that ordinance language capture that clarification, with Chief Mathwig noting inclusion of the language in Attachment B of the RCA, indicating single calendar year.

 

Councilmember Johnson summarized his personal experience with his home alarm system; and  spoke in support of the 12 month period as being fair and reasonable, as well as supporting Councilmember Pust’s suggestion to consider higher fees. 

 

Mayor Klausing focused discussion on the issue currently before the City Council, whether to change the ordinance language to reflect a reduction from four  to three false alarms; with subsequent fees coming before the City Council at a future meeting.

 

Councilmember Ihlan suggested a differential in fees between businesses and residents, questioning if the response was different between officer response to a commercial alarm rather than a home alarm.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that an increase in fees could fall heavily on homeowners, and if it was determined that residential false alarm calls were less of a problem, it seemed fair to have higher penalties for businesses that didn’t seem to take the false alarms seriously or considered them simply a cost of doing business.

 

Chief Mathwig advised that the same amount of resources were spent, no matter whether a residence or business; and that a typical triggered a phone call to Ramsey County dispatchers who coded the call, but currently only provided an address, not a designation on whether it was a residential or business alarm, and to do so would require additional staff time for the Roseville Police Department.

 

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the officers in the squad would be able to differentiate, and she would support cost differentials only if they didn’t have unfair impacts; opining that businesses probably took longer to investigate than residential alarms.

 

Councilmember Roe opined that, related to fees, it made sense not to penalize residents as much as businesses; however, he noted that the proposed fee was for the third false alarm in a calendar year, providing for two free passes and fees nominal for the first one.  Councilmember Roe further opined that it made sense to have a more substantial escalation factor for repeat offenders, causing residential properties to become more alert; and future fee increases for businesses if it was so indicated.  Councilmember Roe suggested that the fees provide for a maximum limit for a 12 month period, and would not be excessive but still addressing the issue and costs to the City.

 

Mayor Klausing addressed the cost of providing the service, and unfair presumptions that all businesses were wealthy and all residents were struggling.  Mayor Klausing noted the number of small business owners who maybe were barely getting by and the impacts to their operations with higher fees.  Mayor Klausing noted that using that rationale, the City Council may then need to consider income levels in establishing fines.  Mayor Klausing expressed cautious support of an escalating scale for fees; opining that three (3) false alarms for a homeowner may be easier to address than for a business with multiple managers and/or employee turnover.

 

Councilmember Roe clarified that, given the inability of the Department’s record keeping system in differentiating between residential or business calls, he was not suggesting fee differentials between them; but was supportive of more differentials between each false alarm to provide incentives to improve behavior and reduce repeat false alarms.

 

Councilmembers concurred with City Manager Malinen’s suggested language to specify a 12 month calendar rather than specifying a calendar year.

 

Chief Mathwig requested time to verify with his record-keeping staff that the system could accommodate that language, since it had always been operated on a calendar year, and may be more cumbersome to apply a rolling time frame, depending on how and when the annual system was purged.

Lt. Rosand advised that it could be accommodated, but may prove more cumbersome for the department’s record-keeping staff.

 

In order to allow the department to verify that information, Mayor Klausing suggested that this item be delayed until the next meeting on November 22, 2010.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that her idea of escalated fees was that there be a significant differential, not simply incremental.

 

b.            Consider Adoption of Street Light Utility Ordinance

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the RCA dated November 15, 2010; and revisions made to a proposed Street Light Utility Ordinance following previous public and City Councilmember comment at their August 23, 2010 public hearing on the matter.  Mr. Schwartz advised that additional refinement of the proposed rate structure had been made by staff based on comments received from the public and City Council, allowing for a residential rate structure, with all other properties calculated on a per acre rate, and all billed on a quarterly basis as part of their utility billing.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the rates mimicked the amount currently paid by taxpayers on their property taxes.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the rate structure included repairs and energy costs, and addressed capital improvements for replacement of aging lighting systems.

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the fee included not just overhead street lights, but traffic signals, their maintenance, and utility costs for that equipment.

Public Comment

Lisa Peilen, Director of Municipal Affairs, Minnesota Multi-Housing Association, a state-wide, non-profit trade association of rental property owners

Ms. Peilen apologized for not being available to speak before and thanked the City Council for allowing her to do so at tonight’s meeting.  On behalf of member rental property owners in Roseville, Ms. Peilen spoke in opposition to the proposed rate structure for multi-family residential properties in Roseville.  While recognizing that everyone benefited from a strong and well-maintained City of Roseville, Ms. Peilen reviewed concerns of her member multi-family property owners and their perception that there was no additional direct benefit for this additional disproportionate payment.  Ms. Peilen provided examples of several multi-family properties in Roseville on streets without any street lights near their building, and some having private lighting.  Ms. Peilen asked that the City Council give consideration to these taxpayers, and current economic conditions with causing increased vacancy rates and reducing revenue, while still requiring ongoing property maintenance expenses. At the request of Mayor Klausing, Ms. Peilen noted that when individual tenants pay for their electricity, the benefit was to that individual unit, but that the proposed fee structure seemed disproportionate throughout the community, and that the City had a precedent for applying lower rates for multi-family properties, and she had hoped this proposal would be similar.  However, Ms. Peilen advised that the proposed rate structure created a high cost to multi-family property owners, and caused frustration among them with the disproportionate cost.

 

City Manager Malinen noted that in developing the proposed fee schedule, staff had listened to City Councilmember discussions and attempted to make it as equitable as possible, and that on a number of different fronts, the fee schedule was comparable to the property tax amount allocated for that service.  Mr. Malinen noted that the fee schedule treated all residential units similarly in providing the benefit of a street lighting system throughout the entire community, and was not based on the size of the home; with businesses measured slightly differently due to the nature of their operations versus housing. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller confirmed that this rate structure was similar to that used for the storm sewer utility, with single family based on one rate and all others calculated by acreage; with staff following what they thought was the City Council’s emphasis that the benefit should be equitable to the benefit received, with the benefit per household the same for all individuals, whether pedestrians or using the City’s roadways.

 

Further discussion included the equitabilities of proposed fees versus current property tax allotments for this service; higher burdens on multi-family units evidenced in terms of residential classed property versus other property classes; and the next step, if the ordinance is adopted, in reducing property tax revenue proportionately to the proposed fees collected to be addressed during 2011 budget discussions at the City Council’s discretion.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in opposition to a fee-based structure for street lights, opining that he was fundamentally opposed to fees as it seemed much more transparent to him to include this service in the tax levy as is currently done, with the capital improvement expenses listed as such.

 

Councilmember Roe stated his conditional support of such a fee structure, recognizing that only certain items could be established as a utility as set forth by state statute.  Councilmember Roe listed the benefits to the City, including the City maintaining control of actual fees collected, and not subject to current variables with the state’s property tax system, such as fiscal disparities, for which the City is a net payee, not a recipient; and reduced market value homestead credits (MVHC); with the City setting the annual fee and receiving it in its entirety. In terms of transparency, Councilmember Roe noted that the ordinance established the fee as a designated fund; and clarified that the largest cost for the street light system was electricity, not capital or operating costs, and therefore would not be appropriate for the CIP, with only $64,000 allotted this year as capital costs; and opined that by addressing operating and capital costs in a separate enterprise or utility fund with annual adjustments accordingly, it seemed that it was just as transparent, rather than being lumped into the General Fund along with other functions that may or may not be apparent to the average taxpayer.  Councilmember Roe noted that he was very sensitive that fees are considered taxes; however, his conditional support that the fee was not additional on top of levy dollars, but that the levy would be reduced proportionately, provided a parallel system for utility fees, allowing for annual adjustments and comparisons.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of providing annual notices, similar to that currently used for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearings on annual budgets allowing for public comment from utility customers on the specific utility services received, following a preliminary fee schedule being set in September along with preliminary budgets and levies, and prior to final determination by the City Council in December.

 

Mayor Klausing noted that with Ramsey County currently processing public notices to taxpayers, this additional utility customer notice would need to be undertaken by staff; and should be taken up at a later date.

 

Councilmember Roe advised that he would need to be assured of that commitment prior to his supporting the proposed street light utility fee.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that this was a solution without a problem.  Councilmember Pust questioned the purpose of relocating this fee from current property tax revenues, when people were not complaining about knowing how much they were paying for street lights, with property taxes paying for many and various services and programs.  Councilmember Pust noted that user fees were utilized for services for which they could chose or not choose, but how, when or where street lights were placed was not controlled by the general public, but by the City for safety purposes.  Councilmember Pust noted that many streets in Roseville currently didn’t have street lights, and questioned how the City would address a funding system tied to whether you had lights on your street or whether you didn’t.  Councilmember Pust opined that the proposed package didn’t solve any problems, and served as a hidden tax; and suggested that if the City needed more money to address capital improvements, rather than divvying up different funds for future City Councils to perhaps abuse, that funds should be requested as new or increased property taxes.

 

Mayor Klausing concurred with the reasons laid out by Councilmember Roe on how the City would have more control over a proposed street light utility fee than current property tax allocations for the same service; and concurred that a fee was more transparent.  However, Mayor Klausing disagreed that this was a hidden tax, or arguments of fees versus taxes and that this was not something a user could turn off or on.  Mayor Klausing opined that this related to a specific benefit or service, when property taxes were levied to pay for more things considered for the general welfare, such as fire or police services.  Mayor Klausing further opined that a light utility was a more specific need and fee; with the obvious capital need alone obvious on next year’s budget proposal included in the staff report.

 

Councilmember Roe opined that a user fee made sense for all the City’s utilities; however, as he had previously indicated, he would not support a street light utility tonight without the additional components addressed as he had outlined.

 

Councilmember Pust asked if the City Council took no formal action denying the request if it would come back before the City Council.

 

City Manager Malinen responded that staff would not bring it forward again.

 

No formal action was taken.

10.      Presentations

 

a.    Receive Draft City Performance Measures

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized staff’s initial development of performance measures to complement the numerous reports and statistics prepared by the City and to provide guidance for future decision-making, as detailed in the RCA dated November 15, 2010, for informational purposes only.  Mr. Miller noted that the measures had begun slowly and in small increments, and that the process was still evolving; and would ultimately link to broader integrated models for goals and visions for the City’s Strategic Plan, Capital Investment Program, goals and strategies established by the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, and the City’s annual budgeting for outcomes .

 

Councilmember Pust expressed enthusiasm for work initiated to-date, and that it had been broken down by department; and offered her comments as staff continued to refine it, opining that performance measures were helpful only if they measured those things controllable to employees and were designed to get the City closer to achieving defined goals.  Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation for tying the performance measures into the Imagine Roseville 2025 strategies; but questioned why the City of Woodbury was listed repeatedly in the staff report.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that the Cities of Woodbury and Roseville were part of only a handful of approximately 10-15 other MN cities having weighed in on a performance measure system. 

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if this process had been developed through the International City Manager’s Association (ICMA); with City Manager Malinen confirming that it had initially been developed through their Center for Performance Management program.

 

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Miller advised that this was not a complete list, but those measures for which departments could easily track performance measures and report back to the City Council on an ongoing basis; with departments using other measures to aid them in their recommendations to decision-makers.

 

Councilmember Pust provided comment on several categories:

 

Administration Department

Councilmember Pust noted that that there was nothing is included for Elections, and she suggested that performance measures could be included on the percentage of the population voting, and reflecting convenience, and educational efforts for the public.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that, while the number of website subscribers for electronic communications was included, performance measures could be more in-depth than that, including how often the City’s website content was refreshed to ensure information contained therein didn’t get stale; the number of complaints or comments received on the website related to errors, or comments on helpful information provided.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested including, under the City Manager/Human Resources Function, performance measures for the number of community organizations and/or events were made contact with on a repeat basis; and the linkage between the City Manager’s office and community.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested measurements for how many partnerships had been formed or actively utilized with other governments or agencies.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that, in addition to the tons of recyclable materials collected, measurements for distribution of rain barrels or assistance in implementing rain gardens or other advances in storm water management would address the community’s goal to become more environmentally sustainable.

 

Police Department

Councilmember Pust suggested measurements on proactive or prevention initiatives of staff; as well as steps taken in building relationships with the community’s youth; and evaluation of prevention efforts realized through community presentations.

 

Related to the Police Department’s work with the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Councilmember Pust expressed interest in measuring whether recent enactment of  the nuisance ordinance was reducing the number of police calls to problem buildings; and if the goal was being met to work with residents, managers, and owners of those buildings to ensure the safety of their residents while addressing problem or nuisance properties.

 

Fire Department

Councilmember Pust questioned the phrasing or purpose of the EMS calls for service per 1,000 residents, and the goal trying to be accomplished, whether it was for more or less than a certain number.

 

Public Works Department

Councilmember Pust noted that most of their measures were related to cost, such as gallons of water pumped per day, however, those were not items controllable by employees; and she suggested that more emphasis be included for measuring efforts to make the community more environmentally sustainable.

 

Parks & Recreation Department

Councilmember Pust expressed surprise that their measurements were related to costs per acre for park system maintenance that addressed annual expenditures that were somewhat controllable, but opined that it seemed there should be some measurement of the number of households using the park systems/facilities; and if and how the volunteer based was increasing, thereby reducing maintenance costs accordingly.  Councilmember Pust also suggested a measurement on participant fees, and whether they were increasing or decreasing.

 

Councilmember Roe concurred with the general comments of Councilmember Pust in attempting to tie benchmarks to something that the City Council and/or staff could actively improve upon for the benefit of its citizens to measure impacts of actions, not just quantify measurements.  Councilmember Roe had several additional comments:

 

Public Works Department

Councilmember Roe suggested that measurements include the number of water main breaks annually, not just the gallons of water pumped, similar to the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) to determine the percentage of utilities above or below standards or goals of the community.

In general, Councilmember Roe suggested that staff attempt to find more connections establishing goals to benchmarks outlined in the Imagine Roseville 2025 document.

 

Councilmember Johnson concurred with previous comments, noting that there was a correlation with the community’s wellness and the number of emergency calls to a home, with some form of measurement tracked accordingly.

 

City Manager Malinen expressed appreciation to the City Council for their patience with this process, and for their comments tonight; and offered staff’s intent to become more adept in measuring benchmarks accurately and consistently.  Mr. Malinen noted that the attempt was for each department to initially focus on five (5) items that were easy to measure on a monthly basis, anticipating that some data would be available for the City Council in January of 2011, with further efforts made to implement more performance measures thereafter, but not proceeding too quickly, but allowing it to become part of a regular routine across the board for all departments.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that goals were already listed, and otherwise only requiring annually tracking; and suggested that determining where to go with and following up with those goals would also prove helpful.

11.      Public Hearings

 

a.    Public Hearing to Acknowledge the Expenditure of Tax-exempt Funds by Presbyterian Homes

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the purpose of the Public Hearing, similar to others often conducted in the past by the City, to consider adopting a resolution acknowledging expenditure of tax-exempt funds by Presbyterian Homes.  Mr. Miller noted that representatives of Presbyterian Homes were in the audience if the City Council or public had any questions of them.

 

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proceeds to be expended by Presbyterian Homes as the City of Bloomington proceeds with issuance of tax-exempt bonds for the benefit of Presbyterian Homes’ facilities in Bloomington, Arden Hills, and Roseville, for proposed refinancing of $8,525,000 in outstanding debt related to the Roseville facility, located at 1910 County Road D.

 

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. with no one appearing for or against.

12.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Consider Adopting a Resolution to Acknowledge the Expenditure of Tax-Exempt Funds by Presbyterian Homes

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10858 entitled, “Resolution Approving the Issuance of One or More Series of Revenue Refunding Bonds by the City of Bloomington, MN under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, as Amended, to Refinance a Senior Housing Facility Located in the City of Roseville, MN.”

 

Councilmember Ihlan clarified with Finance Director Miller that there was no financial impact to the City of Roseville through this action.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Consider Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke introduced members present tonight and thanked those involved in the overall process, including members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff, consultants, the Citizen Advisory Team and Technical Advisory Team present at tonight’s meeting; and briefly reviewed the Master Plan process and requested action of the City Council, as detailed in the RCA dated November 15, 2010.

 

Michael Schroeder, LHB Inc.

Mr. Schroeder briefly reviewed the information provided in tonight’s packet, and revisions since previous presentation to the City Council of the draft Master Plan in September of 2010.  Mr. Schroeder noted those revisions included comments received from other reviewing agencies and municipalities; reinforcement of asset management strategies; emphasis by the Parks and Recreation Commission of partnerships with other organizations as a vital part of the City’s park programs; clarification of funding and staffing components; and miscellaneous typographical and grammatical corrections throughout the document.  Mr. Schroeder noted several revisions in the document’s appendices, including in Section 5, updated worksheets; a breakdown of Central Park for various components; correction of the charts to reflect debt service payments (Section 7); and inclusion of trends.  Mr. Schroeder noted that those revisions had been incorporated since the public review draft of the document had been released November 1, 2010.

 

Mr. Brokke announced that Jason Etten, Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, had volunteered to facilitate the implementation process with the goal to develop a structure for phases.

 

Mayor Klausing sought information on what processes were being used to reach out to other citizens in the community, beyond the Parks and Recreation Commission, for their involvement in implementation strategies.

Mr. Brokke advised that it was the intent to advertise for citizens to serve on the implementation team; and a survey was intended to get more feedback as well.

 

Mayor Klausing concurred with that plan, and suggested that the Council’s other citizen advisory commissions be contacted for their interest or for their awareness of other citizens having interest in the process.

 

Councilmember Roe expressed his favorable impressions with the methods used in the Master Plan process and suggested incorporating similar methods, such as meetings in a box, community meetings, and other proven opportunities, for the implementation phase as well.

 

On behalf of the City Council and community, Mayor Klausing thanked all those citizens who participated in the process, particularly those on the committee and City staff for their time as well.

 

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of the Final Report of the Roseville Parks and Recreation System Master Plan.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to establish and conduct a Parks and Recreation System Master Plan implementation exploration citizen involvement structure and process as outlined in the RCA dated November 15, 2010.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that this action did not include the City Council voting in favor of the preliminary implementation outline and suggested referendum timelines.

 

Mr. Etten clarified that the most recent draft of the implementation schedule provided for several other funding options, and removed any focus on specific dates.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

c.            Adopt the 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan

Finance Director Chris Miller presented the 2011-2010 Capital Investment Plan (CIP), as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 15, 2010.

 

Councilmember Pust sought clarification on information provided on pages 16-18 of the CIP, specifically the Chart on page 18, related to capital facilities for the Fire Department and pending discussions on future plans for construction or remodeling of facilities.

 

Mr. Miller noted that the CIP represented a snapshot in time as of May of 2011, and the document remained in flux.

 

City Manager Malinen directed Councilmembers to the spreadsheet (Attachment A), for more detail of those anticipated expenditures considered by staff to be short-term, and those items included to provide a basis for potential impacts over a period of time.

 

After further discussions, Councilmembers concurred that, while the items were included as potential major capital expenditures whether built out or remodeled, the dollar amounts could change dramatically.

Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification of those items included in Attachment A that were 2011 capital expenditures and included in the 2011 proposed budget; with Mr. Miller responding that those items highlighted in blue had been identified as 2011 capital expenditures.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested that Councilmembers review those individual items to determine if they should remain funded in the 2011 budget.

 

Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference, rather than “adopting” the CIP, to “receive” it with the understanding that is only a projection of proposed expenditures, but not part of the budget until the City Council makes those individual items part of a particular annual budget.

 

Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers that the items are typically on the list of “General Purchases over $5,000,” they would come before the City Council for approval, and provide another opportunity for Council consideration prior to their approval.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, receipt of the City’s 2011 – 2020 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) as presented, including Attachment A as an appendix, for public dissemination.

 

Councilmember Roe asked that staff make that detailed information available to the public at their earliest convenience.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

d.            Final Discussion on the 2011 Tax Levy and Recommended Budget

Mayor Klausing respectfully requested that Councilmembers use this opportunity to make their individual proposals for staff to incorporate into the budget to be presented before the upcoming Truth in Taxation Public Hearing to avoid last-minute changes.

 

Finance Director Miller concurred with Mayor Klausing, seeking further direction from the City Council in order to return to the December 6, 2010 budget hearing and provide the public with the most accurate information available, spending emphases and budget reductions, and subsequent taxpayer impact, for public comment on the direction the 2011 budget and levy for impacts to services and programs.

 

Discussion included requirements and timing of public hearings for budget and levy adoption before year-end; staff efforts to alert the public to their opportunity to comment on the budget at the December 6, 2010 meeting; clarification of those capital equipment items listed in the CIP compared to staff’s report related to 2011 capital expenditures for tax-supported funds in the amount of $236,000, with Mr. Miller advising that the staff report was the most recent dollar amounts, and clarified that the CIP represented the budget as a whole for tax-supported and non-tax-supported capital expenditures.

 

Councilmember Pust asked that staff updated the CIP to reflect the most recent and accurate projections.

 

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council needed additional information prior to making further decisions on the budget; advising that she had requested that information from Mr. Miller: budget summaries for each department, which she had received.  However, Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had not received the other piece of information, budget work papers, similar to those of last year, adding up to the totals on the summary budget information.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this documentation was important and useful, and was frustrated that she had yet to get a response to her information request; and if necessary, she was prepared to make a motion to facilitate receipt of those documents, rather than having to file a formal public information request.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that last year’s work papers were posted on line on the City’s website on the finance page, budget reports, work papers 1 and 2.

 

Finance Director Miller responded, as he had done so in an e-mail to Councilmember Ihlan regarding her information request, that staff had yet to finalize the budget work papers, and the only information available was the informal worksheets given by each department to the City Manager in formulating his City Manager-recommended budget.  Mr. Miller cautioned that those worksheets would not equate to the budget summary or recommended budget, but tried to focus on program level costs.  Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers that staff attempted to provide sufficient information to allow the City Council to focus on program level costs and the preferred level of those programs and/or services; at which time staff refines the budget, based on City Council directive, to pinpoint specifics to meet that service or program level, which would be developed over the next few months.  Mr. Miller opined that the information requested would not match up and not prove helpful in the Council’s decision-making.  Mr. Miller noted that, pages 2 and 3 of the staff report provided the major aggregate of increases currently in the budget to provide the City Council and public a general understanding of spending and needs for property tax purposes.

 

Councilmember Roe questioned his need for additional budget work papers in making his budget recommendations, noting that he had received additional information from staff that had been requested in previous e-mails that helped explain the budget summary document. Councilmember Roe noted that it was difficult to relate the numbers in the expenditure summary without that additional detail, using the Police Department Administration costs as an example.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that Councilmember Roe had clearly identified one of the challenges of transition between focusing on programmatic costs and priorities; and opined that the transition would continue until the budgeting for outcomes system replaced the previous budgeting processes.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of additional information being provided by staff as it related to program levels; however, he spoke in opposition to the City Council’s attempt to “fix the budget” through line item reductions or increases.  Mayor Klausing suggested that staff explain changes reflecting different accounting methods while focusing on program levels.

 

Councilmember Ihlan advised that, part of her rationale in making the request for the additional numbers, was that it was easier to grasp and analyze the shift in programs by reviewing a breakout of what was going on in each line; and opined that, whether being done with a different system or not, the numbers needed to add up to the numbers on the summary. 

 

Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, requesting staff to provide budget work papers that correspond to the budget summary

 

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, noting that while she didn’t need the additional information for her budget deliberations, her position was that any individual Councilmember or member of the public seeking additional information should be able to receive it.

 

Mayor Klausing spoke against the motion, while agreeing that if information is available, Councilmembers and the public have a right to that information by law.  However, Mayor Klausing noted that the motion was requesting a breakdown of expenditures to get a better understanding of budget items, and staff had informed the Council that the requested budget information would not provide those sought-after details.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that hearing the information would not match up did not provide sufficient justification, and concurred with staff’s interpretation that the information would not serve the intended purpose, but that they had provided those disclaimers upfront; however, she reiterated that there was no justification to not provide the information as requested.

 

Councilmember Ihlan advised that, if necessary, she would follow-up with a formal public information request.

 

Councilmember Roe sought additional information from staff as to the availability of previous years’ work papers that had since been modified by staff to provide the 2011 budget numbers, with revisions from 2010 to 2011 to reflect the changes; and asked whether those documents could be provided relatively easily.  Councilmember Roe expressed his preference to have a program-based analysis and numbers as in Attachment A in the packet and related in summary form, whether matching or not, but providing a similar analysis for program listings in Attachment A that add up to the City Manger-recommended budget; reflecting the 2010 budget amount or revised 2011 amount.

 

Mr. Miller advised that Attachment A for the City Manager-recommended budget for 2011 was what the City Council had adopted as their preliminary budget on September 14, 2010.

 

Councilmember Roe advised that it was not his intent to cause staff significant additional work, and if looking at a program-based budget, his only request was for Attachment A showing 2010 and 2011 budgets and comparable changes between those year, not the motion currently on the table.

 

Mayor Klausing suggested that, if the documents were available, staff collect them and provide them to interested Councilmembers; and concurred with Councilmember Pust’s comment that Councilmembers had the right to that information.  However, he advised that this was not what he understood the request of Councilmember Ihlan’s motion.

 

Mr. Miller advised that the work papers had lots of figures, costs and notations, some that were in and some not included in the proposed 2011 budget, but used by various members of staff over the spring and summer months by staff, but not equating to the budget summary.

 

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller advised that the work papers could be collected, but not easily.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that, last year, he didn’t support the motion to get line item information for Council Member Pust since the City Council majority agreed to the Budgeting for Outcomes Process, not line item budgeting. However, since Council Member Ihlan is asking for staff work sheets and not an alternative budgeting process such papers should be provided to any council member requesting them regardless if they correlated to the budget summary or not.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe; and Ihlan.

Nays: Klausing.

Motion carried.

 

Councilmember Pust referenced Attachment A, questioning whether staff could add another column matching those and headed “2010 Program Costs” for comparison purposes.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, as previously discussed between Councilmembers and staff 8-9 months ago, few of the program listings in the packet today are totally different than those 161 programs the City Council had previously worked with, with new programs developed following conversations with the City Council and definition of those programs.  Mr. Miller expressed his recollection and understanding, from those discussions, that the City Council understood at that time that staff would be unable to provide a program-by-program comparison, other than in large portions, between 2010 and 2011.

 

Councilmembers Roe and Pust concurred, noting that that information was reflected in the summary.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that staff providing criteria to narrow programming down for a more manageable scenario is the type of information he’d be interested in receiving, specifically those items flagged as major changes, similar to that referenced in Police Department Administration.

 

Mr. Miller advised that he could provide that information.

 

Councilmember Roe advised that he didn’t’ need that information, as the aggregate change was reflected in the City Manager-recommended budget; however, he requested that for next year’s process, Attachments A and B be used as the basis for comparing 2010 and 2011.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that he was not expecting this problem next year, expressing hope that a positive refinement had finally been achieved.

Councilmember Pust suggested that an additional column be inserted to provide a brief explanation of the major, flagged items.

 

City Manager Malinen requested City Council discussion at tonight’s meeting about their thoughts on, and to find consensus on, the relative size of the budget and consequent tax levy; and if that is the level desired or for less than the preliminary approval to allow staff to return on December 6, 2010 with recommended changes based on the City Council’s priorities to achieve that desired tax levy.

 

Councilmember Roe noted the City’s receipt of over $1 million Tax Increment Financing (TIF) proceeds through close out of one of the TIF Districts; and opined that it would be appropriate to use a portion of those funds for one-time 2011 capital needs of the City.  Councilmember Roe clarified that he was not supportive of using reserves for operating costs; however, he noted that the City’s reserves had been increased due to the close out of the TIF District, and some of these proceeds could facilitate the $236,000 needed for CIP funding and thereby reduce the levy by that amount, but not the budget.

 

Councilmember Roe moved to use the Tax Increment Financing close out funds to reduce the levy from the proposed $757,015 to $520,640; and reduce the proposed levy increase from 5.3% to 3.6%; representing an approximate 1% property tax increase for the average household.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that, since the windfall was due to early payout of a TIF District, why not use the entire $1.1 million even if on operational expenses; questioning the rationale in building it back into reserves while raising taxes at the same time.

 

City Manager Malinen reminded Councilmembers that the City’s reserve levels were already 15% below the City Council-adopted policy level for General Fund reserve levels.

 

Councilmember Pust recognized the need to build up reserves; however, she questioned why if it was being used for CIP, the same argument couldn’t be used for operational items and defer property tax increases by a significant amount.

 

Mayor Klausing opined that there were good arguments for or against; but opined that recapturing those unexpected funds served to put the City’s reserves less behind that they otherwise would be.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council still had the authority to raise property taxes for 2012.

 

Councilmember Roe spoke in opposition to using windfalls to cover operating expenses, allowing the City to become dependent on them; when it was better to set aside annually for future capital expenditures. Councilmember Roe advised that, in his judgment, it was not fiscally responsible to use reserves or windfalls to reserves for operating expenses.

 

Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was not a windfall, but that if not for the TIF District, the City would have collected the property taxes years ago, and instead of making snap decisions, the City Council should have further discussion.  Councilmember Ihlan clarified that she was not promoting the use of reserve funds to reduce budgets; however, she spoke in support of reviewing the CIP carefully item-by-item, as well as the budget itself upon receipt of the work papers.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned where the TIF proceeds should be allocated.

 

Mayor Klausing asked Mr. Miller, from a fiscal management standpoint, whether bonding agencies reviewed a city’s consistency between actual reserve levels compared to their reserve policy and/or industry standards when considering bond ratings and interest rates. 

 

Finance Director Miller responded affirmatively, advising that a city lost bonding integrity with rating agencies when those inconsistencies were evidenced.

 

Mayor Klausing noted that, considering a potential bond referendum for Parks and Recreation purpose, therefore the City may then be borrowing at higher rate of interest.  Mayor Klausing sought Mr. Miller’s perspective in using a portion of the TIF funds to reduce 2011 CIP needs.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that it was not unreasonable to take the $236,000 to fund 2011 CIP needs; however, he advised that he would not recommend using those funds for day-to-day operations.  Mr. Miller noted that using any of the funds lessened the structural fix that staff continued to advocate for over many years; and that using the reserves to plug a gap only pushes off the structural fix to future City Councils and budget cycles.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that the City Manager-recommended budget already did that by freezing vehicle replacements at 2010 levels.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of applying $236,000 of the TIF monies to 2011 vehicle and equipment funds to provide some short-term relief to taxpayers in the current economic climate, while not being totally irresponsible or substantially impacting structural budget considerations.

 

Further discussion included what the $236,000 in capital expenditures represented compared to 2010; review of the $100,000 set aside for future Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestations, and consolidated with the City’s former allotment for hazardous and diseased trees as an annual allotment based on anticipated projections.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of Councilmember Roe’s recommendation for the one-time use of TIF close-out funds for the City’s rolling stock fund; and would support an additional $100,000 in the rolling stock fund to improve that fund.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the 3.6% levy increase, supporting the City Manager-recommended budget as long as it remained under 3.8% of a levy increase.

 

City Manager Malinen clarified that the $236,000 was only a portion of the projected 2011 CIP needs, with the $450,000 annual allotment proposed to get the City up to the actual $900,000 annual projected CIP needs.

 

Mayor Klausing noted that by lowering the levy increase this year, next year in order to achieve the same dollar amount, a larger percentage would be needed to remain current; while also not setting aside monies to adequately address the City’s structural budget issues.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that the harsh fact remained that the City of Roseville was an under-taxed community and continued to attempt to make comparisons with peer communities while not having their more substantial budgets as a base.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that the City’s budget needed to reflect economic realities being realized by taxpayers over the last 2-3 years.

 

Councilmember Roe opined that when the City’s tax base was growing, the City had more options to get back on track without significant impacts to taxpayers; however, when the tax base was reduced, as it had been over the last 2-3 years in a row, the City didn’t have as many options and their budget needed to reflect that reality.

 

Mayor Klausing opined that this Council and future City Councils would do well to mimic City Council’s who in the past had taken into consideration the long-term financial health of the community through their forward thinking.

 

Councilmember Roe moved, Pust seconded, to direct staff to come back with a proposed 2011 levy increase in the amount of $520,640, or a 3.6% levy increase rather than the proposed 5.3% through use of TIF close-out monies from reserves for 2011 CIP expenditures.

 

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion at this time, without reviewing the $236,000 CIP expense list; however, she spoke in support of using reserves to cover necessary capital expenditures.

Councilmember Roe advised that he was prepared to have that additional discussion, tonight if so desired, to determine those pieces of equipment needing to be replaced rather than having significant and ongoing maintenance costs; but spoke in support of using only $236,000 of the TIF close-out funds.

 

Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her hope that the additional information requested from staff would facilitate additional discussion.

 

Mayor Klausing questioned where Councilmember Ihlan proposed to find significant savings that would reduce the levy amount further from Councilmember Roe’s motion of 3.6% to 1% or a 0% levy increase.

 

Councilmember Ihlan used, as an example, vehicle replacements of six squads and two unmarked cars by the Police Department, and an annual review of whether they were necessary.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that those items were not included in the $236,000.

 

Finance Director Miller concurred, advising that the $236,000 represented new capital items not programmed into the 2010 budget.

 

Police Chief Rick Mathwig clarified that the CIP request of the department did not include a request for two unmarked cars, and that it should be removed; further clarifying that this was the second year in a row that the department hadn’t purchased unmarked vehicles.

 

Councilmember Ihlan opined that part of the problem was the lack of clear information on what was or was not included in the budget.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: Klausing and Ihlan.

Motion carried.

14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Bill Malinen distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly reviewed those items.

 

In an effort to save meeting time, Councilmember Roe authorized the deferral of the “green step” item that he’d previously requested.

 

City Manager Malinen also distributed a draft 2011 City Council schedule, and asked that Councilmembers bring their individual calendars to the November 22, 2010 regular meeting to determine a time to schedule a City Council and Department Head meeting sometime in January or February of 2010 for strategic planning purposes.

 

Councilmember Roe reminded staff to invite incoming City Councilmembers to receive their calendar input as well.

 

Discussion was held regarding rescheduling the December 20, 2010 meeting to December 13, 2010 to facilitate holiday schedules.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, rescheduling the second December 2010 regular City Council business meeting from Monday, December 20 to Monday, December 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm to facilitate holiday schedules.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

 

Mayor Klausing again announced the Special City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, November 29, 2010 at 6:00 pm for the purpose of considering the Conditional Use Permit application of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 

 

Councilmember Roe announced a Closed Executive Session at the November 22, 2010 for the purpose of evaluating the City Manager.

 

Councilmember Johnson advised that he would need to briefly leave the November 22, 2010 for a school function.

 

With Councilmember Pust being unavailable for the November 22, 2010 meeting as she’d previously advised, Mayor Klausing respectfully reminded remaining Councilmembers of their needed attendance at that meeting to ensure a quorum.

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, City Manager Malinen confirmed that the goal of the Planning Division was for adoption of the City’s zoning code at the December 13, 2010 City Council meeting; with Councilmember Roe asking for as much material as possible being made available in advance of meeting packet distribution.

15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Ihlan noted the need for further budget discussions following receipt of additional information requested of staff that would allow individual Councilmembers to streamline their questions. 

16.      Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:08 pm.