City
Council Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for June: Johnson; Pust; Willmus; McGehee;
and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2.
Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted staff’s request for
removal of Agenda Item 12.c entitled, “Consider Accepting a Livable Housing
Incentives Account Grant for Sienna Green II and enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding with AEON;” and deferral to next week’s agenda.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
3. Public
Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. James Anderson, 3004
Arona Street
Mr. Anderson referenced an e-mail
he had sent to Councilmembers dated February 27, 2011, and provided a duplicate
copy to City Manager Malinen related to ongoing issues with an adjacent
neighbor throwing snow not only in his yard but against the siding of his
house. Mr. Anderson sought amendment to City Code so snow could not be thrown
more than five feet (5’) onto an adjacent property. Mr. Anderson expressed his
frustration that he had not heard from Councilmembers, individually or as a
body, even though he spoke approximately six (6) weeks later during public
comment at a City Council meeting. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern with
damages to his siding, in addition to additional snow leading to potential
leakage in his basement.
Mayor Roe recalled Mr. Anderson’s
e-mail and appearance, and the Council’s direction to look into the matter and
review City ordinance for any recourse; however, he apologized that there was
apparently no follow-up and for the length of time in providing a response to
Mr. Anderson. Mayor Roe assured Mr. Anderson that the matter would receive
attention for follow-up.
Councilmember McGehee sought a
response from City Planner Paschke, who was in the audience (off microphone)
regarding City Code provisions; with Mr. Paschke advising current City Code
would provide no recourse for Mr. Anderson’s issue.
Councilmember Willmus suggested
that consideration be given, and opined that, in some situations, it was not
necessary for the City to get involved; but private issues between property
owners should be handled as such.
Mr. Anderson advised that he had
spoken with the City’s Permit Coordinator Don Munson, who advised him that
there was nothing in City Code preventing the neighbor from throwing snow into
Mr. Anderson’s yard; and his only recourse was through civil action through the
courts. Mr. Anderson alluded to other issues with the neighbor, and the
neighbor’s contact of the City’s Police Department with allegations against Mr.
Anderson.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the
matter should be looked into; and further opined that the only recourse for residents
should not be through court. Councilmember McGehee opined that Mr. Anderson
had a valid point in attempting to avoid having things thrown in his yard by
others.
Mr. Anderson advised that there
had been a recent altercation between the neighbor and him; and he was in the
process of obtaining a “No Contact Order“ against this neighbor to avoid additional
altercations.
Councilmember Pust expressed her empathy
for Mr. Anderson and his situation; noting that the City Council was only
hearing one side of the situation. Councilmember Pust noted that the City
Council was a legislative body; and that this was the first time that she is
aware of that a citizen had not been able to resolve a snow removal situation.
Councilmember Pust suggested that, if there were repeat situations, there
needed to be resolution, and that the court system was there to resolve such
situations. However, Councilmember Pust opined that changing City ordinance
based on one incident, requiring additional time for police enforcement, didn’t
seem prudent. Councilmember Pust apologized that the City Council did not get
back to Mr. Anderson sooner, opining that responding to citizens was part of
the City Council’s job.
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Anderson for
his attendance at tonight’s meeting and for his patience; and advised that City
Manager Malinen had recorded Mr. Anderson’s information, and would be following-through
with him.
City Manager Malinen concurred;
noting that he would talk among Department Heads at their Tuesday morning
meeting and copy the City Council on their recommended course of action for Mr.
Anderson.
4. Council Communications, Reports and
Announcements
Councilmember
Pust noted an upcoming Public Hearing (Wednesday, June 15, 2011) before the
Metropolitan Council, with one of their agenda items being a discussion about
potential reductions in bus service impacting the Roseville area. Councilmember
Pust suggested interested people look for additional information on the Metropolitan
Council’s website; and if interested appear to discuss the issue. Councilmember
Pust noted that, while this is short notice, she understood additional public
meetings were planned throughout the affected areas; and opined that this was
an important issue for community awareness.
Mayor Roe advised that the 2nd
organizational meeting for the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative had been
held; and now the first meeting of the working committee was scheduled for
Tuesday, June 21, 1022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center, and was
open to the public to attend to gather additional information, or to become involved.
Mayor Roe noted the Planning
Commission’s Public Hearing on the Twin Lakes Regulating Map scheduled on
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
5.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of May 23, 2011 Meeting
Comments and corrections to draft
minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and
those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the May 23, 2011 meeting as amended.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent
Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$153,939.31
|
|
62551-62853
|
682,024.51
|
|
Total
|
$835,963.82
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for those
applicants as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Mayor Roe noted the annual cost
savings projected through the purchase of this new equipment as detailed in the
RCA, and commended staff for their initiative.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services
presented as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
Info Tech
|
CDWG
|
Storage Area Network
|
$29,153.32
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Set Deadline for Applications for Human Rights Commission
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, City Manager Malinen confirmed that there were seven (7) members total
on the Human Rights Commission.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
directing staff to advertise for applications for service on the Human Rights
Commission, with applications due to the City by July 15, 2011; and interview
scheduled by the City Council at their July 25, 2011 meeting ; and appointments
to be made at the August 8, 2011 meeting.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Set Deadline for Applications for Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Councilmember McGehee pointed out,
in the HRA Policy Statement related to pursuing affordable housing, as
contained in the resolution attached to the RCA; and wanted that noted for the
record for future discussion, opining that the City already had considerable
affordable housing available.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
directing staff to advertise for applications for service on the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, with applications due to the City by July 15, 2011;
and interview scheduled by the City Council at their July 25, 2011 meeting; and
appointments to be made at the August 8, 2011 meeting.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Adopt a Resolution Approving a Drive-through as a Conditional use
at 2750 Snelling Avenue
Councilmember McGehee referenced
her e-mail to the Planning Commission for their June 1, 2011 Public Hearing on
this issue, and concerns brought to her attention by a developer about
placement of the building in consideration of pedestrian-friendly design
standards. Councilmember McGehee expressed her astonishment in receiving a
response to that e-mail from City Planner Thomas Paschke, opining that he was
basically restating his argument already made in the staff report.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her annoyance in receiving a staff response to
an e-mail sent directly to Planning Commissioners; and opined that this was not
an isolated incident and that the Planning Commission should be able to operate
without “heavy-handed” staff comments.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10906 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving a Drive Through as a Conditional Use at 2750 Snelling Avenue
(PF11-015).”
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Accept the Office of Traffic Safety Grant Award of One (1)
Panasonic Arbitrator 360 In-squad Camera
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if there were matching funds of $1,300.00 required for the camera previously
received through this grant.
City Manager Malinen was unable to respond at this time, but volunteered to obtain
that information.
Mayor Roe asked whether under the
“financial impacts” portion of the RCA, the cameras were not programmed for
replacement by the City, but through future grant funding only.
City Manager Malinen and Mayor Roe
volunteered to review their records on this issue and the original grant award
to respond about matching City funds.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
acceptance of the Office of Traffic Safety Grant award of one (1) Panasonic
Arbitrator 360 in-squad camera; as detailed in Attachment A and total costs detailed
in Attachment B.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Consider an Ordinance Adding Chapter 410 Title Four of the
Roseville City Code Regulating the Use of Coal Tar Based Sealer Products
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz briefly summarized this item as detailed in the RCA dated June 13,
2011; and as introduced in a previous Council meeting and receiving
enthusiastic support of the City Council. Mr. Schwartz advised that this would
be more of an educational, rather than enforcement, item; and was strongly
supported and recommended by the City’s Public Works, Environment, and
Transportation Commission (PWET).
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1409 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Adding
Chapter 410 to Title Four of the Roseville City Code Regulating the Use of Coal
Tar-Based Sealer Products within the City of Roseville, MN, as amended – lines
58 – 70;” and enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1409 (Attachment B) entitled,
“Summary of An Ordinance Amending Title Four, Adding Chapter 410, Coal Tar
Sealants”
Mayor Roe noted that an Ordinance
Summary for publication requires a super-majority vote.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
why the City didn’t prohibit sale of coal-tar products in the City of
Roseville, rather than having a long, involved process for people to get a
permit.
Mr. Schwartz advised that such a
prohibition would be difficult for staff to enforce, as the product was not
generally available for sale any longer over the counter; but the product was
still used by door-to-door vendors buying directly from their distributors.
Mr. Schwartz advised that this determination was based on research done by
other cities as well as Roseville.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that this information be published in the City’s newsletter; which was duly
noted by City Manager Malinen.
Mayor Roe suggested an amendment
to Page 2, Section 410.03 (Prohibitions), lines 58 – 70, Item D.2.f; making
Item f a separate Item #3.
Councilmembers and staff
concurred; and Councilmember Pust accepted Mayor Roe’s suggestion as a friendly
amendment to her original motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe thanked the City’s PWET
Commission for their research, work in drafting an ordinance, and for their
subsequent recommendation.
b.
Consider an Ordinance Amending Title 7, Chapter 706, Forestation
Control (now Urban Forest Management) and Title 2, Chapter 203.04, Duties and
Functions of the Parks and Recreation Commission Amending Forestation Control
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke summarized the proposed ordinance, as revised since the last
hearing before the City Council, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 13,
2011.
Discussion included responsibility
for upkeep of trees and plants on public rights-of-way (e.g. boulevards), with
clarification that plantings could be done with City approval and permitting,
but not without that approval.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1410 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Title 7, Chapter 706, Forestation Control (Now Urban Forest Management) and
Title 2, Section 203.04, Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation
Commission;” and enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1410 (Attachment B, entitled,
Amending Title 7, Chapter 706, Forestation Control (Now Urban Forest Management)
and Title 2, Section 203.04, Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation
Commission.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if any Emerald Ash Borers had been found in Roseville; with Mr. Brokke
responding negatively.
Councilmember Pust questioned the
status of the tree inventory/survey; with Mr. Brokke responding that the data
had been entered into the software program, and would be presented in one to
two months.
c.
Consider an Ordinance Amending Zoning Text in Chapter 1004 and
1006 of the Roseville City Code Pertaining to Front Porch and Covered Entries
in the LDR-1 District; and Parking Setbacks in Employment Districts
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly summarized the proposed zoning text amendments as detailed in the RCA
dated June 13, 2011.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
zero setbacks for parking setbacks.
Mr. Paschke advised that this
related to shared parking areas; however, there would be sufficient rationale
needed for such a request to be granted.
Mayor Roe clarified, as detailed
in the staff report that the standard didn’t go to zero feet in every
situation.
Mr. Paschke concurred with Mayor
Roe’s clarification; noting that it depended on the type of development
projects; but that the standard remained 5’ or 40’ as indicated.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the courtyard situation, seeking a visual sketch or better description for her
understanding; questioning if properties faced each other and with the new
porch setback was applied, would there be only 8’ separating the properties;
and how that may impact drainage or impervious coverage.
Mr. Paschke advised that the
illustration in code was just illustrative; and the reduced setback may be
possible, but not probable. Mr. Paschke noted that code requirements related
to drainage would need to be addressed for any development, whether further
encroachment was allowed or not.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
it seems that the City had reduced setbacks considerably, and now was doing so
again, potentially having a porch located 4’ from a property line, barely the
width of a wide sidewalk; opining that it seemed like an odd thing to deal with
in code.
Mr. Paschke displayed a generic
courtyard building arrangement illustration, noting the lot area, and courtyard
area; and depending on size and design of structures, he didn’t see any further
encroachment into the courtyard.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1411 (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Selected Text of Title 10 (Zoning Code) of the City Code;” and enactment of
Ordinance Summary No. 1411 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending
Selected Text of Title 10, ‘Zoning Code,” including Amendments in Section
1004.08B (LDR-1 District Dimensional Standards); Section 1004.09B (LDR-2
District Dimensional Standards); Section 1006.04C (O/BP District Dimensional
Standards); and Section 1006.05C (I District Dimensional Standards) of the City
Code.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
10.
Presentations
a.
Joint Meeting with the Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Chair James DeBenedet; and Commissioners
Dwayne Stenlund and Steve Gjerdingen. Chair DeBenedet advised that Members
Joan Felice and Jan Vanderwall were unable to attend tonight.
Chair DeBenedet reviewed the past
year’s accomplishments and work-to-date, as detailed on the agenda included in
the RCA dated June 13, 2011.
Related to Organized Solid Waste
Collection Discussions (Item 1.e), Chair DeBenedet advised that the PWET
Commission was proceeding deliberately to determine if refuse hauler trucks are
having a major impact on city roadways; and noted that the research was
continuing.
Chair DeBenedet expressed the
Commission’s appreciation to the City Council for their support and in their
adoption of the Coal Tar Sealant Ban Ordinance and Forestry Ordinance Update
earlier tonight, helping to validate the work of the PWET Commission, its
research and recommendations.
Member Stenlund expressed his
appreciation for the Commission’s rewarding and informative field trip when
reviewing intersections in the community to gain that personal perspective.
Discussion among Commissioners and
Councilmembers included various Erosion Control Update Ordinance, Illicit
Discharge based on the MPCA Audit of the City’s MS4 Ordinance and recommended
permits; and development of further policies based on goals of the
Comprehensive Plan for storm water management and tree preservation.
Member Stenlund noted that the
PWET Commission was still educating themselves about the Complete Streets
concept; minimum impact design standards for stormwater collection by trees
through a livable root system; and referenced a very informative presentation
by Randy Neprash with Bonestroo on international opportunities for urban tree
growth and growth along roadways, specifically those being done in Stockholm,
Sweden based on their similar cold climates to that of MN.
Chair DeBenedet noted that another
benefit of that research was having a better understanding that trees planted
in boulevards reach a limited maturity as the soil around their root area is
compacted and dry and does not provide a supportive environment for their
longer maturity and survival. Chair DeBenedet advised that, in initial PWET
Commission discussions, they were considering offering a tool kit for
developers as an alternative that may help and provide guidance for the City in
some manner as areas of the community are redeveloped, such as Twin Lakes that
had used some more innovative stormwater drainage practices based on prompting
from the PWET Commission.
Councilmember McGehee questioned large
parking lots with high curbs around islands draining into the parking lot
rather than through the island. Councilmember McGehee also questioned the
depth of free soil for tree roots in standard parking lots to facilitate their
growth.
Member Stenlund advised that there
was as much need for tree growth below ground as above ground, and when you
restrict that root growth, you restrict the tree’s longevity considerably.
Member Stenlund noted that the proposal of the Stockholm and Helsinki studies
was to create a structural roadway that allowed tree roots to expand
underground through interaction between water and trees, while still providing
roadways that served the various transit modes sufficiently. Member Stenlund
advised that the roots usually end up between the bituminous and soil, seeking
water and air; with most tree roots located in the top twelve inches, thus
creating heaves in roadways and sidewalks. Member Stenlund advised that the
original Stockholm study was initiated through the discovery of tree roots
finding space to grow under old bunkers in Germany.
Mayor Roe suggested that the
additional root strength may help trees survive storms as well.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
it was recommended to have as much space for a tree below ground as above
ground.
Member Stenlund responded
affirmatively, noting that the biomass underground should support a fifty year
old tree; but from an engineering perspective, the road and sidewalk amenities
needed to also provide structural pavement for vehicle needs and safety
concerns.
Member Gjerdingen advised that it
was good to educate the Commission and residents on how close trees should be
planted in boulevards in order to allow sufficient root space; noting that the
Commission saw some great examples on structural soils during the Neprash
presentation.
Member Stenlund opined that expense
was relative for some of the new technologies for storm water management, since
ponds and other storm water management options cost money to construct,
maintain and reconstruct as well.
Member Stenlund noted the
advantages in the PWET Commission being able to provide input for new
developments, such as the Josephine Woods plat, and opportunities to blend
homes into existing topography in order to save trees rather than replace them.
Chair DeBenedet reviewed potential
2011/12 PWET Commission Topics and a proposed work plan; and reviewed the
status of the various items as detailed in the RCA. Chair DeBenedet noted the
PWET Commission’s interest in meeting jointly with the City’s Parks and
Recreation Commission in reviewing pathway planning/implementation,
incorporating the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive Plan update,
and discussing them from a Public Works and Parks perspective.
Councilmember Willmus noted the
need to incorporate the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process.
Member Gjerdingen noted the need
to review the Parks and Recreation constellations and how to tie them together
with the Pathway Master Plan.
Chair DeBenedet noted the
Commission’s interest in pursuing community volunteers to implement projects or
initiatives; with Member Stenlund suggesting lakeshore stabilization projects
as an example and one with which he was familiar based on past Eagle Scout
projects. Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting that many low impact storm water
and erosion control projects needed people, not heavy equipment.
Related to the PWET Commission’s
conservation review of stormwater management practices, Mayor Roe asked that,
as part of that study, the Commission considers ways to incent certain types of
approaches in the overall regulating scheme, such as demonstration ideas
needing to be evolved.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her favorable impression with the Josephine Woods development project, and
complimented the Commission if they had any input in that project.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in a presentation at the City
Council level on the Helsinki and Stockholm tree options.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
his appreciation of the Commission’s discussion on asset management; and tied
that into the current work of the CIP Task Force and budget concerns,
specifically the funding deficit over the next 10 - 2 0 years. Councilmember
Johnson noted that a lot had to do with the City Council’s strategy from a
business standpoint in managing that deficit. Councilmember Johnson advised
that input from the Commission on items such as whether the current practice
for paving streets needed to be continued, or if dropping down a level or
deferring that reconstruction was financially advantageous or would have a
downside and the current schedule continued. Councilmember Johnson requested
that type of study by the Commission to help the City Council get a better
handle on practical cuts or overall, long-term cost savings by more frequent reconstruction
and/or maintenance; or where assets were maximized out. In dealing with the
CIP assets, Councilmember Johnson advised that there was nothing on their list
that didn’t somehow involve the PWET Commission; and welcomed input from and a
close working relationship with the Commission to maximize the CIP Plan and
make a bold effort to get that back on track.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the
track being undertaken by the Commission on asset management techniques and
from a CIP perspective, how to manage streets and other City infrastructure; in
addition to review of the current Assessment Policy.
Councilmember Willmus echoed
comments of his colleagues; and supported the work that the Commission was
undertaking for organized solid waste collection and determining the real impacts,
and other studies that will provide guidance to the City. Councilmember
Willmus advised that he looked forward to hearing the PWET Commission
discussion and their future recommendations.
Councilmember Pust opined that any
members of the public listening to this discussion, would be impressed with the
level of review performed by the PWET Commission, and asked the Chair for their
meeting schedule for public information.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
PWET Commission met the fourth Tuesday of each month in the City Hall Council
chambers at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Roe noted tonight’s
discussion as an example of the rationale for and value of volunteer advisory
commissions to assist the City Council; and expressed his personal appreciation
for their time and input. Mayor Roe reiterated that those items listed by the
PWET Commission as topics for their 2011/2012 work plan were right on track and
in line with the City Council’s own work plan and areas of concern.
At the request of Member Stenlund
on anything else on the City Council’s radar that the PWET Commission should be
aware of, Mayor Roe opined that the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy
review was a very high priority.
Councilmember Johnson asked that,
in their study of traffic management options, the PWET Commission also consider
crosswalks, especially those on larger roads with multiple lanes and
right-turning traffic, and visual/safety concerns.
Member Stenlund noted, from his
experience, the difficulty in solving those concerns, when dealing with
fractured communities and landscapes and the blurring of community lines; while
attempting to maintain traffic flow and keep pedestrians safe. Member Stenlund
noted the need for safe oasis for everyone to get across, since not everyone
can cross a wide street with multiple lanes in one signal light change, and the
need to accommodate those pedestrians.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that
drivers were not necessarily doing what they needed to do to ensure pedestrian
safety, especially before turning right; and the need to be conscious of how
you were driving and the reason for rules of the road for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicycles.
Further discussion on neighborhood
traffic management included options, such as speed humps and pedestrian
crosswalks; traffic speed through residential neighborhoods; pros and cons of
closures of neighborhood roads to eliminate cut-through traffic.
Councilmember Willmus opined that
everyone needed to be cognizant as a first-ring suburb in the number of
vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles now and in the future; not to restrict them
but to move them more efficiently and safely.
Mayor Roe opined that the policy
discussion needed to identify consistent criteria, when it was appropriate to
close a road as a solution; and what conditions or standards were applied consistently
for those types of decisions, not just responding to passionate citizen input,
but based on best practices. Mayor Roe looked to the PWET Commission to point
the City and City Council in the right direction.
11.
Public Hearings
a.
Conduct a Public Hearing for a Variance to the Noise Ordinance to
Extend Construction Activity Hours at the Rosedale Square Shopping Center
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011. Mr.
Munson advised that mailed notices of tonight’s Public Hearing were provided to
properties within 500’ of the site; but to-date, staff had received no phone
calls. Mr. Munson advised that representatives from Welsh Companies, the
applicant, and Minnesota Roadways, the contractor, were in the audience and
available for questions as applicable.
Mayor Roe opened the Public
Hearing at 7:29 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the request
for a variance to the City’s Noise Ordinance to extend construction activity
hours at Rosedale Square Shopping Center, 1601 – 1675 County Road C, in order
to perform an asphalt overlay on the south half of the parking lot.
Mayor Roe closed the Public
Hearing at 7:30 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against.
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider Request for a Variance to the Noise Ordinance to Extend
Construction Activity Hours at the Rosedale Square Shopping Center
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10907 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution
Requesting a Variance from City Code, Section 405.03, Hourly Restrictions on
Certain Operations for Rosedale Square Shopping Center, 1601-1675 County Road
C.”
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
11.
Public Hearings
b.
Conduct a Public Hearing Regarding an Amendment to TIF District
#18 Plan and Development District #1
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated
June 13, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon advised that and introduced Ms. Mikaela Huot with
Springsted Incorporated, the City’s financial consultant, to answer questions
as applicable. Mr. Trudgeon advised that representatives of Sienna Green were
also in the audience and available for questions.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the
proposed amendments were minor and being requested due to the recent
acquisition of the triangle parcel; increased value of Phase I of the project;
and the financial gap for Phase II determined to be a maximum of $935,005. Mr.
Trudgeon reviewed the two (2) requested actions currently before the City
Council; advising that the TIF Development Agreement was anticipated for
presentation tonight, but as previously noted, had been deferred to next week’s
meeting to allow finalization of several remaining items. Mr. Trudgeon advised
that the TIF would be “pay-as-you-go,” with no bonding requested; and advised that
the TIF Plan provided a framework for the funding, but that no money would be authorized
until the City Council approved the Development Agreement.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
District remained in effect and generating TIF dollars at this time, whether
amended or not. Mayor Roe further clarified that the ability of the TIF
District to fill the gap requirement was still there, and had not changed.
Mr. Trudgeon responded
affirmatively to both statements of Mayor Roe, noting that the TIF District had
originally been created to provide assistance for new development, not to remain
stagnant.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed those items being amended, as underlined, such as in
Section K, providing for a new budget between the original and modified plan
shifting those resources for potential generation of funds, since Phase I
values came in higher than originally planned.
Mayor Roe opened the Public
Hearing at 7:38 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment of an Amendment
to the TIF District #18 Plan and Development District #1; as requested by AEON,
owners of the Sienna Green Apartment for consideration of establishing a
housing tax increment financing (TIF) District on their parcel in order to fill
a projected financial gap in the second phase of their initiative to revitalize
this aging apartment property.
Public
Comment
Charles
Kelly, resident of Rosewood Village
Mr. Kelly asked that the entire
process be slowed down; expressing concern with parking at Sienna Green; and
his personal review of an average of fifteen (15) cars parking overnight each
night on both sides of the frontage road. Mr. Kelly alleged that there were
too few parking spots for the number of units; and he requested improvement or
a solution to parking issues in that area. Mr. Kelly referenced the green
space on Rosewood Village property being used to get a variance to put the
Sienna Green building closer to the property line. Mr. Kelly expressed concern
as the property became fully developed and occupied, that the parking situation
would only become more pronounced.
Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn
Mr. Houck questioned, based on the
current real estate market and economy, the justification for the City
assisting in building another fifty (50) units in the City. Mr. Houck opined
that it didn’t seem like the right time to put city funds into more units when
there were already so many vacancies in the area; and he didn’t understand the
justification at this time.
With no one else coming forward to
speak, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Mayor Roe asked Mr. Trudgeon to
address parking and building location issues raised during public comment; and
Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Trudgeon to address parking ratios per unit.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that,
typically, ratios were at least one spot per unit; but in this case the site
was already developed and approved under previous City ordinance as a PUD. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that staff looked at the parking situation and conducted a
study on trends and the tenant mix that was provided to the City Council at the
time of the PUD approval; and it was determined that what was providing for
parking for a redevelopment was sufficient for current and future needs. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that, if in the future, there were any issues with parking,
there were additional areas available on the site that were not currently being
used or needed for parking, but available if that need should arise. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that the street did allow for parking at this time, for overflow
parking; and advised that if this created a safety hazard now or in the future,
it could be investigated. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were cut outs along
the road as part of the project and away from the main travel surface. Mr.
Trudgeon further advised that City staff, and Sienna Green management staff,
would be happy to work cooperatively to educate residents to park in the
parking lot as needed; opining that he was not sure if there wasn’t room in the
parking lot that would negate the need for on-street parking; but that such an
assumption would require additional research.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the future parking areas were part of the green space calculations, to which
Mr. Trudgeon responded affirmatively.
Mayor Roe noted that proof of
parking took into consideration additional parking above and beyond that
minimum; and asked that staff provide that additional information next week as
part of the TIF Agreement discussion.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Trudgeon confirmed that the new building was not any closer to the property
line, but met City Code with no variances requested or granted.
12. Business
Items (Action Items)
b. Consider
a Resolution Approving Amendment to TIF District #18 Plan and Development
District #1
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10908 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution Approving the Modification
to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 (as detailed in
Attachment B); and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Incrementing Financing District No. 18 (as detailed in Attachment A) Therein.”
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had attended the Sienna Green Open House and was disappointed, opining that
the City could do better with affordable housing, without building or
rehabilitating apartment buildings when they were not handicap accessible and
without sprinklers. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was short-sighted
in this economy, and advised that she was not impressed with their cosmetic rehabilitation
or available green space for children. Councilmember McGehee opined that this
TIF District proposal was not a good use of public funds, when the money should
be made available to residents of Roseville over the twenty-six (26) years, as
pointed out by Mr. Houck during public comment. Councilmember McGehee opined
that this project is in an area that could have entertained a newer apartment
complex with appropriate parking and green space; and housed the same number of
people and same type of housing; except that it would have been better and
safer; and reiterated her disappointment from that standpoint.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that TIF
assistance was not being used in Phase I of the project, only for Phase II,
which would have sprinklers and elevators. Mr. Trudgeon noted that Phase I was
limited to things that could be accomplished in an existing building.
Councilmember McGehee reiterated
her opinion that the rehabilitation of those buildings was not sufficient and
had insufficient green space; and further opined that she would have preferred
a new building with adequate parking and more common space.
Mayor Roe noted that, while
differing opinions on the Council, he had been involved with the project since
it was originally proposed; and respectfully noted AEON’s objective to
rehabilitate existing building to benefit the overall cost of a project and provide
affordable housing. Mayor Roe advised that he had toured the building, and
thought it had been very well done; and opined that he was impressed with the
quality of the units, and their affordable and market rate mix. Mayor Roe
noted that, given the occupancy rate of the rehabilitated apartments, he had
the impression that residents were enjoying them as well. Mayor Roe opined
that this was a good use of TIF funds to close a financial gap; and further
opined that this was a good project.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
c. Removed
from Agenda (see Item #2, page 1)
d. Consider
Appointing City Council Representative to Norwest Youth and Family Services
(NYFS)
Councilmember Pust noted that she
had been honored to serve on the NYFS Board for the last 5-6 years; opining
that it was an excellent organization doing great work for families and
children. Councilmember Pust noted that the organization was unique in that it
had a contractual agreement with ten (10) northern suburban cities in Ramsey
County. Councilmember Pust advised that she was stepping off the Board as she
thought that too often, one person got to know an entity, when a broader knowledge
was needed by a variety of Councilmembers.
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
appointment of Councilmember Jeff Johnson as the City’s representative to the
Northwest Youth and Family Services Board of Directors.
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Johnson confirmed that he would be interested in serving on the
NYFS Board of Directors.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Abstentions: Johnson
Motion carried.
Public Comment
While having no problem with the
Council appointment, Mr. Houck questioned the annual funding by the City for
this organization.
City Manager Malinen estimated at
$40,000 to $50,000.00.
Mr. Houck questioned the
justification for the City giving taxpayer funds to a private, non-profit
organization when times are tight.
Councilmember Pust advised that
this organization reported directly to the City of Roseville, and had done so
over the last thirty (30) years; and provided family assistance, senior chore assistance,
and youth training programs. Councilmember Pust advised that the School
Districts also helped fund this non-profit, and one of their programs entitled
NETS, provided non-traditional students with mental health services for their
re-entry into the school system. Whether or not the government has a role in
that, Councilmember Pust opined that families and communities were stronger and
healthier.
Mr. Houck opined that he had no
problem with their work; only with the City funding it. Mr. Houck advised that
the County funded charitable works, but that the City was not in a position to
give taxpayer monies to particular non-profits, when there were other
non-profits doing equally good work who were not receiving any funding from the
City.
Mayor Roe opined that this was a judgment
made by City government over a number of years, and results that had been borne
out as part of the annual NYFS report proved that it was providing good returns
for the City’s investment. Mayor Roe opined that the long-term benefits to the
community were through the NYFS’s intervention with youth to avoid them becoming
career criminals.
Mr. Houck stated his position, and
opined that the NYFS would get their funding whether the City participated or
not.
Councilmember Pust understood Mr.
Houck’s position; however, clarified that the City did provide public funds to
many other non-profits, with the North Suburban Community Foundation providing
grants to numerous non-profits in the community. Councilmember Pust opined
that the only thing unique was the way the NYFS came to the City for funding,
but that they were not the only one getting public support.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
his excitement in accepting the position on the NYFS Board; and appreciated
Councilmember support; and noted that he looked forward to serving with an open
heart.
Mayor Roe expressed his support
for Councilmember Johnson serving in this role; opining that he would do an
excellent job.
e. Consider
Appointing City Council Representative to Arterial Transitway Corridors Study
Stakeholder Workshop
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz briefly reviewed the request for elected official representation on
this stakeholder group as detailed on the RCA dated June 13, 2011.
Discussion included the actual
route locations; lack of definition for a northern transit center; arterial
versus freeway rapid transit nature of this group; with Mayor Roe requesting
that the City’s representative voice the City’s strong opinion for a connection
from Central Avenue to Snelling Avenue and out east along County Road C.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
Pust had previously expressed an interest in serving on this group.
Councilmember Pust confirmed her
interest in this topic; however, she advised that given the current flux of a
potential state government shutdown, she was unable to firmly commit to attending
the first meeting scheduled for June 30, 2011.
Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee
advised that they would both be out of town that day.
Mayor Roe advised that he would be
willing to serve as a back up to Councilmember Pust if no other Councilmembers
were available or interested.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
appointment of Councilmember Tammy Pust as primary city-elected representative and
Mayor Dan Roe as backup city-elected representative to the Metro Transit
Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Stakeholder Workshop.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Review
2011 City Manager Goals
City Manager Malinen advised that
he had worked with Councilmember Johnson to be more expansive on some of the
goals listed; and in reviewing some of last year’s goals and work plan
objectives, and what was being done with internal operations, he had developed
the list as presented for Council review and consideration.
Organizational and Human
Resources Management (bullet point #3)
Mayor Roe asked if there was a
measurement to “Pursue improved Labor/Management Relations?”
City Manger Malinen opined that
while some may not be specifically measurable, but only continuing efforts; he could
continue to show steps he had taken to achieve it or completion of it. Mr.
Malinen noted that there had been a number of mediations and arbitrations
lately, and he would like to avoid them; suggesting that perhaps demonstrable
goals could be through fewer of those impasses; and sitting down more often or
find other ways to work with union groups to avoid those situations.
Organizational and Human
Resources Management (bullet point #4)
Mayor Roe questioned if, under
“Advocate further examination of e-commerce and e-government concepts” it was
meant for the City Manager to look to advocate for examining e-commerce or to
further the examination by staff? Mayor Roe suggested that the City Manger’s
role would be for “further the examination.”
City Manager Malinen advised that
part of what he did at his level, was to lead departments to explore doing
things differently electronically and explore other ways of doing business.
Fiscal Business Management
(bullet point #3)
Mayor Roe questioned how the
performance measures that are continuing to evolve fit into “Pursue
sustainable, long-range financial condition;” or whether that fit in better
under Long Range Planning/Strategic Plan (bullet point #3 entitled, “Improve
integration of strategic planning into the budget process?”
City Manager Malinen advised that,
in terms of performance measurement, he wasn’t sure if long-range was what he
envisioned, and suggested it may be best to add “performance measurement” to
either one; with his intent in including performance measurement as part of the
budget process to understand cost/service ratios.
Mayor Roe suggested that a more
applicable bullet point may be “Continue to integrate performance measurement
into the budget process.”
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of that concept; noting that the City Council had talked about the
budget process for years and there was still a certain level of “we’re not
there yet.” Councilmember Pust opined that the goal needed to be spelled out
with the intent that “we’re getting there,” or removed from the list
completely.
As part of that goal, and all of
them for that matter, Councilmember Willmus requested more frequent reports
from the City Manager to the City Council, similar to the quarterly staff reports.
Mayor Roe concurred, opining that
it made sense to receive reports more frequently, similar to the quarterly
reports from staff on the Imagine Roseville 2025 document.
General Comments
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
McGehee had provided her comments in writing to the City Council, attached hereto
and made a part hereof. In referring to those written comments, Mayor Roe
noted Councilmember McGehee’s agreement with those items listed; but her
concern that the list was hard to manage, and her preference for a report.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
the City was facing some big issues, and she was not pleased with the way items
were reported to the City Council in the City’s government structure.
Councilmember McGehee requested that the City Manager develop reports and
provide more metrics through periodic reports to the City Council with ideas
for long-range planning and budget issues, in addition to possible
reorganization of the Community Development Department.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
his preference for more frequent reporting; but wasn’t sure whether
reorganization of the Community Development Department was completely necessary
without giving that more thought. Overall, Councilmember Willmus noted that
some of those items listed by City Manager Malinen were obvious, while others have
only been touched upon. Regarding quarterly reporting listed under long-range
planning, Councilmember Willmus suggested that it be done for all categories,
eliminating any obvious overlaps.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
there were some things he could see needing more frequent reporting; however,
items such as “relationship with the City Council;” “fiscal management;” and
other items were dealt with at every City Council meeting. Regarding the City
Council/City Manager relationship, and/or Public Relations/Intergovernmental
Relations, Councilmember Johnson opined that it didn’t warrant a quarterly or
semi-annual report, but it was important to evaluate on an annual basis; with
organizational items covered in the personal weekly meetings held between
individual Councilmembers and City Manager Malinen, where items of concern were
shared. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of more frequent reporting for
long-range planning.
Councilmember McGehee clarified
that it was not her intention to require more frequent reporting on all items,
mainly only for long-range planning, since she talked to City Manager Malinen
individually about a lot of things. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that
she had a friend in the City of Bloomington, and she didn’t see any evidence of
City Manager Malinen seeking out ideas from other cities outside the Ramsey
County corridor communities, and suggested at least three (3) cities in her written
comments with lots of commercial development that could provide useful initiatives
for the City of Roseville, and suggested that some contacts be made there.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she was seeking some kind of formulated
report of policies to guide the City Council’s direction in the future and how
to implement a biennial budget.
Councilmember Johnson suggested
the need to know what to expect next year in the biennial budget cycle.
Councilmember McGehee concurred,
noting she wanted a timeline and markers for the biennial process to make it
more measurable.
Mayor Roe suggested that
Councilmember McGehee work with City Manager Malinen on refinement of the list,
if the City Council was supportive of that, since Councilmember Johnson had
originally served with former Mayor Klausing on the subcommittee for City
Manager evaluations, and continued to serve in that capacity.
Councilmember Johnson suggested
discussion of that committee on a future agenda.
Mayor Roe concurred; allowing for
more time to reflect on City Manager Malinen’s list, and tonight’s discussion
as well.
Consensus was that the refined
2011 City Manager Goals come back for further consideration, along with
discussion on a subcommittee to facilitate City Manager evaluations.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:17 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:23 p.m.
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Partial Capital Funding Plan and Preliminary Subcommittee Report
The CIP Subcommittee, made up of
Mayor Roe, Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen, and Finance Director
Chris Miller, presented its preliminary report and partial capital funding
plan.
Mayor Roe reviewed the purpose of
the subcommittee, as part of the City Council’s work plan, to determine a path
to a sustainable city-wide capital funding plan for the City in light of the ongoing
under-funding of capital replacement needs; and to make the community aware of
the concerns faced by the City and its elected officials.
Steps taken during this daunting
task, and detailed in the subcommittee report dated June 13, 2011 and included
in the agenda packet included extending the projected time frame out to twenty
(20) years for capital needs; and fine-tuning those things that were
anticipated, those that were no longer applicable due to policy changes; and separating
out the fire station and park/pathway needs.
Regarding streets, Mayor Roe noted
that the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) was sustaining and the subcommittee’s
recommendation was to look at that over the next few years to determine if any
adjustments were indicated.
Mayor Roe advised that all an
overall review of tax-supported capital needs and utility fees indicated estimated
capital needs of $218 million over that twenty (20) year period, with an estimated
$148 million (68%) of that unfunded by current sources.
In reviewing tax-supported capital
needs and reviewing three (3) areas covered: vehicles/rolling stock, equipment,
and facilities, the subcommittee estimated a $16 million shortfall or gap (57%)
in the estimated $28 million projected in general vehicle, equipment and
facility needs, using current funding levels and projected costs over that twenty
(20) year period.
Mayor Roe summarized the
subcommittee’s recommendation in shifting approximately $300,000 (approximately
2% of the current $14.7 million levy) from current operating budget funding to
capital funding in 2012; and maintain that shift permanently. An additional
recommendation of the subcommittee is to increase the annual property tax levy
by $500,000 (3.4% of the current $14.7 million levy) in 2012, and to also
maintain that increase permanently. The third recommendation was to transfer a
$750,000 endowment from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund,
currently with a $-0- balance) in 2012, creating a sustainable fund balance in
that fund. Mayor Roe noted that this would create a sustainable funding
mechanism for at least the next twenty (20) years, with approximately 40% of
the funding coming from operating spending cuts, and 60% from increased
property taxes. Mayor Roe provided additional detail on how the funds were
recommended for allocation; inflation factors not included in the calculations;
and impacts to the City’s operations, as well as the average homeowner of
approximately $20 per year.
Councilmember Johnson indicated
that, from an operating side, those inflationary costs would project a proposed
3.4% levy increase for capital funding purposes.
City Manager Malinen, from a staff
perspective for the proposed recommendations, noted that it would significantly
change daily operations for the City, and the operating budget would need to be
reduced accordingly to achieve it, but in the long run long-term capital needs
could no longer be sustained.
Mayor Roe noted that the
subcommittee was cognizant of current economic times and current taxpayer
burdens, and impacts of these recommendations, reiterating that to achieve this
sustainable situation, it would increase costs for the average taxpayer by
approximately $20 annually, starting in 2012; then would not increase every
year, but the increase would stay in place over the twenty (20) years. By
comparison, Mayor Roe noted that there was still the issue of the major capital
improvements pending for the City’s aging infrastructure: water, sanitary
sewer, and storm sewer; and there would most likely be impacts on business owners
and residents, depending on how the City moved forward. Mayor Roe noted the dependence
on future City Councils to follow-through on these recommendations; however,
the subcommittee was of a consensus that the bitter pill be taken in year one
to address these significant capital needs and to balance the overall picture,
as a main role for the City Council. Mayor Roe clarified that the Park
Improvement Plan (PIP) fund was not considered at this time.
Discussion included reviewing
allocations and funding recommendations; retaining fluidity in the process to
consider the fire station and parks & recommendation capital needs;
understanding the implementation picture for the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan and any potential referendum, intentionally left out at this time;
recognizing the need to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities; inclusion
of major facility maintenance (e.g. chiller at the skating center); pathway
maintenance included in the twenty (20) year projections, as much as they were
known, but reflecting fairly good estimates; and the intent of the subcommittee
to provide the nuts and bolts as a functioning City government, while not
including solutions to all the needs presented.
Councilmember Pust thanked the
subcommittee for their work and their clear explanation, and for her benefit,
repeated the three recommendations:
a. Cut spending by
$300,000 and put into capital needs;
b. Increase
property taxes to raise another $500,000 and use it exclusively for capital
needs, representing a 3.4% levy increase; and
c. A one-time
transfer from the General Fund into capital needs to endow a one-line item.
Further discussion included
clarifying that the levy would remain at the current level at $300,000, but
spent on capital needs, not operational needs; $750,000 from reserves to endow
the equipment replacement fund, coming from the one-time tax increment
financing (TIF) repayment of approximately $1.2 million last year as a result
of closing out the Center Pointe TIF District, with $236,000 used in 2011 for
capital equipment and the rest in reserves; clarifying that the 3.4% levy
increase would be the base to remain level for capital needs; with the subcommittee
seeking input from the public and the remainder of the City Council on these
recommendations to-date.
Councilmember McGehee requested
that the policy of setting aside a specific amount during each budget cycle
(annually) as a method of continuing to adequately fund the CIP Budget be written
and approved by the Council. This would enable and encourage future
Councils to continue this policy so that Roseville can avoid this situation of
underfunding in subsequent years."
Mayor Roe clarified that this
report is the first draft of such a policy.
Councilmember Johnson concurred,
noting that there would be additional recommendations to follow.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this was only a miniscule part of the problem; and while talking about taxes,
the City needed to give serious consideration to looking at the City’s tax
capacity as it developed to alleviate the tax burden on residents.
Councilmember McGehee referenced personal conversations she’d had with City
Manager Malinen and Community Development Director Trudgeon; and their interest
in developing tools, such as the possible creation of an Economic Development
Commission, to provide reports on economic costs/benefits of particular developments
or programs.
Mayor Roe clarified that this
preliminary report is for information purposes only, and no formal action was
requested at this time, but that subsequent actions would follow as part of the
budget process; and may include a policy resolution for adoption after further
consideration.
City Manager Malinen encouraged
that any questions or concerns about this approach be provided to the
subcommittee; however, he acknowledged that there appeared to be a general
consensus in support.
Mayor Roe noted that, in reviewing
the budget calendar and process, there would be several opportunities for
public comment once the City Council received the City Manager-recommended
budget for 2012/2013 on July 11, 2011; including their input on capital needs
funding.
b.
Continue Discussions on a Preliminary 2012 Tax Levy
By way of introduction, Mayor Roe
noted that, unlike the September not-to-exceed preliminary budget and levy,
this discussion could increase or decrease as impacts to programs/services was
considered and in an effort to guide development of the City
Manager-recommended Budget, based on the “decision packages” highlighted and
detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011.
Discussion included unknowns in
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process at this time and funding sources
for implementation, whether bonding or through other sources; intent for this exercise
to primarily provide operating budget guidance; and moving the
vehicle/equipment replacement funding to the CIP recommendation.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, a
levy increase of 3.4% for 2012, based on the recommendations of the Capital
Needs Subcommittee.
Further discussion included
adjustments of decision packages accordingly with the 3.4% representing another
$243,000 plus $300,000 in decision packages and whether to accommodate $240,000
or $140,000 and how it relates to overall picture; impacts of removing $440,000
from the existing 2011 budget prior to discussion about increased utility fees,
county or state changes, and the pending budget impasse at the state level;
pending market value homestead credit and subsequent impacts depending on how and
if the state resolves that issue and how that may impact levy limits for cities
who increased their levies to address that state shortfall.
Councilmember Willmus opined that
this was a great starting point for staff purposes in moving forward, but at the
same time it needed to be balanced with not having the full picture yet; and
recognizing that the process needed to remain fluid and some of the numbers may
change dramatically.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
some ratio needed to be maintained along the lines of the subcommittee’s
recommendations, and while they could be fluid, he wouldn’t suggest taking more
from the levy, as stressing out operations more than 2%, plus inflation, would
be too much of a change needing to be absorbed annually in addition to their
already absorbing inflation every year. Councilmember Johnson asked that
Councilmembers think about it carefully; and in his opinion, he hoped that this
City Council determined to move forward unlike past City Councils for a number
of years in Roseville who have not made these difficult decisions, putting the
City in this current situation. Councilmember Johnson recognized the need to
see the whole picture; however, he opined that it was going to get much more
difficult than the scenarios and recommendations presented tonight; and would
be a bitter pill no matter whose perspective was considered. Councilmember
Johnson expressed his appreciation for consideration of the recommendations by
the full body, and that it was a huge undertaking for the City Council.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
3.4% in context of the CIP recommendations was great work, held together and
made sense; however, she admitted that she had no clue about what kinds of
changes that meant for the City to have $440,000 or more cut from their
operations, depending on the final figures when the whole picture was
available. With all due respect to the process, Councilmember Pust expressed
her difficulty in agreeing to this motion until all information was on the
table and funding options. Councilmember Pust opined that she would be more
comfortable talking about options versus a formal vote to adopt a 3.4% levy increase
without knowing all of those options. While agreeing that it made sense,
Councilmember Pust noted that this was a big ticket item for taxpayers, in addition
to other unknowns at this time; and opined that it seemed premature to vote now
to raise the levy when the 3.4% may be too little or too much once all things
were factored in.
Mayor Roe clarified that this was
not the final action on the levy, but rather a starting point for refinement
during the course of the year, and a basis on which to receive public comment
on projected impacts.
Councilmember Pust, with all due
respect, opined that historically, that is the way the levy system has worked,
and she questioned whether the public would understand this approach.
Mayor Roe noted the need for
repeated clarification for the public at every opportunity.
City Manager Malinen sought
Council consensus on direction early on to meet the directives from the City
Council and provide time to explain to them and the public what it means and
potential changes; all part of the priority-based budget process. City Manager
Malinen advised that this more formal action for the budget would confirm
things already presented by staff informally, but would then come forward as
part of the City Manger-recommended budget; at which point the City Council
could make adjustments and provide more concrete direction to staff.
Councilmember Pust questioned why
not pick a “zero percent” levy then as a worst case scenario.
City Manger Malinen noted the recognition of capital needs to be dealt with,
not just capital needs, plus an operational budget, but a need to change
operations to reflect capital needs for a sustainable future.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this worst case scenario could still proceed with capital needs funded from
operating, with no levy increases, creating a draconian cut by departments,
which would be close to the 10% reduction exercise previously performed.
City Manager Malinen concurred,
noting that such a scenario would be close; but he was hopeful with a sense of
agreement along those lines, that staff could present a compromise and put the
City on a sustainable path for the capital needs side and adjust the levy from
the operational side from 2012 on, once the City Council took care of the
capital needs portion of the equation.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
after the results from when the City Council asked for the 10% reduction
exercise, she was now “gun shy” having found it a meaningless exercise; and
whether the City went forward with a 3.4% or 4% levy increase right now, it
still meant some cuts were necessary, but guaranteed $500,000 for capital funding,
which seemed crucial from her perspective. Councilmember McGehee suggested
that City Manager Malinen do a more serious job that she perceived him having
done the last time; since she went through the list and made cuts in painless
ways compared to his suggestions. While willing to consider at 3.4% or 4%
increase, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a minimal start if those
cuts went into the CIP.
Councilmember Johnson, from a
biennial point of view, opined that it was important to remember that the 3.4%
increase for 2012 included a 0% for 2013; understanding that the 3.4% would
remain in place that should make it more sustainable for taxpayers, while
recognizing that there could be future unknowns that were not foreseen.
Councilmember Johnson opined that the plan on paper looked very sustainable for
2013 and beyond.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mayor Roe advised that the next portion of the subcommittee report
would be received by the City Council and public in next weeks’ agenda packet.
In an effort to accommodate
inflationary items in 2013, Mayor Roe moved an amendment to the original
motion, seconded by Councilmember McGehee, rather than a 3.4% increase in 2013
and 0% in 2013, to increase the 2013 budget and levy by $340,000 to handle the
decision packages; while retaining the capital need increase of 3.4% for twenty
(20) years going forward.
While willing to support the
original motion, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would be voting against
the motion as amended.
At the request of Councilmember Pust,
Finance Director Miller clarified that the $340,000 would represent an
approximate 2.5% levy increase.
City Manager Malinen expressed
appreciation that there had been no 2012 reduction for contractual obligations
or to achieve a zero percent 2013 budget, meaning additional subsequent cuts; and
from that perspective, he expressed appreciation in the effort to identify some
level of funding for 2013. However, City Manager Malinen noted that the City
Council would need to set the 2013 levy again at the end of 2012, and as a
biennial budget process continued to develop based on more accurate figures
rather than just projections.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
was why he was voting against it, since it was not on tonight’s agenda; and it
needed more transparency for the public.
Councilmember Johnson advised that
he was prepared to vote on a levy for 2013, only because it had no current
boundaries; however, he supported the initial motion and subcommittee
representation to the City Council tonight for a 3.4% levy increase for 2012;
and a 0% levy increase for 2013. While understanding Mayor Roe’s intent in
taking the onus of inflation off costs for directors and staff, at some point,
he opined that there needed to be some kind of shift. Councilmember Johnson,
therefore, advised that he would not support the motion to amend the original
motion.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Councilmember Willmus in not setting the 2013 levy, opining that it was
misleading to say a 0% levy increase in 2013, when that information was unknown
at this time. Councilmember McGehee opined that the original motion
represented a good start for now, based on available information, and to look
at 2013 at the end of the year. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the
original motion, with the understanding that it was intended as an exercise at
3.4%, not what was being proposed for 2013.
Given the lack of majority
support, Mayor Roe withdrew his motion; however, he noted that the City Council
was actually putting cuts on top of cuts in 2013, while asking the City Manager
to prepare and expecting a biennial budget; but not proposing what that levy
should be for the second year of that biennial budget, opining that 0% was not
where the City Council wanted to be and questioning why that couldn’t be
acknowledged now and not have staff forced to absorb operating cuts for two (2)
years.
Seeking clarification of the
original motion, Councilmember Johnson restated the motion:
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, a
levy increase of 3.4% for 2012, based on the recommendations of the Capital
Needs Subcommittee.
Mayor Roe noted that the City
Council had asked the City Manager to submit a biennial budget without any
guidance for the second year; and opined that staff would be really challenged
to accomplish that task without any guidance; and recommended that both years
be included.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
whether a biennial budget could actually be accomplished without a one year
budget and strong guidance for the second year.
Mayor Roe noted the city could,
at its discretion do a budget with a spending plan for five (5) years, but only
legally required to establish a levy and budget annually. Mayor Roe opined
that the City was trying to get better planning tools for a two (2) year
period, and should be able to accomplish that.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
City Council was on a path to a biennial budget; however, if the motion on the
table was for a 0% budget for 2013, there was more discussion needed; further
opining that if you didn’t want a levy increase for the second year, you didn’t
want a biennial budget.
Mayor Roe noted that was the
discussion between Councilmembers Johnson and McGehee, whether they were
supporting a 0% levy increase for 2013.
Councilmember McGehee noted her
original opposition to a biennial budget, based on a lack of knowledge and
understanding of what it meant.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
Council majority had voted in support of a biennial budget.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and
Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Abstentions: Pust.
Motion carried.
Mayor Roe reiterated the next
steps in the City Manger’s presentation on July 11, 2011 of the City
Manager-recommended budget, in accordance with the previously-adopted budget
schedule; with two (2) meetings in July available for public input on those
recommendations; and in August a City Council discussion on that input and to
receive any additional information available at that point.
c.
Discuss Request for Proposal (RFP) for Construction Management Services
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill provided a
brief summary of the request to pursue RFP’s for Construction Management
Services, as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011; noting that the
Department would return to the City Council for authorization to accept any
proposals; and that they would be based on the best value practices process.
Discussion included differences in
the City of Roseville project compared to other communities having recently
undergone construction of a fire station based on phasing of the project and
unknowns at this point; usual construction management costs at 5-6% of a total
project cost; need to understand the logistics of the site and whether it is
sufficient to accommodate a station as proposed; consideration of a preliminary
design to meet the needs of the City, firefighters, and fitting on the parcel,
then proceeding on how to best fund a project; and anticipation of the feedback
from the pool of potential construction managers when they attend a pre-proposal
meeting.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
authorizing the Fire Department to issue an RFP for Construction Management
Services for Phase I of the new Fire Station Project, using the overall best
value process.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of this
process as appropriate and as phased.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Discuss Changing Future Part-time Firefighters from Fire Relief
Association to PERA
Fire Chief Tim O’Neill provided a
summary of the proposal to change future City pension benefit offerings for
part-time firefighters; as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2011. Chief
O’Neill’s presentation included comparisons of Relief Association (Defined
Benefit System) funding and contributions and that of the Part-Time PERA
(Defined Contribution System) being recommended.
Discussion included transitions
for new firefighters; how the current relief association works and funding
options; current retirees and/or spouses receiving relief benefits for life,
estimated at approximately 45-50 retirees and five (5) spouses; vesting
requirements for the PERA benefits and anticipated number of active firefighters
eligible depending on their tenure with the City; transferability of the PERA
benefits between cities, creating an effective marketing tool in recruiting new
firefighters seeking to make it their career.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of going with the PERA plan; and questioned the City’s authority to
change the Defined Benefit System when determined no longer affordable; with
City Manager Malinen offering to research that information.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
authorizing the Fire Department to change future City pension benefits
offerings for part-time (Paid On-Call) firefighters to Police and Fire PERA.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Discuss Twin Lakes Regulating Map
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon summarized, for information purposes, and provided an update
on the status of the Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan, as detailed in the RCA
dated June 13, 2011.
The latest draft, dated June 10,
2011, of the “Twin Lakes Urban Standards” was provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Trudgeon reminded all that it
continued to be a working document, and not final, pending the Planning
Commission’s Public Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 6:30 pm
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
None
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
None
16. Adjourn
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:57 pm
Roll
Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
Willmus; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.